what would you spend 369 million on?

[ThePixelGuru]

I see the difference. My point is the argument used is that the DNA validates the lifestyle. If the DNA validates the lifestyle then the DNA also validates the pedophillia lifestyle also. Whether you like it or not.

I never said DNA validated homosexuality. I could personally care less if it's nature, nurture or choice, it doesn't hurt anyone regardless.

My argument against the gay lifestyle is very similar to your argument against pedophillia. You simply choose to not see it that way.

No, because my argument against pedophilia hinges on the ability to give informed consent. Children cannot give informed consent, homosexual adults can. Pedophilia harms children who are too young to understand the whole situation, while homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Even if you believe it does, it doesn't matter. If an individual capable of giving informed consent wants to cause harm to themselves (or a group of people all give informed consent to harm themselves), I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to prevent that.

A man who commits suicide is a consenting adult. Yet it is still illegal. Why? He is old enough to make those choices for himself, & he isn't harming others.

And I think it's appalling that a practice that's considered humane and an act of mercy to relieve the suffering of our pets is illegal to perform on people. You can humanely kill a pet suffering of a terminal illness, yet the "right" thing to do with people is just let it drag on to its inevitable end, however painful and terrible. I don't see the logic in that.



"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

[Hilltop Customs]

And I think it's appalling that a practice that's considered humane and an act of mercy to relieve the suffering of our pets is illegal to perform on people. You can humanely kill a pet suffering of a terminal illness, yet the "right" thing to do with people is just let it drag on to its inevitable end, however painful and terrible. I don't see the logic in that.

After watching my dad suffer from pancreatic cancer I wish he had that option open to him. After he passed away my mother told me that they had a discussion about taking enough liquid morphine to end it, but one of the major factors that kept my dad from doing it was insurance.... If someone is suffering that bad they should have a choice to do whatever they want, limiting their options is just inhumane.

[Army]

Closed, for all the obvious reasons.