Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

It ain't locked, and there's no obituary, so I'm leaning towards no.

You've blinded yourself by your cause.

What you have done was rationalized and accepted "irrational" thoughts. A woman who whores herself out is not viewed the same way as a woman that is not. If you gave a person a choice to either hug A) the local street walker hooker or B) Ms. Wilson the English teacher, I would bet that most people would choose B and not touch A with a 10 foot pole.

Why does anyone care who she sleeps with? For all we know, Ms. Wilson could be a bigger ***** than the local street walker. Do you start calling people a "*****-a-phobe"? So, why do people choose B? They choose B because of the "what you don't know, wont hurt you" philosophy. That's exactly why DADT is still effective even though there exist homosexuals already in the military.

Ms. Wilson can be the praise of the school, but the second word gets out that's she's a sexual freak, then her job is in jeopardy.

There is no difference. Society has ALWAYS had laws and views when it comes to sex.

Wrong. I've said that just because one person presents a terribly flawed argument for a given position does not mean that said position is wrong. I've said that if two people present different arguments with the same conclusion and one of them is reasonable and logical and the other is unreasonable and illogical, that while arguing against the latter may make you feel better, it does not disprove the conclusion. To do that, you have to argue against the strongest argument presented.

Can you explain (again?) why you assume people will want to hug Ms. Wilson.

Have you seen Ms. Wilson?

THANK YOU...

It's no use. They will always use the "Against the law" when you refer to other things, but then turn around and fight to CHANGE THE RULES and LAWS (i.e. DADT, Marriage laws, etc) when it's in favor of them. Total contradictory. We create the laws, we can change them and the fact that it's illegal has nothing to do with your moral objections. Under that philosophy, you would be against anyone who violates any crime, i.e. jay walking or having bootleg movies, songs and games, because we all know NO ONE downloads illegal media.



The discussion wasn't over if you thought it were bad or not, but whether or not you would want to be around that person and ignore the fact of what they are doing.

I've rationalized and accepted "irrational" thoughts? I feel like you're not really taking the journey with me, here. Let's try again.

Hey, there are rational reasons that you might not want to hug a hypothetical hooker. Maybe she's poor, and looks dirty and sketchy as a consequence. Maybe you're a politician and the social fallout would ruin your career. But hey, show someone an attractive, amicable, high-class hooker, and I'd wager some would pick her over the teacher, anyway.

We're in that situation again, where you start picking around for analogies, and all of them are imbued with a negative quality that homosexuals don't share. Homosexuals are not akin to hookers or pedophiles. Find me a rational reason that you don't condone homosexuality, and then we'll talk. Actually, we probably won't talk. But theoretically, that's where you'd have to start.

Edited, Nov 29th 2011 4:02pm by Eske

If only being black, a woman, handicap, etc. were reputations.



It's all subjective! We have various laws of consent around the world and even within a single country. You can go to jail from sleeping with a person of one age but be perfectly ok in another state. If it were objective, we wouldn't have varying laws.

If your argument is that DADT should still be in place because subjectively at one point we criminalized it, then tough shit because at one point humans not only tolerated it, they encouraged homosexual behavior. So now that we're at the end of that particularly stupid dead end road, let's see how fast the idiot drives into something trying to argue against it.

Pheww.. good thing that wasn't my argument. I was merely countering a stupid argument. I'm glad that you see the dumbness in his arguments as well.



So, now you support prejudice? It's ok to prejudge someone based on previous experiences of other people? Please explain to me how that can't be applied to homosexuality? Are you suggesting that people preserve judgement on whores and prostitutes unless they have encountered them? Really? really?



Please explain the difference. How is it ok to judge someone based on their sexual behavior but not someone else?

Edited, Nov 30th 2011 12:40am by Almalieque

Easy, homosexuals are consenting adults. Next question.



Personally I don't think prostitution should be illegal. It should be legalised, regulated (with mandatory health checks etcetera) and taxed.

No one's arguing that it should be illegal to be homosexual either. He's talking about personal judgment, not legality. If I were to say that skat-play is disgusting, no one would call me a bigot. But if I were to say that homosexual sex is disgusting, many would. Pretty arbitrarily subjective, isn't it?



I agree. To bring it back to the semi-legal aspect of something like DADT, how many people would think it's unfair or some violation of someones sexuality if they were discharged from the military for unbecoming conduct for disclosing publicly that they engage in skat-play? You may be discharged for any activity or behavior, even while off duty, which reflects poorly on the uniform and the armed forces, right? If you'd like, I could proceed to list off increasingly less acceptable sexual activities (even just involving consenting adults) to make this point, but hopefully you can imagine where I'm going so we don't have to go there.

The point is that we do make such judgments. And those judgments are somewhat arbitrary. And I don't think it's at all unreasonable to apply a slippery slope argument here for exactly that reason. As we convince ourselves to be more accepting of different things, the bar for what can be judged "unacceptable" keeps moving. We can call that good, or bad, but I think we ought to at least acknowledge that this process does happen. We see this in all forms of media over time. Things that were risque a half century ago are downright quaint today. We do keep pushing the boundaries of good taste here. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Hell, I'm a hedonist. I'd love to live in a world where everyone walks around semi-naked and fucking in public is as common as a handshake. Hopefully, they'll have invented some sort of serum to make everyone perfect and beautiful in this magical future wonderland, but that's sorta beside the point. Despite my personal opinions though, I do respect those who do think different and argue against continuing this process. I don't sit around and pretend that one thing wont lead to another. Because if we're honest, we damn well know that it will. Just because I have nutty ideas about where I'd like our sexual mores to go doesn't mean that I justify lying in order to trick people into getting there.

There should be a lot of things legalized, regulated and taxed, and prostitution is one of them.