Lighthouse said:
Yes, I did. And most of that list was "progressive." And the only reason Sweden was number one is because it met those standards, such as gay rights. Where were the crime rates? The punishments for those who do break the law? Do they actually deter people from committing crimes? Do the people feel safe in their homes, on the streets and in public venues? Etc.?
Sweden actually seems to have a rather high crime rate in comparison to many nations in Europe and the rest of the world. Japan though, a nation whose culture you would find most objectionable has a legendarily low crime rate.
If they can stop then I'll retract what I said.
What about if faced with a single incidence of someone stopping? I mean, do you doubt that there exist people that stop viewing pornography or doubt that there exist people that willingly halt all of their sexual encounters?
1. Human Development Index
2. Global Peace Index
3. Gender Equality
4. Life expectancy
5. Quality of Life
6. Most Competitive Economy
7. Economic Freedom
8. Gay Rights
9. Obesity
10. Adults at High Literacy Level
11. Environment
12. Open Access to Research
13. Asylum Seeker Acceptance Rates
14. Aid to Developing Countries
15. IT: Networked Readiness Index
16. IT: Computer Piracy Levels
17. Secularisation
Which one of these makes your point?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16.
My hypotheses are based on everything I've ever seen in the lives of people who engage in said behavior.
And so you suspect you've met enough homosexuals, pornography viewers and fornicators to conclude accurately how
all of them act?
Have you asked them? Have they proven they could?
I'm not going to ask people I know to stop having sexual conduct on your request. It is a silly challenge. Why don't you ask people yourself and insist they attempt it as you think it is such an important point.
It is detrimental to their own well being, on every level, and that of those around them.
Forgetting completely that as usual you've given no reason for an unmarried fornicating couple to consider their actions as detrimental to themselves - We must remember that many things of course are detrimental to our own well-being. Having a bad diet is detrimental to your own being but we do not legislate what you should eat. Getting addictions to media happen to be bad but it is not legislated against (with the possible exceptions of South Korea and China, to a point).
As for it being bad for those around - citation needed.
Go and look up the burden of proof. You make claim so you have to back it up. If you cannot or are unwilling to, then that's not my problem.
I'd like them to prove it. If they refuse I have no reason to retract my accusation.
Your accusation though remains based upon nothing. Merely assumptions.
Drinking, in and of itself, is not. Nor is even drunkenness. Yet public drunkenness and/or drunk driving is. As well as being a drunkard/alcoholic. PI and DUI/DWI are illegal. Should they not be?
There's an irony here. I'll just quickly echo what you say about alcohol. Having homosexual sex or unmarried sex is not illegal. Nor is even outwardly flirting. Yet public sexual intercourse is. As well as being a sexual predator.
This has nothing to do with what I think. This is about what is.
So you persistently claim. But I have no reason to think it "is" anymore than I do to entertain the ramblings of a fundamentalist Muslim that Sharia law just "is" the ideal utopia.
You have supported that accusation in absolutely no way, shape or form.
It is abundantly clear. You believe in the totalitarian state. The ideal that the state mandates and controls what its citizenry ought to be and how they ought to act. You already insist that people's private life regarding their sexual encounters is far too delicate to be left alone and should be legislated against by the state (with the penalty more often than not
death). You insist the government of the nation impose moral standards by which its citizens must abide by. When you already ignore people's private life (for whatever justification) then quite frankly, thought-crime is only around the corner for the same reasons.
It is clearly seen, and you have admitted you do not see it.
Except that is not what I meant. I meant it as a direct response that you're just talking hot air.
I never said you were blinded by the obvious, you admitted you were blind to the obvious. You are the one who claimed to not have 'clearly seen' anything.
I was denying that there ever was something so apparently obvious. I still stand by that. What you see as 'obvious' is nothing more than your ruthless bias and bigotry towards others.
I can tell them they'd be happier if they sought happiness itself rather than trying to fill the holes with emotional highs.
You can if you like. And they can walk away from you in response. You should not have the right to tell them by force how to behave.
And it is the single person who partakes in pornography that becomes the married person who focuses their attention upon it rather than their spouse.
[citation needed]
I could accept they were monogamous. The other two are certainly a lie, though.
Again: You would believe your own prejudices over what people actually say. You have said that you have adopted your opinion on homosexuals through experience and you have challenged me to convince people I know to go cold-turkey on their sexual encounters for three months in order to show to you that they are not slaves.
I have absolutely no confidence, even if I did take you up and succeeded in convincing them to partake that you would ever seriously concede should they succeed. You already have admitted that if you were to encounter a homosexual couple who declared they were in love and happy that you wouldn't believe them. Why would you believe me if I showed you or told you that my friends were able to stop having sex for three months?
You truly are one of the most ignorant people in the world.
And why's that? Homosexuals can actually contribute and bring up children and many of them
want to but are denied the chance by bigots such as yourself.
But neither the consumption of alcohol nor driving are immoral or even detrimental unless abused. And it is illegal to abuse these things in certain cases or to certain extremes.
And I have no reason to believe that having homosexual or unmarried heterosexual sex are immoral in and of themselves.
They recently proved heavy drinkers have a higher life expectancy than those who drink less.
I know a lot of people who live to a ripe old age put it down to a decent amount of wine, drunk appropriately. Can you link to me what you're referring to about 'heavy drinkers' though so I can see just how heavy these people are?
My father was a homosexual who rejected it in favor of God's desire for his life, because he trusts God to know what is best. Because of him I have met many others who have done the same. I have heard stories upon stories of the detrimental effects homosexuality had on their lives and the lives of those around them. My aunt, on my mom's side, is a lesbian. Because of her my mom met many homosexuals who are still active. I met them through my mom. I met others through them. Not one of them was truly happy. None of them were monogamous. Unless you count having multiple relationships over the years, one or more per year, and not cheating while in a relationship. But, seriously, what's the difference when you jump from bed to bed?
There are many responses I could make to this - but I won't, because unlike you despite my first thoughts regarding your family - I don't like to make assumptions on other people's lives.
Translation: I only hear what I want to hear.
The irony of this is breathtaking. This is coming from someone who earlier on in his post admitted that he has his opinions about whether homosexuals can love and be happy together, and that is that. He would ignore and disregard any claims by homosexuals themselves to the contrary.
At any rate, no, your response regarding the fisherman analogy was satisfactory and amusing enough.
lain:
