: no I'm not so dont be so infantile. In my advocation of anarchist personal freedom I have always insisted that behaviour that can not be policed, such as sexuality, and as a result state or authority action only criminalises people should not be policed.
: However the right to do something in my opinion never makes it instantaniously right.You didn't answer, as so many otehr haven't, my substantive question- why is the normal hierarchically more valuable to the abnormal?
: They're not hurting me, I'm not going to hurt them, I'm not arguing as a fundamentalist christian or a nazi just someone who thinks that matters such as sexuality are:
: A) Private matters, homosexuals should conduct themselves in public in accordance with the conventions that heterosexuals EG dont dress up as women or in bondage gear and rave through the streets.
Why, that always looked like damn good fun to me, and I know plenty of Str8's who wear bondage gear fairly regulalry- what are women's clothes, and why shouldn't men wear them, why should homosexuals *conform* to heterosexual norms? Again, why is normality hierarchiaclly more valuable than abnormality?
: B) A matter of choice therefore certain attention should be given as to whether or not certain choices are wise. You can choose to torture people in other fashions it isnt wise either.
No, because torturing people, beyond the 'safe sane and *consensual* limits of BDSM is hurting someone else. Why is homosexuality unwise?
: Now where did that come from? Just the way that you immediately assume that socialism etc. involves defending abortion, homosexuality etc. as part and parcel you also make the assumption that people impose their views by force if they disagree with you.
I haven't said a word about abortion, however, I have yet to here a solid socialist case against Homosexuality, and 'm certainly not hearing one from you.
: The power of persuasion is the only force I've ever appealed to.
Except you would try and persuade homosexuals to stay quiet and out of sight? Social pressure can be extremely strong and repressive in its own right...
: Well that depends, it's not generally but it could be.
but it is just as safe as homosexual activity (which rarely includes buggery anyhow).
: Yeah and I might add that I'm not discrimating on Buggery, it is as terrible between a man and women as between two men.
Why is homosexual felatio preverted, dangerous, or generally uniwse?
: Here we go as a libertarian, trying to suggest I'm not a libertarian or not as good a libertarian as you then? Anyway that right is yours but allow homosexuality to be accepted and what grounds do you have for outlawing peadaphilia?
That its not consensual, and cannot be so. Pædophilia involves exclusively rape, and abuse.
: I would consider doing so yes, I have not seen conclusive proof that I'm wrong yet. My opinion is harming no one however. My original objections to homos EG extraverted sex centric lifestyles still stand.
Might not that lifestyle as now be a general reaction to their marginalisation in society- and most of teh queers I know wear beige...
: I would have thought this obvious. If you try to hammer a nail in with an axe you'll risk grave injury. I think the same goes for human sexual relations.
That analogy fundamentally does not stand- hqueer couples can, quite safely, get along with one another, can get by without physical harm, and as much empotional harm as heterosexual relationships. Are you seriously suggesting that human beings have monological use values in terms of sexuality? If so, by what proof? That is argument by design, proove the design.
: No but at the same time you cant suggest that was the purpose evolution/the creator had in mind when it put it there now can you? Does it say "for mixing cocktails with" in scentific textbooks? Incidentally is that true Red? That's pretty gross.
Evolution is a sledge hammer, it had nothing in mind, and in fact it had no design at all. Evolution requires, on our part, finding as many new and different potential uses for things as we can, variety, evolution did not impose a singular designated use upon any one thing. And tehre is no God, so he don't count.
The relationship between me and my cocktails is a purely personal matter ;) But why should what science texts books say its for be any guide to me- I bet science text books don't say they are for standing on to reach the top shelf...but guess what? Are you seriously appealing to teh authority of scientific texts- I've read a-levekl books categorically stating smoking dope leads to taking heroine...I don't take heroin.
: Fine, opinions never hurt no one Red and I would attest any accusations of authoritarianism or gay bashing, I've support the uni LGB society when a religious faction attacked it and attempted to with draw funding, I'd be the first to defend them and the last to give up the defence but where do you draw the line in matters of sexuality when this type of behaviour is viewed natural rather than choosen?
I think the natural/chosen debate is by the by, I don't care either way, its irrelevent, there is no reason not to accept homosexuality as a viablelway of life.
