Victimless crimes

[afro-elf]

ps lesbians are the lest likely to get std's

[afro-elf]

simply i think money is wasted on vice crimes that could be better used elsewhere

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lizra
Porn fosters prostituion

Originally posted by afro-elf
I'd be more prone to say biology does.

To break it down to just biology, is too simplistic. The reductionist argument doesn't work here. I'm with Lizra on this: yes - biology fosters the need for sex, BUT culture is the one that drives the so-called "nasty" industry. Remember, there is no real evolutionary need for 'deviant' sex - I'm thinking here of the activities that do not contribute primarily to procreation, ie sodomy. To try and justify the porn/prostitution industry as just another biological mechanism. Pah! It's there for fun. It's there for experimentation, maybe. Thus, it must be said that the culture aspect of society drives the industry, combined with aspects of the biological drive.

[afro-elf]

To Wayfarer

I object to information being presented to children and adolescents by educators intended to portray homosexuality as a healthy alternative lifestyle, while deliberately omitting or disregarding the significant medical and health risks inherent to homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle.

Does he not mention that there are medical and social risk with "normal" families. incest, abuse, alcoholism, drug use, disrespect, mental cruelity, runaways, poor grade, social mal-adjustment etc... happen in "normal" familes. Why would he "deliberately omitting or disregarding the significant " information from his own report?

These misguided efforts place young people at risk for the well known and sometimes life threatening consequences of homosexual sex and promiscuity, not the least of which are human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

here he say homosexual sex AND promiscuity. As I said before he ignores the fact that lesbians have the safest sex. What about homosexual monogamy.

The starting point for this type of sexual "orientation" education is generally the contention that homosexuality is genetic or innate, and therefore, also "natural" and unalterable. Although genetic factors clearly influence many behaviors, the once widely publicized assertion that there is a "gay gene" has been discredited by the scientific and medical community, including scientists who admit they are sympathetic to the cause of homosexual activists.19 Studies of identical twins have confirmed that a genetic design for homosexuality is lacking.18, 17

the battle for the "gay gene" is FAR from over for or against. There seems to be a gene of the x chromosome that in inhereted from the mom that may lead to homosexuality. It has been the twin studies that have lead researchere to belief that there IS a gay gene.

While human behavior is a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors, the power to make deliberate choices remains.

If to men OR women wanna be act on there gayness fine.

Furthermore, although some behaviors, such as alcoholism, have genetic influences, this does not imply that they are either natural or desirable.

If it happens in nature its natural. If in were not somewhere in our genotype it would not happen.

Another obvious argument against a genetic basis for homosexuality is the fact that it would tend to extinguish itself from the gene pool over time, since there is less child bearing among this group.

There are a lot of behaviors that do not promote evolutionary fitness that occur regularly. Suicide, thrill-seeking, homosexuality, those who don't wanna have kids there are biological bases for these behaviors they still exist. Do do down syndrome, and a host of other disorders that reduce fitness in a species that still exist.

An extension of the notion that homosexuality is a primary, inborn identity has been the idea that it is also unchangeable and irreversible, like skin or eye color. That thousands of people have recovered heterosexual function is proof that this is a malleable trait.

there IS a difference between innate inclination to be gay and institutionalized homosexuality. In prison there's a lot of gay stuff going on. when they get out the go back to hetero sex. Does this mean they were innately gay that the enviromnet force gay activity on normal men.

Do gay people who go in gay come out of prison gay?

Infection rates for HIV are highest among homosexual men compared to intravenous drug users and heterosexual men and women, and may approach 50% in urban environments.3 HIV infection and AIDS is by far the leading cause for early mortality in this group. High-risk behaviors will continue to be associated with serious life-threatening consequences and significantly shortened life expectancies among gay and bisexual men

for those who are unwary it makes it seem as though 50% of aids cases are gay men. Which is bogus. There is a big difference between saying that 50% of a given population and %50% of aids cases.

Or to say it this way a higher percentage of gay MEN have aids HOWEVER the total number of people with aids is IMMENSELY greater than the total number of gay men

Lesbian women may have higher rates of breast cancer and cervical cancer

really shoddy work here. What is the group that they are being compared with? It is worded to make you assume something but it is not stated. There is nothing to so that it is their sexual activity that increases this risk. They have lower rates of std's than any other sexually active group. So there proneness to those disease can be a totally different cause not relatied to sex at all.

Studies have repeatedly shown that lesbians and gay men are at increased risk for mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior, compared to heterosexuals

Could be the fault of society not accepting them that leads to this as opposed to an innate defiency.

Homosexuals perpetrate child sex crimes at a rate many times their number in the population

here he failed to quote his source

Rates of battery among male and female homosexuals are several times that of married couples.10, 11

The rates of reports could be skewered in many ways by that statement. Many married people are not gonna report such things. I'm curious to there population sample. Say they took it prisons were violent behavior in more prone to happen


I found the report weak on many points and is SPECICALLY homophobic and not neutral.

[afro-elf]

To break it down to just biology, is too simplistic. The reductionist argument doesn't work here. I'm with Lizra on this: yes - biology fosters the need for sex, BUT culture is the one that drives the so-called "nasty" industry

we are biologically social animals. culture is arisen from this. It is a result of need for sex that creates a industry. If there were no need for sex( or the pleasure aspects of) there would be not industry for it.

Remember, there is no real evolutionary need for 'deviant' sex - I'm thinking here of the activities that do not contribute primarily to procreation, ie sodomy.

There in no evoluntionary fitness for the arts either. We've stone age brains in a modern world. We're operating on old programs. On the african plains how were the arts directly viable for evoluntary fitness? The point being is that fitness in not a factor for moral judgements.

To try and justify the porn/prostitution industry as just another biological mechanism. Pah!

the point is not that porn etc is SOLEY the result of biology but that is the FUNDAMENTAL cause. I NEVER denied that there were not other higher up factors.
I was trying to to the onus off of it being a FUNDAMENTALLY cultural factor.

It's there for fun. It's there for experimentation, maybe. Thus, it must be said that the culture aspect of society drives the industry, combined with aspects of the biological drive.

Yeap. see my previous answer.

[BeardofPants]

There in no evoluntionary fitness for the arts either.

Tut, tut. It's an unknown.

We've stone age brains in a modern world. We're operating on old programs.

Stone age?! Upper Palaeolithic, please!

The point being is that fitness in not a factor for moral judgements.

I agree with that.

we are biologically social animals. culture is arisen from this. It is a result of need for sex that creates a industry. If there were no need for sex( or the pleasure aspects of) there would be not industry for it.

It seems that we basically agree, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[afro-elf]

yeah we're left of center, rhino R2 D2's

[Cirdan]

So, the question is, does/should a consenting adult have the right to debase themselves in any way they can?

Prostitution, under a controlled, clinical, regulated situation, eliminating all questions of disease leaves one question:

Is it right to create/facilitate the opportunity to "participate"? If we choose the civil liberty route then we must allow it. On the other hand, we are often "protected" by laws from detrimental behavior (seat belt laws, access to thermonuclear weapons, etc). Does the person truely understand what it is they are about to undertake?

Many young girls/boys are drawn to prostitution to escape abusive or neglectful homes, or to feed an expensive drug habit. Once they finally get to an age where they are no longer "useful", they are left with a mess.

Is the answer then to legalize/decriminalize the drugs and provide more shelters for the abused?

The drug issue brings up the who, how and when (at what age). Most people with drug problems start early in life, so legalizing it for adults puts more into accessability. Yet, if it is left to the street to decide, they will find it eventually.

So, if personal freedom is extended among adults, then education, licensing, health monitoring, public notice (job safety - no wasted airline pilots), how is the juvenile offender to be handled? Who is at fault; the supplier? the pimp? If the large percentage of relatively responsible, yet drug/gambling/prostitution involved people can be regulated and the minority treated, would the savings in law enforcement, health care, additional taxes from legal commercial revenue, offset the incresased exposure for "at risk" persons?

Tobacco and alcohol are handed out willy-nilly, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. People made sick by them are a huge drain on the heathcare system. If access was based on risk (disease, mental imparement, addictiveness) then these two would be much more restricted. It is only cultural history that says of substance is better than another under current laws.

Complicated

[azalea]

Prostitution causes STDs to spread like wildfire (our county has the highest rate of syphillis in the state, related among other things to the prostitution that goes on in the Hispanic community. The men go to the prostitutes then go home and give their wives the disease, and it gets passed on to the baby she gives birth to or whatever). Then guess who gets to pay for their treatment? Plus, prostitution perpetuates an attitude toward women (I mean womankind, not specific women like the wife or prostitute) -- could this be a meme?
Pornography is addictive, as are drugs. Drugs eat away at life. I don't want tax dollars going to healthcare for drug users. Besides, DUI of drugs is harder to test than alcohol -- believe me, drug users would still go out driving around even if drugs were legal, but it would be difficult to prove. I have known people who went out driving while on acid and gotten in horrible accidents, luckily no one else was hurt, but they could very well have been.

Pornography also perpetuates the "women are objects" attitude.

Just some more of my random thoughts.

[Cirdan]

Random thought, but some good ones.

STDs... well, we should outlaw all promiscuity, then... problematic. T\Legal prostitution requires STD tests regularly, safe sex practices, etc. It is the illegal prostitution that spreads the STDs.

Prostitution as objectification, possibly. All participants in prostitution, male and female, on both side if the deal (there are male pros), objectifiy the other (hence the term "john"). To say it objectifies women only implies that the women are not willing participants. One could say the same thing about casual sex, or even football; we see the players as just peices of meat. If a player is injured or fades in their carreer no one cares, they just look to the next draft or free agent (sorry for the sports analogy....typical male, eh?)

The question is not, does a behavior, increase the chance for another behavior which is dangerous. There are laws for these dangerous behaviors (DUI, etc). If they were more strictly enforced and the punihments more severe, the dangerous behavior would be reduced.

This is anecdotal, but we recently had a drunk driver kill someone and get off with only the driving infraction. If you knowingly partake in ANY substance or drive impaired (extremely sleepy, failing eye sight) the punishment should be swift and sure. Of course there should be leeway for minor violations coincidental to the impairment. There are so many liqour stores and bars in most cities; it is far too easy to get and there is no restrictions for people with obvious problems with substances. A priviledge license should be required to drink.

It could be said that it would be difficult to impose, but would you give liqour to an "unpriviledged person if it meant possible jail time? It's easier to punish the exceptions to a substance use rule than to track down every single drug user. There is good reason to beleive that the obsession with the war on drugs allowed the warnings of domestic terrorism to go unheeded.

It is important to take the money element of of the equation and put the drug cartels out of business.

Something creative like "drug safety parks" were no weapons or cars are availble would be a places to experiment with mind altering drugs. Education about the dangers of these would be more likely to discourage someone than someone alone facing peer pressure, etc alone.

I don't know how anything like this would work in reality, but the current system is inequitable, unjust, and is a failure.

[Wayfarer]

A-Elf. I shall stick specifically to arguments, and not questions of source,e tc (which I can't answer)

Originally posted by afro-elf
Does he not mention that there are medical and social risk with "normal" families. incest, abuse, alcoholism, drug use, disrespect, mental cruelity, runaways, poor grade, social mal-adjustment etc... happen in "normal" familes. Why would he "deliberately omitting or disregarding the significant " information from his own report?

The family has trouble. I don't dispute that.

But that does not make homosexuality (or promiscuity, or bigamy, or whatever) a healthy alternative. The point being is that homosexuality isn't just different-it's flawed. And not simply in that some homosexuals are messed up, but in that homosexual relationships are inherently dangerous.

Originally posted by afro-elf
here he say homosexual sex AND promiscuity. As I said before he ignores the fact that lesbians have the safest sex. What about homosexual monogamy.

Homosexuality and promiscuity are both dangerous, and both are promoted in many schools.

a short word on Promiscuity first: The idea has gotten around that people will sleep around no matter what, and so it's pointless to try and stop them. So use a condom, use the pill, etc. Notwithstanding that no single method of birth control works perfectly, and the more common ones have about a 15% failure rate. Not to mention that few prevent against STD's. So why is abstinance considered s repugnant?

Originally posted by afro-elf
the battle for the "gay gene" is FAR from over for or against. There seems to be a gene of the x chromosome that in inhereted from the mom that may lead to homosexuality. It has been the twin studies that have lead researchere to belief that there IS a gay gene.

Let me quote you the abbreviated version of the twins study:

In about 55% of cases, when one identical twin is actively homosexual, the other is as well.

Identical Twins share the exact same genes.

So, if there is a gay gene, both would have it, and far more than 55% of twins would both be gay. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by afro-elf
If to men OR women wanna be act on there gayness fine.

If it happens in nature its natural. If in were not somewhere in our genotype it would not happen.

There are many unhealthy conditions that have a genetic basis. Should I act on my predisposition to depression and mope about? Should I act on my disposition to violence and became a sadist? Does the fact that heterosexual feelings exist make promiscuity any less dangerous?

The fact that an inclination occurs may be natural. This does not meant that the inclination is good.

Additionally, it cannot be both a lifestyle and a condition. Either it's a genetic flaw, in which case it should be treated like any other, or it is a conscious choice, in which case the full responsibility is yours.

Originally posted by afro-elf
there IS a difference between innate inclination to be gay and institutionalized homosexuality.

Back to my last point: If there is a genetic (or psychological) inclination to same-sex relations, shouldn't it be treated like other conditions? And if it is a choice, shouldn't it be treated as any other unhealthy choice?

Originally posted by afro-elf
for those who are unwary it makes it seem as though 50% of aids cases are gay men. Which is bogus. There is a big difference between saying that 50% of a given population and %50% of aids cases.

Or to say it this way a higher percentage of gay MEN have aids HOWEVER the total number of people with aids is IMMENSELY greater than the total number of gay men.

I read it to say that 50% of gay men in urban areas have aids. That's half of them, if you were wondering. The rate among heterosexuals is nowhere near that high.

Originally posted by afro-elf
I found the report weak on many points and is SPECICALLY homophobic and not neutral.

That's the only tryly stupid thing you've said so far.

Homophobia is a tunip-ghost. It doesn't exist. The fact that one believes homosexuality is wrong does not mean that one fears homosexuality.

There are many other unhealthy behaviors that we dissaprove of. Promiscuity, pediophilia, drug use, overeating. None of this stuff generates fear.

Get it straight: You're pro-homosexual, you think homosexuality is a natural behavior thatshould be allowd. I'm an anti-homosexual, and I think it's unhealthy and should be strongly discouraged.

There is no neutral ground, for this simple reason: Anyone who has learned anything about it will make a decision.

[Lizra]

I don't think it's a "gay gene". It's more complicated than that. I think of homosexuality as being caused by something going amiss during one (or some) of the many amazing changes occurring in the devoloping fetus's (or embryo, or whatever stage of developement) brain or sexual chemistry. Many things happen rapidly when a baby is growing inside the mother, sexuality is a very complex thing that gets screwed up often enough to make homosexuals a significant minority all throughout human history. This chemical (or whatever) malfunction could occur in one identical twin an not another. (I think!)

[Cirdan]

So, Wayfarer, if you are anti-homosexual and if there is a gay gene tendency, why would you want to "council" them back itno the gene pool? If you encourage those with what you view as a genetic defect to seek out the non-reporductive lifestyle there will be less of them to offend you.

Yes, there is some evidence that imbalances during th prenatal development. It may be attached to the y chromosome, though. So much for the above. I'll check my sources since I am working from memory.

Not afraid of pedophiles

Wait until you become a father. Yes, I have a fear, which may be irrational, that letting my son go to the park alone is a risk.

If "dangerous activity" is the criterion used then rock climbing should be discouraged. Maybe skiing, too. (Sonny Bono)

If there was more emphasis on protecting people from other poeple instead of themselves, we would all be better off.

We are off the topic of what should be legal and illegal, not moral/ethical or immoral/unethical.

[Lizra]

Aaah gee Cirdan, Thanks alot!? Check your sources if you like, but it's not neccessary for me!!

[afro-elf]

that homosexual relationships are inherently dangerous.

Again lesbians are the lest likely to get std's. That also assumes that all gays( males) are into sodomy.

Homosexuality and promiscuity are both dangerous, and both are promoted in many schools.

Again lesbians are the safest. But so are extreme sports.
( dangerous). So is smoking( liung disease, cancer) alcohol ( DWI is dangerous to self and other)

However I do understand what you are striving at.

So why is abstinance considered s repugnant?

How said it was? I people wanna do the nasty its not the governments business. That all I've been saying

In about 55% of cases, when one identical twin is actively homosexual, the other is as well.

Your stats are wrong. The national cancer institute's study found the rate at 33 out of 40

The fact that an inclination occurs may be natural. This does not meant that the inclination is good

I have NEVER claimed that the gay life style was GOOD. I said I don't care if jack and john or jill and jenny get busy.

Additionally, it cannot be both a lifestyle and a condition

Not true if you think of it this way. there is a difference between the female sex and the female gender. sex in your biology. gender is your role. however biology does affect the social aspects.

The fact that one believes homosexuality is wrong does not mean that one fears homosexuality.

You are correct i should have said anti gay not homophobic

I read it to say that 50% of gay men in urban areas have aids

It is not stated cleary as such and COULD be purposely worded that way to make his point seem stronger

The rate among heterosexuals is nowhere near that high

I have never denied this but the NUMBER of heteros affected still outstrips the number of gays males

Get it straight: You're pro-homosexual, you think homosexuality is a natural behavior thatshould be allowd

There is no neutral ground, for this simple reason: Anyone who has learned anything about it will make a decision.

NO i'm not PRO gayn or am I anti gay. I do not CAMPAIGN FOR gay people. I do not encourage people to do it. I do not encourage them not to. my point is to guys wanna be butties I do not care. My support is that I don't think its the goverments business

The either you with me or against me is flawed reasoning. Maybe I don't give a !@#$ if you are straight gay or whatever. See the prior rely above

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
Aaah gee Cirdan, Thanks alot!? Check your sources if you like, but it's not neccessary for me!!

Ok... your welcome???

'Tis better to be sure than to be right, eh?

Maybe I won't check them. It's not that important to me...

[Lizra]

well, your remark "so much for the above" struck me as condescending and I was somewhat irritated. If you meant something else, I missed the point. Sorry if I was rude.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
well, your remark "so much for the above" struck me as condescending and I was somewhat irritated. If you meant something else, I missed the point. Sorry if I was rude.

OOOOOh, I was responding to Wayfarer's post. I have a bad habit of reading the first unread and posting without reading further. I pretty much agree with what you said, so I was confused by your response. Sorry for the poor neticate.

On the point, though, while there probably isn't a "gay" gene, there most likely is a susceptability to gestation changes gene; the kinds of changes you mentioned above (your post) . This would be analogous to a type of cancer susceptability, where some environment effect is required to trigger failure. No on/off kind of gene.

The gay population relative to the rest is too consistent to be strictly nuture versus nature; not mutually exclusive, of course.

[Lizra]

Yes, there must be a certain hormone or brain chemical, that if released by the mother's body during certain crucial periods, mess up the replications or cause something to happen (or not happen). Ha! Did that makes sense? But I hope you get my point. I've had two children, It's an amazing process, I'll have to go with the cliche "miracle!". Being gay is not a crime, I view it as a sort of handicap, and think it must be a burden. But I would accept it and live a righteous life, gay or not.

[Cirdan]

Well, let's extend this since we have come this far on this aspect of the thread.

Adoption by gay individuals/couples?

When my wife and I adopted, we went trough a parenting class (why doesn't everyone have to do that?) in which there was a lesbian couple.

They were very nice, of course, and they were doing a social good by rescuing an otherwise lost child.

Yea or nay?