Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Quote:
|
You think gay people are perverts (by your definition) when they have sex. You are a self proclaimed pervert (again, by your own definition). Why would you not want to let fellow perverts have their day? Somehow it seems...not contradictory...but it seems to go against the idea that if you do something, you accept it in others. I'm not calling you a hypocrate, because this is a simplfied version of what's going on, but doesn't it strike you odd that one of the reasons that you don't want them to have rights happens to be something you enjoy?
|
You don't see me out there lobbying to remove oral sex from the code, do you? Our statutes are neutral. They apply regardless of the orientation of the parties involved. It's just as technically illegal for me and my wife to engage in consentual oral sex as it is for a same-sex couple to consentually do it. Of course, the laws are almost never enforced, and when they are, it's generally because the conduct was SO outrageous in ways other than the sex act itself that it is the reason that there is a prosecution to begin with. By far the most common example of this involves forcible rape. If a person rapes another person, they're charged with rape, plus whatever other sex crimes were involved. So a person who forcibly rapes somebody else is charged with the rape, but if they do other things, they can be charged not only with rape but also with sodomy in the case of oral sex, or buggery in the case of anal sex, or whatever. I don't WANT the sex laws to go away, because they serve a very real purpose in punishing people who commit "mala in se" (like rape) crimes rather than "malum prohibitorum" (like consentual sex) crimes. I sometimes jokingly say that "you know you're doing it right by the number of laws you break doing it". As long as it's consentual, it's virtually NEVER prosecuted here, but if it isn't consentual, the laws are there so that the offender may be punished more in-line with their actions. |
Will might not want to call your position a contradiction, but clearly it is - you are a self-proclaimed pervert who is married to a pervert, yet you deny the right for perverts of the same-sex to marry. And with your apparent background this is all rather suprising, the contradiction is enormous.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges. As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.
There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.
I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.
|
In your ten thousand words in this thread, you have still not explained your first post. You have tried dodging the question (as above where you entirely ignore Will's question and instead focus on the your definition of perversion and the legality of perverted acts), you have tried to explain that the gov't wants to promote healthy children, as if this somehow eliminates its ability to support the gay lifestyle, and you have tried pointing to your supposed history in the gay community. Yet none of those methods have addressed the essence of your first post - that gays are perverted and are attempting to have laws changed and should therefore not be allowed to marry.