Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

guy44 · 04-21-2005, 08:08 AM

Manx explained perfectly the difference between my position and that of fundamentalist Christians. I don't have anything to add to that.

With regards to the allowed/disallowed line, of course that line is arbitrary. Just because I say that it can be set anywhere by society doesn't mean that it should be. I'm just saying, as society changes, so changes the general agreement as to where that line should be. Unfortunately, in some societies you get slavery, in others marijuana is legalized, in others prostitution is legal. I'm just saying that society will do what it will. I'm not trying to justify maniacs and totalitarian rules, just explaining how they come about.

alansmithee, please don't knowingly mischaracterize my arguments. You know full well that I never said that "not being able to have gay sex is the same as being a slave." Rather, I said that just as society once allowed slavery, then decided that slavery was unacceptable, America should move beyond disallowing gay sex/sodomy to allowing it. I think it is abundantly clear that I never said that not being allowed to have gay sex is the same thing as slavery, and to posit otherwise is to create a pathetic straw man argument.

Lastly, you wrote, "I'm sure many slaveowners didn't think it was right for the views of abolitionists to be forced down their throats. Again, there is no difference between you and the fundamentalists."

Well, I'd get into the obvious difference between how allowing someone to own a slave infringes on the rights of another while allowing others to have sex in no way harms those fundamentalist Christian prudes, but a far more immediate development comes to mind.

For example, I don't have any problem that abolitionists forced their views on slaveowners. Do you?

04-21-2005, 08:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Manx explained perfectly the difference between my position and that of fundamentalist Christians. I don't have anything to add to that. With regards to the allowed/disallowed line, of course that line is arbitrary. Just because I say that it can be set anywhere by society doesn't mean that it should be. I'm just saying, as society changes, so changes the general agreement as to where that line should be. Unfortunately, in some societies you get slavery, in others marijuana is legalized, in others prostitution is legal. I'm just saying that society will do what it will. I'm not trying to justify maniacs and totalitarian rules, just explaining how they come about. alansmithee, please don't knowingly mischaracterize my arguments. You know full well that I never said that "not being able to have gay sex is the same as being a slave." Rather, I said that just as society once allowed slavery, then decided that slavery was unacceptable, America should move beyond disallowing gay sex/sodomy to allowing it. I think it is abundantly clear that I never said that not being allowed to have gay sex is the same thing as slavery, and to posit otherwise is to create a pathetic straw man argument. Lastly, you wrote, "I'm sure many slaveowners didn't think it was right for the views of abolitionists to be forced down their throats. Again, there is no difference between you and the fundamentalists." Well, I'd get into the obvious difference between how allowing someone to own a slave infringes on the rights of another while allowing others to have sex in no way harms those fundamentalist Christian prudes, but a far more immediate development comes to mind. For example, I don't have any problem that abolitionists forced their views on slaveowners. Do you? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"