Lol. You say this and then immediately, when I retort that "Your definition of freedom is based entirely around your religious beliefs and it is your justification as to why you are supposedly not anti-freedom. "
You say:
Talk about doublespeak.
Why do I have to keep explaining to you why you're an idiot?
My definition of freedom stems from my relationship with the Creator of the universe. It does not logically follow that my reasoning for wanting sexual deviants to be punished as criminals is based upon that.
No, you said you wouldn't use your definition of freedom either judicially or legislatively. Does that mean you would have to concede to other definitions of freedom when making your case?
There are no other definitions of freedom.
Uh, no. This illustrates my query that you don't understand totalitarianism at all. Totalitarianism as I said involves the direct legislation of people's private lives by the state. Murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, child pornography are not private actions - they directly impact on the lives of others.
And I have repeatedly told you, and your ilk, that this isn't about private practices. It is about the public impact of said practices when they do not stay private, which they never do.
I suspect they could all manage to not have sexual intercourse for a month. The point of shortening the time limit is?
:bang:
It is not solely about sexual intercourse.
And the shortening of the time limit is to make the case that they are salves to their immorality.
Homosexuality simply describes the attraction to your own gender and fornication simply means consensual sexual intercourse between two consenting adults. What else could fornication describe, precisely?
Context, moron.
I did not solely mention fornication. This is about fornication, homosexuality and pornography. I recognize I failed to mention the latter in the original question, so I would like to add it now.
And homosexual acts are the subject in that regard, not same sex attraction.
Could these people go a month without viewing anything pornographic, or using anything that may not be defined as pornography for the same purpose as pornography? Could they go just as long, at the same time, without sexual intercourse? Could they also go without any romantic or erotic activity? Etc.
And there we go - your discreet nod towards totalitarianism again. The system should help clear up dysfunctional families that fall apart if their children are in danger of reaping the consequences, but I certainly won't hear any talk of execution or direct control over their sex lives.
Your fingers must be covered in ear wax.
Nope. They are not detrimental in and of themselves to society.
How are they not?
Not for the couple in the open relationship. Their pursuit of happiness may partly involve their open relationship. Their liberty involves their freedom of that relationship. The notion of 'pursuit of happiness' describes everyone's happiness, Lighthouse - not just yours.
You are a fool if you believe them to be happy. If they were happy they would be happy with each other.
And I await you to bother backing any of your claims up that they do.
You've already demonstrated the truth about adultery in this regard. Pornography has the same effect, for the same reasons, in marriages anyway. And is otherwise detrimental even to those who are in no relationship. Often causing problems in even obtaining a relationship, even causing one to not even seek a real relationship.
As for homosexuality is it more likely to lead to life [i.e.childbirth] or death?
And fornication diminishes the ultimate expression of love that is between a husband and wife.
