Homosexuality should be illegal

1. Drugs, marriage/other romantic relationships and abortion are all entirely up to the people involved, not you. Not unless it poses a significant threat to you somehow..which, most drug use and obviously abortion and marriage etc. don't.

2. None of those things are things that I would be opposed to, which means if you're trying to call me a liberal and then say that it's somehow a contradiction on my part that I support free marriage etc., you don't know what you're talking about.

3. What exactly do you mean by "liberal"? You probably can't really exactly define it.

 

Wrong.

With abortion, killing a child is about as significant a threat as something can pose to someone. It's murder. Pretty open and shut. The misguided notion that the government should stay out of abortion could have just as easily been used in the 1800s to keep the government out of slavery. "Keep the government out and let the people do what they want with their property. They bought those slaves, they own them. Stop trying to interfere with their social freedom."

Marriage and "other romantic relationships" are not the same thing. You're dishonestly attempting to tie the two together to discredit the position without really looking at it. Who you are romantically involved with is your business. Not mine. But at the present time, the government has no obligation to redefine marriage to accommodate a small minority anomaly that has still not been proven to be a naturally occurring phenomenon warranting the premature "civil rights" title that has been thrown upon it. Produce concrete evidence of a "gay gene" and the parameters of the discussion will change significantly. At such a time, the equal marriage rights argument will obtain a greater degree of merit.

And many hard drugs create social problems that everybody has to deal with. Namely crime and violence. Assuming these things will just disappear if these substances are legalized is naive. However, a distinction should be made between individual substances rather than lumping them all together. Substances like marijuana that have more in common with alcohol than crack should be decriminalized. Because right now punishing people for pot is doing more harm than good, overcrowding jails, wasting taxpayer dollars, and wasting police power that would be better used on violent criminals.

Like it or not, these are significant issues that warrant government intervention. The arguments against them can ultimately be whittled down to little more than a petty, childish, "But I wanna!"

Well, you're going to have to explain yourself then. Because right now you're contradicting the hell out of yourself. You condemned conservatives for wanting government intervention in three specific areas, claiming they are against social freedom, and then you turned right back around and supported 11 separate instances of left wing authoritarianism aimed specifically at micromanaging and meddling in people's personal lives.

Can you explain how this is not hypocritical?

Meh, a liberal to me is anyone who supports excessive left wing authoritarian policies (typically under the misguided notion of them being for the "greater good"), anyone who has a staunch bias against tradition, and anyone that is offended by basic reason and common sense. You can also use the terms leftist, progressive, or whatever you prefer. I don't know that that's entirely you, but you do appear to be exhibiting some of the symptoms.

 

How is an undeveloped fetus any more important than say, an ape or an elephant or a dolphin (all of which are cognizant, conscious creatures) that is forced to stay in a zoo against it's will or hunted and violently killed, with it's family members witnessing and being traumatized by it?

It seems as though to some people, an undeveloped fetus, which cannot make decisions and is not cognizant, is more important than other species simply because of being human-and all this despite the fact that it's the undeveloped fetus which belongs to and is really a part of the body of another person, whom rightfully has more decision over that undeveloped fetus than you, the police, or "God".

100% pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*), not worthy of discussion

I do agree that hard drugs should be regulated; people shouldn't be able to simply create and sell them to whoever they want whenever they want however they want.

The main thing is that people shouldn't be punished severely, as in going to PRISON for YEARS, simply for doing them. That's simply unnecessary violence and tyranny and ruining of the lives of people who never hurt (nor intended to hurt) anyone. There are other solutions (e.g. mandatory rehabilitation etc.).

I..said I don't support those 11 authoritarian things.

It's not necessarily about the "greater good", it's usually more about trying to make sure that everyone has a high chance of prosperity. (Note the "chance" word being emphasized).

 

Foolardi, I actually like you very much because I think you are a very sincere person -- I even thought of sending you a friend-request but I'm afraid you won't accept it.

However, you are very wrong about this.

In a biological sense -- homosexuality is completely normal: it always excist, and will always excists.

Hence, it also appears amongst all sort of animals, e.g. lions, giraffes, dolphines, penguins, humans, etc.

In an evolutionary sense -- I advise you to look in something known as "kin selection":

 

First, you're grammar is driving insane. It seems the liberals always have bad grammar (Just joking around here).
Second, you're making a completely unrelated argument. Soda is not found in nature, yes, but it does serve a purpose. For some people, it quenches thirst while giving a taste. I, personally, think it makes my mouth dry, but thats off topic. Homosexuality is completely unrelated. We're talking biologically unnatural, not "Oh, [Insert product here] because it's not natural either!!1" Because, in all honesty, it strikes me as a bit desperate. I think arguing about homosexuality is truly a moot point as neither side can ever reach the high ground. It's just a natural deadlock.

 

False.

Entirely false for that matter.

=> See post #80 on page 8.

 

First they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a homosexual.
Then they came for the cotton-poly blends, and I didn't speak out because I didn't wear cotton-poly blends.
Then they came for the weekend workers, and I didn't speak out because I didn't work Sundays.
Then they came for my bacon, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

I also crucify myself on Easter Sunday as well.

 

Conservative only want strong government in abortion, marriage and drugs? Sure? I think that also they like a strong government in immigration, national security(police state), and many others...

 

you sure you aren't from Saudi Arabia?

 

Look my previous comment, just one before the yours

 

Spoken like a true Collectivist. Even your poll has only Collectivist options

 

Who should get the final say as to what is immoral?

Oral sex used to be considered immoral too. Did you agree with that? if not, why? What is the source of your standard on morality?

 

What (*)(*)(*)(*)ing relation has this with collectivism?

At max, with authoritarism/totalitarism but with collectivism...

My post is sarcastic.

 

People should go prison for life for a non-action that harms no one?

Fascist?

 

we should also pulverize the constitution into a fine powder and spin trace amounts into each roll of toilet paper so americans may wipe their asses with it for the next decade.

 

Question: do you find BDSM or scat-play or other fetishes to be disgusting?

 

If they want to practice it. They practice it.

We don't have anything to say about it.

And I understand your point, now that I see.

And yes I find it kinda disgusting, but not for that I'd never ask to ban it or remove rights to people that practice it.

 

The bold is quite disturbing. I guess the only suggestion I have for such people is to play Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic. No reason to take any chances on their voluntary self-removal from the gene pool.

 

Sure.

Thanks?

 

Explnation?

 

You talking to me?

 

Why?

You do not believe the state needs a compelling reason for laws that put people in prison?

 

Sure it does. Unless it's gay people. Then they can pretty much throw them in jail. Don't know why that would be a bad thing. It's doing them a favor.

 

Yes, I am interested to hear an explanation.