• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

Robert Prey said:
How about acts causing epidemic disease, killing thousands?
Click to expand...

So you want to outlaw all sex besides manual sex.

I understand the argument you're trying to make about anal sex, but it's still a fallacious one.
 
Robert Prey said:
Such a response is so very much akin to holding up a silver cross in the face of a bunch of vampires.
Click to expand...

Cool. I am the vampire in this analogy right?

Pardalis said:
Seems easy enough to understand. I wonder why it's still so hard for the Santorums of this word to grasp this concept.
Click to expand...

Well when you spend your every waking moment thinking about all that steamy gay sex out there you lose track of things.

JudeBrando said:
How many consenting adults?
Click to expand...

If you were in charge of the sex police how many would you allow?

Robert Prey said:
How about sexual behavior that causes epidemic disease, contaminates blood supplies and kills thousands???
Click to expand...

You mean like heterosexual sex without condoms? The only type of sex that would be legal if Santorum were to have his way?
 
Robert Prey said:
How about acts causing epidemic disease, killing thousands?
Click to expand...

What the hell...

You don't halt the spread of disease by trying to outlaw whatever sexual acts you don't like. If you were genuine in this, you'd outlaw all sex.

But hey, if you think hijacking the spread of disease as a means to stop whatever sexual acts you don't like, by all means I think you should be the first to stop having sex. When you decide to go celibate, let the rest of us know.

You've got some nerve...

Oh on a side note...who's porkin' a bag of blood?! What, do you view all humans as blood supplies now?! Seriously, what balls dude! Trying to get at sex by claiming it ruins blood supplies?! I didn't realize they let asylum patients use the computer -.-
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
All of it.
Click to expand...

well, we could outlaw all sex and have all babies conceived manually.
that'd go over well, right?

robert of the family prey obviously believes that there is something that queers do that no one else does, that causes disease.
i can't for the life of me figure out what that is.
aanal sex is not solely the domain of queers.
as a queer man, i can assure you that not all queers have anal sex.
personally, i do not see the anus as a sex organ....yuck.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Why? Once they have actually relinquished their legal rights OK (in most cases) but not while they are trying to find a prospective family.
Click to expand...
I believe I am correct in saying that most agencies that handle adoption do not allow parents who give up their child for adoption to know who adopts them. The reasoning for this is obvious: If a parent later feels "remorseful" about putting the baby up for adoption, they may harass the adoptive family.
 
Travis said:
You mean like heterosexual sex without condoms? The only type of sex that would be legal if Santorum were to have his way?
Click to expand...
Without condoms???!!:eek:

But... but... that would spread disease! Robert is against sex that spreads disease. That's why he only approves of lesbian sex. (Yes, it's true. Lesbians have lower incidence of AIDS/HIV than heterosexual people. That must mean it's not just okay, it should be the only legal kind, right Robert?)
 
Robert Prey said:
How about sexual behavior that causes epidemic disease, contaminates blood supplies and kills thousands???
Click to expand...
How about any disease with such consequences? We deal with outbreaks as they occur. Group sex does not preclude safer sex measures.
 
As for the implication of being against group sex, it seems to me (and this is pure conjecture on my part) that there is a bit of a conflation of sex and marriage. While I know that in 1950s-America-That-Never-Actually-Existed sex was solely reserved for marriage, it is a relatively common thing for human beings to engage in sexual intercourse before they are married, or even without the intent to marry at all. I'd be interested to see what argument exists to regulate group sex, since the argument against homosexual marriage is that it's detrimental to the establishment of marriage (and that polygamy would introduce all sorts of property rights concerns, which is a valid argument in my opinion). What need is there to regulate group sex? I'm genuinely interested to see what the answer is.

The question is not purely directed at Jude, though since he is the one that first made me think about this, it would be nice to hear his thoughts on it. Anyone who is in favor of a law against group sex can feel free to jump in and explain to me why it should happen, though. I really want to know.
 
Lowpro said:
What the hell...

You don't halt the spread of disease by trying to outlaw whatever sexual acts you don't like. If you were genuine in this, you'd outlaw all sex.

But hey, if you think hijacking the spread of disease as a means to stop whatever sexual acts you don't like, by all means I think you should be the first to stop having sex. When you decide to go celibate, let the rest of us know.

You've got some nerve...

Oh on a side note...who's porkin' a bag of blood?! What, do you view all humans as blood supplies now?! Seriously, what balls dude! Trying to get at sex by claiming it ruins blood supplies?! I didn't realize they let asylum patients use the computer -.-
Click to expand...

Too bad for Ryan White.
 
Tricky said:
I believe I am correct in saying that most agencies that handle adoption do not allow parents who give up their child for adoption to know who adopts them. The reasoning for this is obvious: If a parent later feels "remorseful" about putting the baby up for adoption, they may harass the adoptive family.
Click to expand...

But they usually are given the oportunity to know them through profiles and questionaires etc. Also open adoptions are not uncommon.
I think most agency adoptions ar less likely to be "open" than private adoptions.
 
Robert Prey said:
Too bad for Ryan White.
Click to expand...

  • This isn't a logically valid argument.
  • It's an appeal to emotion.
  • It's not relevant to the discussion.
  • Social stigma or laws regulating sex won't prevent such tragedies.
Social health problems aren't helped by intolerance and bigotry. Human behavior has inherent consequences. A trip to the beach can result in drowning or auto fatality. Lunch at a local restaurant can result in a fatal food borne disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom