DemonLordEnigma
04-11-2004, 01:00
I saw the most comical thing today while surfing the proposals.
Although they sound like a basic right, sexual freedoms are in fact harmful in many ways.
We'll see how true this is.
1. They help promote the spread of many diseases, such as HIV, AIDS, and many other harmful sicknesses. This reason alone is crucial, because many of these diseases are only in existence due to these "sexual freedoms".
Obviously, you have not read the resolution you are trying to ban. Let me quote it for you and highlight something.
What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
So major diseases are not medical reasons to you? Also, some of those diseases also spread through blood transfusions, people intentionally infecting others, and a few other ways. These spread through unsafe sex practices, not through sexual freedom. You want to help limit their spread? Start educating your people on safe sex practices.
Also, AIDS and HIV are pretty much the same thing. HIV causes AIDS. Just thought I'd point that out.
2. The sanctity of marriage is destroyed by these harmful practices, which in turn causes the divorce rate to suffer. This leads to the breakdown of the basic family unit.
Uh huh. So being free to have sex as you like with each other is what causes spouses to become unhappy and, in turn, leads to families being broken apart? What logic.
Divorce rises as the rate of happiness in marriage drops. This is not linked to sex anymore than a little girl with a paper cut leads to the spread of a major disease. Infidelity happens, but whether or not it is legal to happen really doesn't have that much of a bearing on it. Even the puritans had people who chose to have sex with someone other than their spouse. You want to lower divorce rate? Provide money for family counselling and try to figure out the real reason it is rising instead of blaming it on sexual freedom.
Oh, the sanctity of marriage was violated the moment a government not directly controlled by a religion got involved, so this won't affect that. Let's not forget the number of nonreligious weddings.
Finally, this is just a cheap way to try to use your religious beliefs to raise support. Take a hint from all of the other times it has failed when others tried it. This is beginning to become annoying.
3. Some sexual freedoms, such as sodomy, involve animal cruelty, something that is not right.
Okay, I want you to stop, look at the resolution, and tell me where it allows for nonsentient creatures to be used as such. I want an exact quote.
Now, on to a definition of sodomy:
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
Note the word I bolded. "Or" indicates one does not even need an animal for sodomy, just that a part of sodomy involves it. Nowhere does it state such is a requirement. So, you have no case on this one.
You want to stop animal cruelty? Take a look in the area of animal cruelty laws. You can outlaw it, charge them with it, and still not be violating this resolution.
Well, this was fun.
Although they sound like a basic right, sexual freedoms are in fact harmful in many ways.
We'll see how true this is.
1. They help promote the spread of many diseases, such as HIV, AIDS, and many other harmful sicknesses. This reason alone is crucial, because many of these diseases are only in existence due to these "sexual freedoms".
Obviously, you have not read the resolution you are trying to ban. Let me quote it for you and highlight something.
What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
So major diseases are not medical reasons to you? Also, some of those diseases also spread through blood transfusions, people intentionally infecting others, and a few other ways. These spread through unsafe sex practices, not through sexual freedom. You want to help limit their spread? Start educating your people on safe sex practices.
Also, AIDS and HIV are pretty much the same thing. HIV causes AIDS. Just thought I'd point that out.
2. The sanctity of marriage is destroyed by these harmful practices, which in turn causes the divorce rate to suffer. This leads to the breakdown of the basic family unit.
Uh huh. So being free to have sex as you like with each other is what causes spouses to become unhappy and, in turn, leads to families being broken apart? What logic.
Divorce rises as the rate of happiness in marriage drops. This is not linked to sex anymore than a little girl with a paper cut leads to the spread of a major disease. Infidelity happens, but whether or not it is legal to happen really doesn't have that much of a bearing on it. Even the puritans had people who chose to have sex with someone other than their spouse. You want to lower divorce rate? Provide money for family counselling and try to figure out the real reason it is rising instead of blaming it on sexual freedom.
Oh, the sanctity of marriage was violated the moment a government not directly controlled by a religion got involved, so this won't affect that. Let's not forget the number of nonreligious weddings.
Finally, this is just a cheap way to try to use your religious beliefs to raise support. Take a hint from all of the other times it has failed when others tried it. This is beginning to become annoying.
3. Some sexual freedoms, such as sodomy, involve animal cruelty, something that is not right.
Okay, I want you to stop, look at the resolution, and tell me where it allows for nonsentient creatures to be used as such. I want an exact quote.
Now, on to a definition of sodomy:
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
Note the word I bolded. "Or" indicates one does not even need an animal for sodomy, just that a part of sodomy involves it. Nowhere does it state such is a requirement. So, you have no case on this one.
You want to stop animal cruelty? Take a look in the area of animal cruelty laws. You can outlaw it, charge them with it, and still not be violating this resolution.
Well, this was fun.