Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 102
Entire Site: 7 & 886
Page Admin: Davideo7, geeogree, Page Staff: Lieutenant Vicktz, play4fun, pray75,
03-29-24 04:30 AM

Thread Information

Views
2,355
Replies
21
Rating
0
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
geeogree
08-08-12 09:39 PM
Last
Post
bvd1022
10-28-12 10:49 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 630
Today: 1
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


2 Pages
>>
 

Personal Freedom vs. Legislated Morals

 

08-08-12 09:39 PM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 631850 | 83 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 19621/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420150356
CP: 52474.2
VIZ: 528748

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I've been seeing debates come up recently (mostly because of Chic-fil-a) regarding gay marriage and I've been posing this question to myself:

Do I care more about people having the freedom to choose for themselves how they live their lives or legislating what people can and can't do?

And that is the question I pose for the people who reply to this thread.

My personal opinion is that freedom to choose what you do is more important than trying to restrict actions.

Thoughts?
I've been seeing debates come up recently (mostly because of Chic-fil-a) regarding gay marriage and I've been posing this question to myself:

Do I care more about people having the freedom to choose for themselves how they live their lives or legislating what people can and can't do?

And that is the question I pose for the people who reply to this thread.

My personal opinion is that freedom to choose what you do is more important than trying to restrict actions.

Thoughts?
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 91 days
Last Active: 10 hours

08-08-12 10:14 PM
soxfan849 is Offline
| ID: 631876 | 73 Words

soxfan849
Level: 76


POSTS: 825/1490
POST EXP: 106261
LVL EXP: 3996025
CP: 5193.6
VIZ: 222680

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
It's tough and really depends on a case by case basis. Generally speaking, however, as long as your choice doesn't harm anyone else, I'm all in favor of freedom.

In the specific case of Chick-fil-A, although I disagree with them, I'm still gonna eat their chicken from time to time. It's fast, easy, and one of the best things that we have available on campus. I don't support them, I just wanna eat.
It's tough and really depends on a case by case basis. Generally speaking, however, as long as your choice doesn't harm anyone else, I'm all in favor of freedom.

In the specific case of Chick-fil-A, although I disagree with them, I'm still gonna eat their chicken from time to time. It's fast, easy, and one of the best things that we have available on campus. I don't support them, I just wanna eat.
Vizzed Elite
The Reaper


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-09-11
Location: soxfan849
Last Post: 2691 days
Last Active: 2528 days

08-15-12 06:48 AM
Singelli is Offline
| ID: 634855 | 304 Words

Singelli
Level: 160


POSTS: 45/8698
POST EXP: 1189395
LVL EXP: 52880981
CP: 67331.7
VIZ: 3147678

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I think the whole Chik-fil-A thing was majorly overblown.  I think the media just saw a chance to rile people up and so they did.  Honestly everyone has the freedom to an opinion.  If the owner of a business thinks abortion is not okay, that doesn't change how effectively he runs his business or how good his food might taste.  I don't think it's a reason to boycott the food or send the guy hate mail.  There are -thousands- of businesses out there and I guarantee you there are many of them with the same opinion.  They simply aren't bold enough to express it to the public.

That being said, I have made personal decisions to boycott certain actors or companies because of the support they show for certain beliefs or because of something they have said to bash Christianity.  However, I don't make a big show of it or try and get the world to do as I do.  It's my own personal choice.  I don't want to support certain people or groups with my money if I know what they will do with my money and don't morally agree with it.  After all, if I wouldn't (for an extreme example) send money to a terrorist group, why would I give my money to someone who will pass that money on to the terrorist group?  Having the 'middle man' does nothing to stop the money's final destination.

I'm not going to bash a company when the owner of a company expresses something everyone in America has the right to express.  I'm against abortion, but even if he said he was pro-abortion, I'd still eat there.  As far as I'm aware, the money that goes to Chik-fil-A isn't used to promote his beliefs, and that makes all the difference in the world to me.
I think the whole Chik-fil-A thing was majorly overblown.  I think the media just saw a chance to rile people up and so they did.  Honestly everyone has the freedom to an opinion.  If the owner of a business thinks abortion is not okay, that doesn't change how effectively he runs his business or how good his food might taste.  I don't think it's a reason to boycott the food or send the guy hate mail.  There are -thousands- of businesses out there and I guarantee you there are many of them with the same opinion.  They simply aren't bold enough to express it to the public.

That being said, I have made personal decisions to boycott certain actors or companies because of the support they show for certain beliefs or because of something they have said to bash Christianity.  However, I don't make a big show of it or try and get the world to do as I do.  It's my own personal choice.  I don't want to support certain people or groups with my money if I know what they will do with my money and don't morally agree with it.  After all, if I wouldn't (for an extreme example) send money to a terrorist group, why would I give my money to someone who will pass that money on to the terrorist group?  Having the 'middle man' does nothing to stop the money's final destination.

I'm not going to bash a company when the owner of a company expresses something everyone in America has the right to express.  I'm against abortion, but even if he said he was pro-abortion, I'd still eat there.  As far as I'm aware, the money that goes to Chik-fil-A isn't used to promote his beliefs, and that makes all the difference in the world to me.
Vizzed Elite
Singelli


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-09-12
Location: Alabama
Last Post: 2499 days
Last Active: 2475 days

08-15-12 08:47 AM
AuraBlaze is Offline
| ID: 634868 | 172 Words

AuraBlaze
Level: 105


POSTS: 2686/3111
POST EXP: 208839
LVL EXP: 12038472
CP: 1452.2
VIZ: 92648

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
The thing about legislating morals is that they will only be followed by those who already agree with them or simply follow them until they believe they have a good reason to disregard such rules. The fact is, as I have learned from the ethics class I took this past spring, everyone is favor of law and morals until they believe it is harming them.



I understand these perspectives, but I do entirely agree with the meaning of them. On the issue of marriage, I believe it is defined as one man and one woman. I could list a number of reasons why it needs to stay this way --child rearing, , but I know all that is needed is some decent evidence to throw my arguments out the window. For me, it all boils down to following my beliefs in God. If I do not stand for God, then I place myself against Him.

As soxfan said, [personal freedom versus legislating morals] is more of a case by case basis.
The thing about legislating morals is that they will only be followed by those who already agree with them or simply follow them until they believe they have a good reason to disregard such rules. The fact is, as I have learned from the ethics class I took this past spring, everyone is favor of law and morals until they believe it is harming them.



I understand these perspectives, but I do entirely agree with the meaning of them. On the issue of marriage, I believe it is defined as one man and one woman. I could list a number of reasons why it needs to stay this way --child rearing, , but I know all that is needed is some decent evidence to throw my arguments out the window. For me, it all boils down to following my beliefs in God. If I do not stand for God, then I place myself against Him.

As soxfan said, [personal freedom versus legislating morals] is more of a case by case basis.
Vizzed Elite
Illegally Sane


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-23-11
Last Post: 1876 days
Last Active: 1333 days

08-15-12 03:06 PM
jasonkelli is Offline
| ID: 635009 | 405 Words

jasonkelli
Level: 23


POSTS: 9/98
POST EXP: 21298
LVL EXP: 63235
CP: 25.1
VIZ: 15783

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Everyone should have the right to speak their beliefs no matter what their beliefs are.  However, doing whatever you want under the guise of personal freedom is not permissible.

Here are the facts concerning homosexuality.  It was originally illegalized by our founding fathers.  It has only recently been legalized in some states (starting in the 1960's).  In 1986 Georgia's sodomy law was upheld.  It was not until 2003 that Texas' sodomy law was overturned.

At what point does it end?  At what point do we draw the line that says "these acts are too vile to allow people the freedom to do?"  Promiscuity and homosexuality are almost solely responsible for the spreading of AIDS in the western world.  AIDS can pass from person to person without sex.  If I am trying to save someone's life who is bleeding and I have a paper cut and they have aids (or I have aids) the person without AIDS can end up with AIDS.  So, performing acts known to spread or cause AIDS doesn't just affect you and the other person choosing to participate it also happens to individuals who choose not to live in those ways.  There have been many cases of the spreading of aids in hospitals due to the re-use of syringes (which hospitals are not supposed to do), or from cases like the example I stated in the preceding sentence.

Now, here is the point where personal freedom comes in.  We have the PERSONAL FREEDOM to put forth our PERSONAL VOTES to ensure that our nation has the laws we desire.  The laws that are established are based upon that Personal Freedom which is how we get to live by our personal freedoms.  The only way that my personal freedom is denied is when government forces a law against the will of the people.  For example, less than a third of the American population actually wanted universal healthcare which is why Nancy Pelosi and Obama and others flat out told the American people in speeches that we would learn to love the law and that it would be passed no matter what we wanted.

That is a restriction against our personal freedoms because our votes and those we voted in as representatives did not matter (especially since the passing of the bill was strategically planned to take place when they knew those who would vote against the bill would be unable to show up).

Everyone should have the right to speak their beliefs no matter what their beliefs are.  However, doing whatever you want under the guise of personal freedom is not permissible.

Here are the facts concerning homosexuality.  It was originally illegalized by our founding fathers.  It has only recently been legalized in some states (starting in the 1960's).  In 1986 Georgia's sodomy law was upheld.  It was not until 2003 that Texas' sodomy law was overturned.

At what point does it end?  At what point do we draw the line that says "these acts are too vile to allow people the freedom to do?"  Promiscuity and homosexuality are almost solely responsible for the spreading of AIDS in the western world.  AIDS can pass from person to person without sex.  If I am trying to save someone's life who is bleeding and I have a paper cut and they have aids (or I have aids) the person without AIDS can end up with AIDS.  So, performing acts known to spread or cause AIDS doesn't just affect you and the other person choosing to participate it also happens to individuals who choose not to live in those ways.  There have been many cases of the spreading of aids in hospitals due to the re-use of syringes (which hospitals are not supposed to do), or from cases like the example I stated in the preceding sentence.

Now, here is the point where personal freedom comes in.  We have the PERSONAL FREEDOM to put forth our PERSONAL VOTES to ensure that our nation has the laws we desire.  The laws that are established are based upon that Personal Freedom which is how we get to live by our personal freedoms.  The only way that my personal freedom is denied is when government forces a law against the will of the people.  For example, less than a third of the American population actually wanted universal healthcare which is why Nancy Pelosi and Obama and others flat out told the American people in speeches that we would learn to love the law and that it would be passed no matter what we wanted.

That is a restriction against our personal freedoms because our votes and those we voted in as representatives did not matter (especially since the passing of the bill was strategically planned to take place when they knew those who would vote against the bill would be unable to show up).

Member
Silence Accomplishes Naught


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-10-12
Last Post: 3725 days
Last Active: 3256 days

09-11-12 10:30 AM
Wakan Tanka is Offline
| ID: 651011 | 43 Words

Wakan Tanka
Level: 7

POSTS: 1/6
POST EXP: 178
LVL EXP: 968
CP: 22.0
VIZ: 6151

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
The anti defamation league has said that the new testament is ant Semitic and is full of hate speech
tell every one your Christian faith now can be deemed terrorist in nature look it up if you don't believe me at info wars
The anti defamation league has said that the new testament is ant Semitic and is full of hate speech
tell every one your Christian faith now can be deemed terrorist in nature look it up if you don't believe me at info wars
Newbie

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-09-12
Last Post: 4207 days
Last Active: 3456 days

09-11-12 11:03 AM
thenumberone is Offline
| ID: 651023 | 519 Words

thenumberone
Level: 143


POSTS: 4644/6365
POST EXP: 365694
LVL EXP: 35018835
CP: 4946.4
VIZ: 329756

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
The only basis for restricting what people can do is if it is causing harm.
Lets do a cross analysis.
How many people die from being gay?
How many people die from guns?
For the longest time, only one of those things was legal in the usa.
And from the former that occurs from hate crimes, or stds generally.
hate crimes arent there fault, and the diseases effect them.
A responsible gay would use contraception just like a responsible hetro individual, and you cant consider them a major threat to the public as they arent going to be getting with the women. As for infection via cuts etc, that applys to straight carriers too.
So apparently, guns are the ones that can harm others too, theres equal reason to ban them if your using the listed arguments against gays.


jasonkelli :

"Promiscuity and homosexuality are almost solely responsible for the spreading of AIDS in the western world"
That is flawed since 1, science suggests it originated in africa where, 1, being gay is illegal, and 2, so is sex out of marriage (generaly).
As for personal freedom to vote.
70% of people think blacks are inferio. we hold a vote. we decided to ban gays from touching whites. But thats ok because its what we want.
People with southern accents annoy me. We vote to ban those accents. Its ok because the majority votes for it.
Because the majority aproves something, that dosent mean rights arent being violated.

Fact is, people who disaprove of gay sex/ marriage, are a lot like people who dont like the violence on tv.
Theres the remote, watch something else. Something being there dosen't oblige anyone to partake.
There are all sorts of things on tv, i mean iv even come across god channels saying things i constitute as hate speech about gays, or atheists. I think theyre wrong, and retarded in the logic they use against them. But much like me, thats there opinion, i could report it to ofcom, who take action over these things, and lots of people do. But even if i agree with what the complaints say, i think its stupid. Yes, i think we'd be better without offensive speech, but unfortunately democracy is a 2 way street, you can do what you want on your side, but they can do the same on there way past you.


"now i am not anti christian, before you grab a rope,
there is beauty in religion, and joy and love and hope,
and we're all looking for the answer, this colossal cosmic cause,
but who the f**k are you to turn your views into my laws?"


@wakan Oh, and as an edit, being christian dosent make you a terrorist... that is a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of good people who are christian, as there are for muslims, hindus, jews, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, pagan etc.
Certainly there are parts of all religious texts that if followed id deem the individual to be a pretty bad person, like enslaving your neighbours, but most people ignore those bits, which im happily content with.
The only basis for restricting what people can do is if it is causing harm.
Lets do a cross analysis.
How many people die from being gay?
How many people die from guns?
For the longest time, only one of those things was legal in the usa.
And from the former that occurs from hate crimes, or stds generally.
hate crimes arent there fault, and the diseases effect them.
A responsible gay would use contraception just like a responsible hetro individual, and you cant consider them a major threat to the public as they arent going to be getting with the women. As for infection via cuts etc, that applys to straight carriers too.
So apparently, guns are the ones that can harm others too, theres equal reason to ban them if your using the listed arguments against gays.


jasonkelli :

"Promiscuity and homosexuality are almost solely responsible for the spreading of AIDS in the western world"
That is flawed since 1, science suggests it originated in africa where, 1, being gay is illegal, and 2, so is sex out of marriage (generaly).
As for personal freedom to vote.
70% of people think blacks are inferio. we hold a vote. we decided to ban gays from touching whites. But thats ok because its what we want.
People with southern accents annoy me. We vote to ban those accents. Its ok because the majority votes for it.
Because the majority aproves something, that dosent mean rights arent being violated.

Fact is, people who disaprove of gay sex/ marriage, are a lot like people who dont like the violence on tv.
Theres the remote, watch something else. Something being there dosen't oblige anyone to partake.
There are all sorts of things on tv, i mean iv even come across god channels saying things i constitute as hate speech about gays, or atheists. I think theyre wrong, and retarded in the logic they use against them. But much like me, thats there opinion, i could report it to ofcom, who take action over these things, and lots of people do. But even if i agree with what the complaints say, i think its stupid. Yes, i think we'd be better without offensive speech, but unfortunately democracy is a 2 way street, you can do what you want on your side, but they can do the same on there way past you.


"now i am not anti christian, before you grab a rope,
there is beauty in religion, and joy and love and hope,
and we're all looking for the answer, this colossal cosmic cause,
but who the f**k are you to turn your views into my laws?"


@wakan Oh, and as an edit, being christian dosent make you a terrorist... that is a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of good people who are christian, as there are for muslims, hindus, jews, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, pagan etc.
Certainly there are parts of all religious texts that if followed id deem the individual to be a pretty bad person, like enslaving your neighbours, but most people ignore those bits, which im happily content with.
Vizzed Elite
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-22-11
Last Post: 3382 days
Last Active: 3382 days

(edited by thenumberone on 09-11-12 11:06 AM)    

09-11-12 09:44 PM
TheNameWithNoNumbers is Offline
| ID: 651280 | 84 Words

Level: 41


POSTS: 150/359
POST EXP: 24675
LVL EXP: 445499
CP: 151.7
VIZ: 5451

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I personally belive that freedom is more important. Why pass Christianity based laws if there are no other religeous based laws in America?


But, as always, the majority swings the vote. thenumberone is right, it's not always the smartest choice, but we as a majority think it is, and so we are stuck with it.

It's like a child doing theft for fun. It's wrong in most ways, but in his mind, it's a fun, cool way to get things.
Therefore, he is content.
I personally belive that freedom is more important. Why pass Christianity based laws if there are no other religeous based laws in America?


But, as always, the majority swings the vote. thenumberone is right, it's not always the smartest choice, but we as a majority think it is, and so we are stuck with it.

It's like a child doing theft for fun. It's wrong in most ways, but in his mind, it's a fun, cool way to get things.
Therefore, he is content.
Perma Banned
QUALITY POSTER®, QUALITY MAKER®, QUALITY CONTENT®, UNTRADEMARKED QUALITY


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-30-12
Location: lodsaquality®
Last Post: 3440 days
Last Active: 3440 days

09-13-12 12:18 PM
Hoochman is Offline
| ID: 651911 | 94 Words

Hoochman
Level: 81

POSTS: 1641/1686
POST EXP: 65457
LVL EXP: 4965826
CP: 345.9
VIZ: 142432

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Regarding social issues, I really don't think the usual response "It doesn't affect me so I don't care". I think people should be very active in these kinds of issues. I think its a wrong way of think that we should just leave them alone for people to choose. I am aware that there are certain things that cannot be regulated. I understand it completely. Personally I think strong Morals mean a very healthy and flourishing culture and society. With that as the case, I think we ought to be very involved with them.
Regarding social issues, I really don't think the usual response "It doesn't affect me so I don't care". I think people should be very active in these kinds of issues. I think its a wrong way of think that we should just leave them alone for people to choose. I am aware that there are certain things that cannot be regulated. I understand it completely. Personally I think strong Morals mean a very healthy and flourishing culture and society. With that as the case, I think we ought to be very involved with them.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-25-10
Location: Minnesota
Last Post: 3214 days
Last Active: 550 days

09-19-12 12:56 PM
jasonkelli is Offline
| ID: 654911 | 1090 Words

jasonkelli
Level: 23


POSTS: 15/98
POST EXP: 21298
LVL EXP: 63235
CP: 25.1
VIZ: 15783

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
thenumberone:
jasonkelli :
"Promiscuity and homosexuality are almost solely responsible for the spreading of AIDS in the western world"
That is flawed since 1, science suggests it originated in africa where, 1, being gay is illegal, and 2, so is sex out of marriage (generaly).

Ok, if you think Promiscuity and homosexuality are not nearly the sole cause for the spread of AIDS in the western world then I must ask you what you think is?  Do you think you can get AIDS from Poison Ivy?  Perhaps you believe that shaking hands with someone who has AIDS can cause you to get it too.  Look into the science of it.  In order to get AIDS, you must have sex.  It is a proven fact that the more promiscuous your are the more likely you are to get AIDS from a sexual partner who has it (it's called the law of averages).

To say that homosexuality and promiscuity are illegal in Africa and therefore not the cause of its spread there has many flaws.  First, it assumes that Africa has African laws like America has American laws.  It's like saying that weed is illegal in North America. North America does not have laws.  It is a Continent and each nation in that Continent has its own laws.  It would also be a fallacy to claim that the United States has illegalized weed because there are conditions in which you can use it and in some cities/states the law is not enforced because those states have chosen they do not agree with it.

Now, Africa is a far more crazy reference for laws because unlike North America which constitutes only a few nations, Africa constitutes 47 different countries.  Considering that there are only around 196 nations in the whole world, you are making a widespread claim concerning 24% of the world's nations in a phrase that quite frankly treats them like they all fall under some single government.  And let's not forget that most African nations are not like our own.  While most do have governments/leaders that are recognized by the rest of the world to be leaders of those nations...African nations do not actually have a single leader and in many African nations the leader is not recognized by many (and in some nations most) of their population.  The African continent is still littered with tribes that do not adhere to national laws.  They have their own laws, their own borders, and do not recognize the authority or jurisdiction of territories as we find them on our globe/maps.  To put that simply, it would be like the whole world having America listed Canadian territory but we do not recognize that as true nor do we recognize or adhere to any rule of law passed by Canadian legislation.  We pass our own laws, control our own territories, etcetera with our very own map showing the United States as a completely separate and sovereign nation.

That being said, even if all 47 countries in Africa (24% of the world's nations) had individually illegalized homosexuality and promiscuity, the fact is that the majority of Africans do not recognize their own governments and many follow militant leaders who act in opposition to established and recognized leaders.  So, you would also have to know the laws enforced by each and every tribal leader and militant in order to say with any confidence that there is no place in Africa where promiscuity and homosexuality are legal.  Considering that promiscuity (and rape and homosexual activities and bestiality) are literally soaking in the religious traditions and lifestyles of African tribes...that would be an impossible statement to make.

Now, that we've proven that "Africa" is as general a term as say..."whites" we now know that to say homosexuality is illegal in Africa is as foolish as to say "white people are rich".  Not every white person on earth is rich...and most certainly not every African recognized nation/leader or every African militant rebel group or every African tribe has illegalized homosexuality.  Below is the facts about Africa and its laws concerning homosexuality:

In the following African nations, the recognized leadership has legalized homosexual acts:
Canary Islands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Cote d'lvoire
Guinea-Bissau (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Mali
Niger
Sierra Leon (illegal for males, but they did sign a UN declaration legalizing it for females...)
Ascension Island
Central African Republic (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Chad (legal since 1967 so you are way behind the times on your facts considering this nation)
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
Republic of the Congo
Saint Helena
São Tomé and Príncipe (a UN Declaration was signed that they would be legalizing it in 2011 however it is not yet known if they have)
Kenya (illegal for males, no laws illegalizing it for females)
Rwanda (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Madagascar
Mauritius (illegal for males, legal for females...UN Declaration signed concerning this fact)
ReUNION (since 1791 which was way before you were born so there is no excuse for you to have not have been able to find this out on your own)
Seychelles (illegal for males, legal for females UN Declaration signed and is currently planning to decriminalize for males as well)
Lesotho (illegal for males, legal for females)
Malawi (illegal for males, legal for females)
Mozambique
South Africa (it has always been legal for females here, has been legal for males since 1998. UN Declaration signed to this fact)
Swaziland (illegal for males, legal for females though a proposed law might illegalize it for females)
Zimbabwe (illegal for males, legal for females)

So, of the 47 recognized nations in Africa, 29 allow to at least one gender (or both) homosexuality activity.  That means that 62% of African nations do in fact allow homosexuality.  If your argument is to become that they do not recognized civil UNIONs or homosexual marriages then I have this to say.  Firstly, 3 of them do recognize either civil UNIONs or same-sex marriage.  Secondly, whether they allow homosexuals to marriage has no bearing on whether or not they allow homosexual activity...and the fact is...62% do allow homosexuality by either one or both genders.


So, your generalization was actually only 38% correct (and less than that because we aren't taking into account militant groups or tribes which practice homosexuality/bestiality/promiscuity as part of their rituals within the nations where it is illegal).  It's ok though, no one is perfect.  =)
thenumberone:
jasonkelli :
"Promiscuity and homosexuality are almost solely responsible for the spreading of AIDS in the western world"
That is flawed since 1, science suggests it originated in africa where, 1, being gay is illegal, and 2, so is sex out of marriage (generaly).

Ok, if you think Promiscuity and homosexuality are not nearly the sole cause for the spread of AIDS in the western world then I must ask you what you think is?  Do you think you can get AIDS from Poison Ivy?  Perhaps you believe that shaking hands with someone who has AIDS can cause you to get it too.  Look into the science of it.  In order to get AIDS, you must have sex.  It is a proven fact that the more promiscuous your are the more likely you are to get AIDS from a sexual partner who has it (it's called the law of averages).

To say that homosexuality and promiscuity are illegal in Africa and therefore not the cause of its spread there has many flaws.  First, it assumes that Africa has African laws like America has American laws.  It's like saying that weed is illegal in North America. North America does not have laws.  It is a Continent and each nation in that Continent has its own laws.  It would also be a fallacy to claim that the United States has illegalized weed because there are conditions in which you can use it and in some cities/states the law is not enforced because those states have chosen they do not agree with it.

Now, Africa is a far more crazy reference for laws because unlike North America which constitutes only a few nations, Africa constitutes 47 different countries.  Considering that there are only around 196 nations in the whole world, you are making a widespread claim concerning 24% of the world's nations in a phrase that quite frankly treats them like they all fall under some single government.  And let's not forget that most African nations are not like our own.  While most do have governments/leaders that are recognized by the rest of the world to be leaders of those nations...African nations do not actually have a single leader and in many African nations the leader is not recognized by many (and in some nations most) of their population.  The African continent is still littered with tribes that do not adhere to national laws.  They have their own laws, their own borders, and do not recognize the authority or jurisdiction of territories as we find them on our globe/maps.  To put that simply, it would be like the whole world having America listed Canadian territory but we do not recognize that as true nor do we recognize or adhere to any rule of law passed by Canadian legislation.  We pass our own laws, control our own territories, etcetera with our very own map showing the United States as a completely separate and sovereign nation.

That being said, even if all 47 countries in Africa (24% of the world's nations) had individually illegalized homosexuality and promiscuity, the fact is that the majority of Africans do not recognize their own governments and many follow militant leaders who act in opposition to established and recognized leaders.  So, you would also have to know the laws enforced by each and every tribal leader and militant in order to say with any confidence that there is no place in Africa where promiscuity and homosexuality are legal.  Considering that promiscuity (and rape and homosexual activities and bestiality) are literally soaking in the religious traditions and lifestyles of African tribes...that would be an impossible statement to make.

Now, that we've proven that "Africa" is as general a term as say..."whites" we now know that to say homosexuality is illegal in Africa is as foolish as to say "white people are rich".  Not every white person on earth is rich...and most certainly not every African recognized nation/leader or every African militant rebel group or every African tribe has illegalized homosexuality.  Below is the facts about Africa and its laws concerning homosexuality:

In the following African nations, the recognized leadership has legalized homosexual acts:
Canary Islands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Cote d'lvoire
Guinea-Bissau (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Mali
Niger
Sierra Leon (illegal for males, but they did sign a UN declaration legalizing it for females...)
Ascension Island
Central African Republic (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Chad (legal since 1967 so you are way behind the times on your facts considering this nation)
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
Republic of the Congo
Saint Helena
São Tomé and Príncipe (a UN Declaration was signed that they would be legalizing it in 2011 however it is not yet known if they have)
Kenya (illegal for males, no laws illegalizing it for females)
Rwanda (signed a UN declaration as to this fact)
Madagascar
Mauritius (illegal for males, legal for females...UN Declaration signed concerning this fact)
ReUNION (since 1791 which was way before you were born so there is no excuse for you to have not have been able to find this out on your own)
Seychelles (illegal for males, legal for females UN Declaration signed and is currently planning to decriminalize for males as well)
Lesotho (illegal for males, legal for females)
Malawi (illegal for males, legal for females)
Mozambique
South Africa (it has always been legal for females here, has been legal for males since 1998. UN Declaration signed to this fact)
Swaziland (illegal for males, legal for females though a proposed law might illegalize it for females)
Zimbabwe (illegal for males, legal for females)

So, of the 47 recognized nations in Africa, 29 allow to at least one gender (or both) homosexuality activity.  That means that 62% of African nations do in fact allow homosexuality.  If your argument is to become that they do not recognized civil UNIONs or homosexual marriages then I have this to say.  Firstly, 3 of them do recognize either civil UNIONs or same-sex marriage.  Secondly, whether they allow homosexuals to marriage has no bearing on whether or not they allow homosexual activity...and the fact is...62% do allow homosexuality by either one or both genders.


So, your generalization was actually only 38% correct (and less than that because we aren't taking into account militant groups or tribes which practice homosexuality/bestiality/promiscuity as part of their rituals within the nations where it is illegal).  It's ok though, no one is perfect.  =)
Member
Silence Accomplishes Naught


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-10-12
Last Post: 3725 days
Last Active: 3256 days

09-19-12 01:51 PM
thenumberone is Offline
| ID: 654918 | 198 Words

thenumberone
Level: 143


POSTS: 4680/6365
POST EXP: 365694
LVL EXP: 35018835
CP: 4946.4
VIZ: 329756

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
jasonkelli :
Ah, you are one of 'those' who thinks it originated in gays.
It originated in apes, scientists have found it in them. I should mention it would be african apes, no south american apes have been found to carry it.
No, in order to get it you must exchange bodily fluids, sex is just the most common means of contagion.
If you can find an african nation that accepts gays, show me. Hence, africa its ilegal.
Youre going on a tangent. We're not discusing world politics. In africa, being gay is a dangerous ocupation.
The inhabitants typicaly have a burning hatred of gays, they will co operate on that front.
Being in law means nothing. In south africa, they are quite fond of 'corrective rape.'
No one is openly gay there.
And promiscuity is not looked upon kindly there either.
Im aware no one is perfect, or you wouldnt be embarking on a baseless hate campaign of gays, and swinging off into a rant.
I supose your argument must support shaking hands geting aids though, because if gays are the cause, how else did straight people get it, are they in the habit of consuming human blood?
jasonkelli :
Ah, you are one of 'those' who thinks it originated in gays.
It originated in apes, scientists have found it in them. I should mention it would be african apes, no south american apes have been found to carry it.
No, in order to get it you must exchange bodily fluids, sex is just the most common means of contagion.
If you can find an african nation that accepts gays, show me. Hence, africa its ilegal.
Youre going on a tangent. We're not discusing world politics. In africa, being gay is a dangerous ocupation.
The inhabitants typicaly have a burning hatred of gays, they will co operate on that front.
Being in law means nothing. In south africa, they are quite fond of 'corrective rape.'
No one is openly gay there.
And promiscuity is not looked upon kindly there either.
Im aware no one is perfect, or you wouldnt be embarking on a baseless hate campaign of gays, and swinging off into a rant.
I supose your argument must support shaking hands geting aids though, because if gays are the cause, how else did straight people get it, are they in the habit of consuming human blood?
Vizzed Elite
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-22-11
Last Post: 3382 days
Last Active: 3382 days

09-19-12 03:45 PM
Kyle! is Offline
| ID: 654949 | 304 Words

Kyle!
BluemageKyle
Level: 81


POSTS: 289/1775
POST EXP: 83520
LVL EXP: 4957911
CP: 2563.5
VIZ: -131374

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
To be honest, I'm curious how this started in a Chick-fill-a. But anyways- In the Bible (Or at least mine, but I'm paraphrasing)it is stated God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve... It 's like as if 'Homosexuality' is like a loop-hole people thought of, now I wouldn't judge a 'gay' person- I just wouldn't be alone with him unless there were about a couple people with me. In some Christians' thoughts, they don't deserve to own property (Homes, apartments, and land in general), and say it is against God's word to do so. However lots of people (Including me) think that it's just a lifestyle, I have a 'Lesbian' cousin (She is like 8 years older than me- and I don't judge her, I learned how she was raised, and learned to treat her like family (Not just because we are somewhat related), but also like how any "ordinary" person should be treated... Now I have nothing at all against two men getting married, I have nothing against a Lesbian like my cousin be married to another woman. I just feel some people just judge since they can be so "different" the way they see it, so sometimes I feel debates like the one going on at a fast-food place where people eat their food- which only makes me wonder how of all the places to make a debate about 'gay' marriage they make a debate there. "Oh! Look at that state courthouse, or that city hall! Oh! There! That Chick-fill-a is a great place to make a debate about whether 'gay' people can own property! What do you think Steve?" "Sure! That's a great idea I'd never think of! Wait? Wont the people just trying to enjoy their meal mind?" "Nah, people will probably ignore us..." NOT IN GEEOGREE'S CASE!
To be honest, I'm curious how this started in a Chick-fill-a. But anyways- In the Bible (Or at least mine, but I'm paraphrasing)it is stated God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve... It 's like as if 'Homosexuality' is like a loop-hole people thought of, now I wouldn't judge a 'gay' person- I just wouldn't be alone with him unless there were about a couple people with me. In some Christians' thoughts, they don't deserve to own property (Homes, apartments, and land in general), and say it is against God's word to do so. However lots of people (Including me) think that it's just a lifestyle, I have a 'Lesbian' cousin (She is like 8 years older than me- and I don't judge her, I learned how she was raised, and learned to treat her like family (Not just because we are somewhat related), but also like how any "ordinary" person should be treated... Now I have nothing at all against two men getting married, I have nothing against a Lesbian like my cousin be married to another woman. I just feel some people just judge since they can be so "different" the way they see it, so sometimes I feel debates like the one going on at a fast-food place where people eat their food- which only makes me wonder how of all the places to make a debate about 'gay' marriage they make a debate there. "Oh! Look at that state courthouse, or that city hall! Oh! There! That Chick-fill-a is a great place to make a debate about whether 'gay' people can own property! What do you think Steve?" "Sure! That's a great idea I'd never think of! Wait? Wont the people just trying to enjoy their meal mind?" "Nah, people will probably ignore us..." NOT IN GEEOGREE'S CASE!
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-16-12
Last Post: 1231 days
Last Active: 498 days

09-19-12 06:05 PM
jasonkelli is Offline
| ID: 655072 | 97 Words

jasonkelli
Level: 23


POSTS: 16/98
POST EXP: 21298
LVL EXP: 63235
CP: 25.1
VIZ: 15783

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
thenumberone :
My post has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is immoral.  My post has to do with your baseless, false, and propoganda based post.  You claimed that homosexuality AND promiscuity are illegal in Africa.  I have proven that in 62% of African nations one or both Genders are permitted to engage in homosexual behavior.  Don't try to redirect the conversation to being about the morality of homosexuality just because you want to hide the fact that your statement was 62% false.  Redirection doesn't work with me...try checking out your claims before you post them.
thenumberone :
My post has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is immoral.  My post has to do with your baseless, false, and propoganda based post.  You claimed that homosexuality AND promiscuity are illegal in Africa.  I have proven that in 62% of African nations one or both Genders are permitted to engage in homosexual behavior.  Don't try to redirect the conversation to being about the morality of homosexuality just because you want to hide the fact that your statement was 62% false.  Redirection doesn't work with me...try checking out your claims before you post them.
Member
Silence Accomplishes Naught


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-10-12
Last Post: 3725 days
Last Active: 3256 days

09-19-12 06:41 PM
thenumberone is Offline
| ID: 655090 | 71 Words

thenumberone
Level: 143


POSTS: 4682/6365
POST EXP: 365694
LVL EXP: 35018835
CP: 4946.4
VIZ: 329756

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
jasonkelli :
Haha, propaganda.
I tell you what, go to africa, yell, i am gay, and if you live,come tell me about it.
If you want to hate based on a book go ahead, but unless you have evidence that gays created aids (shakes head) and somehow infected straight people, then this conversation is over.
Moral laws based on faith, are discriminitority. Such laws only serve to divide people and cause hate.

jasonkelli :
Haha, propaganda.
I tell you what, go to africa, yell, i am gay, and if you live,come tell me about it.
If you want to hate based on a book go ahead, but unless you have evidence that gays created aids (shakes head) and somehow infected straight people, then this conversation is over.
Moral laws based on faith, are discriminitority. Such laws only serve to divide people and cause hate.

Vizzed Elite
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-22-11
Last Post: 3382 days
Last Active: 3382 days

09-19-12 06:45 PM
Kyle! is Offline
| ID: 655091 | 72 Words

Kyle!
BluemageKyle
Level: 81


POSTS: 294/1775
POST EXP: 83520
LVL EXP: 4957911
CP: 2563.5
VIZ: -131374

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
thenumberone : I highly doubt Jason will make it back without at least no arms,legs,eyes, or all of these together! RUN JASON RUN! (Me:"Forrest Gump moment ..." Random guy:"Who the hell is Forrest Gump?!" Me:"SHUT UP! YOU ARE RUINING THE MOMENT! FORREST GUMP IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER WHO WAS IN A BOOK ORIGINALLY AND THEN IN A MOVIE VERSION TOM HANK WAS HIS ACTOR! Have you no shame for not knowing that movie?!")
thenumberone : I highly doubt Jason will make it back without at least no arms,legs,eyes, or all of these together! RUN JASON RUN! (Me:"Forrest Gump moment ..." Random guy:"Who the hell is Forrest Gump?!" Me:"SHUT UP! YOU ARE RUINING THE MOMENT! FORREST GUMP IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER WHO WAS IN A BOOK ORIGINALLY AND THEN IN A MOVIE VERSION TOM HANK WAS HIS ACTOR! Have you no shame for not knowing that movie?!")
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-16-12
Last Post: 1231 days
Last Active: 498 days

09-19-12 06:49 PM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 655098 | 44 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 19635/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420150356
CP: 52474.2
VIZ: 528748

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
can we chill out with the homosexuality in Africa arguments? I only referenced gay marriage as a starting point for this. The issue is not homosexuality but whether or not the government should legislate our morals. Gay marriage is simply one facet of that.
can we chill out with the homosexuality in Africa arguments? I only referenced gay marriage as a starting point for this. The issue is not homosexuality but whether or not the government should legislate our morals. Gay marriage is simply one facet of that.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 91 days
Last Active: 10 hours

09-19-12 06:57 PM
Kyle! is Offline
| ID: 655104 | 8 Words

Kyle!
BluemageKyle
Level: 81


POSTS: 297/1775
POST EXP: 83520
LVL EXP: 4957911
CP: 2563.5
VIZ: -131374

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
geeogree : I never said anything about Africa thankfully...
geeogree : I never said anything about Africa thankfully...
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-16-12
Last Post: 1231 days
Last Active: 498 days

09-19-12 09:10 PM
play4fun is Offline
| ID: 655187 | 274 Words

play4fun
Level: 114


POSTS: 581/3661
POST EXP: 459253
LVL EXP: 16222699
CP: 21496.5
VIZ: 781220

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Anyways...back on topic.

I think that line between freedom vs legislated morals is very hard to define. At this point, I don't think one can say in general "morals should be legislated" or "people should be have the freedom to do right or wrong." It could be dependent on what you are talking about.

It is important to note that what a person chooses to support as law would be consistent to what one believes to be morally right or morally wrong when it comes to morals. So if I believe homosexuality lifestyle is morally wrong, it would be consistent in my belief to support a law against homosexuality, or at the very least, be against the formation of a law supporting homosexuality.

Then again, there is also the limitations on laws set by government in that some of them are hard to enforce, which is probably why some laws are not formed. For example, I believe that it is morally wrong to look at a woman to lust. Now you can try to make laws against pornography (which I'm sure there are such laws, but not to the point of prohibition), but one can't make laws that enforces the prevention of someone lusting after a woman that is not your wife. It's hard to do so when that is in your mind.

It could also depend on the possibility that one could stumble or struggle in a certain sin that making a law and consequence against that sin would actually be counter productive in not doing that sin.

(This post is my quick initial thoughts and is not the final position of mine)
Anyways...back on topic.

I think that line between freedom vs legislated morals is very hard to define. At this point, I don't think one can say in general "morals should be legislated" or "people should be have the freedom to do right or wrong." It could be dependent on what you are talking about.

It is important to note that what a person chooses to support as law would be consistent to what one believes to be morally right or morally wrong when it comes to morals. So if I believe homosexuality lifestyle is morally wrong, it would be consistent in my belief to support a law against homosexuality, or at the very least, be against the formation of a law supporting homosexuality.

Then again, there is also the limitations on laws set by government in that some of them are hard to enforce, which is probably why some laws are not formed. For example, I believe that it is morally wrong to look at a woman to lust. Now you can try to make laws against pornography (which I'm sure there are such laws, but not to the point of prohibition), but one can't make laws that enforces the prevention of someone lusting after a woman that is not your wife. It's hard to do so when that is in your mind.

It could also depend on the possibility that one could stumble or struggle in a certain sin that making a law and consequence against that sin would actually be counter productive in not doing that sin.

(This post is my quick initial thoughts and is not the final position of mine)
Vizzed Elite
I wanna live like there's no tomorrow/Love, like I'm on borrowed time/It's good to be alive


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-22-09
Location: Quincy, MA
Last Post: 2496 days
Last Active: 2425 days

09-20-12 12:42 PM
Wakan Tanka is Offline
| ID: 655413 | 51 Words

Wakan Tanka
Level: 7

POSTS: 5/6
POST EXP: 178
LVL EXP: 968
CP: 22.0
VIZ: 6151

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0

TheNameWithNoNumbers :   Look if you want to be gay be gay it's your right as a human bieng but  why are lesbians called lesbians and men are called homosexual arn't they both gay either way you look at . another thing is that religion is some what the main reason behind wars


TheNameWithNoNumbers :   Look if you want to be gay be gay it's your right as a human bieng but  why are lesbians called lesbians and men are called homosexual arn't they both gay either way you look at . another thing is that religion is some what the main reason behind wars

Newbie

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-09-12
Last Post: 4207 days
Last Active: 3456 days

09-20-12 02:54 PM
The Planned Accident is Offline
| ID: 655485 | 84 Words

Level: 55


POSTS: 586/704
POST EXP: 38999
LVL EXP: 1272294
CP: 2207.0
VIZ: 30122

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
My personal opinion on this matter is the fact that people should be able to choose. Personal choice is important to me. People who try to dictate others' actions when it's not even any of their business, well, that's just mean. It's like me going up to a 6 year old and making them do whatever I want. Why would I do that? I wouldn't. My point is, if people want to be homosexual, let them. It's really not that big of a deal.
My personal opinion on this matter is the fact that people should be able to choose. Personal choice is important to me. People who try to dictate others' actions when it's not even any of their business, well, that's just mean. It's like me going up to a 6 year old and making them do whatever I want. Why would I do that? I wouldn't. My point is, if people want to be homosexual, let them. It's really not that big of a deal.
Trusted Member


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-16-11
Location: I don't know.
Last Post: 3040 days
Last Active: 587 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×