• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Student kills himself after gay sex footage put online

I found this mildly humorous. To go to this length over a prank like this is ludicrous. It's a red herring to place an inch of blame on these two kids, because if a kid is that emotional and irrational, it was just a matter of time until something drove him over the edge.

My sympathy cup is empty for this kid.

Your indulgence of wickedness is noted.

The student could have had personal reasons for not wanting to be known as gay, perhaps while he grandparents were still alive or anything to that effect. These two had no right to strain his values by violating his privacy, at and best they did so out of ignorance (although even then, there can be malevolence in ignorance). I'm willing to say that their family or society should have made a deep investment in their moral education, but not to say they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't criminalize being gay. Try again.

Yeah it does. If you have been found to have committed sodomy while in service in the military then you will be arrested, charged, and prosectuted.
 
Yeah it does. If you have been found to have committed sodomy while in service in the military then you will be arrested, charged, and prosectuted.

No it doesn't criminalize being gay. It criminalizes breaking the military code of conduct which is a completely voluntary engagement since we don't have forced military service. And even then, it doesn't even require that you abstain from the act, only that you keep it discreet and not mix it with your military life.

Can you point to any examples of DADT resulting in prosecution? It was my understanding that it simply led to administrative discharge. And that's only when it's actually used.
 
No it doesn't criminalize being gay. It criminalizes breaking the military code of conduct which is a completely voluntary engagement since we don't have forced military service. And even then, it doesn't even require that you abstain from the act, only that you keep it discreet and not mix it with your military life.

Can you point to any examples of DADT resulting in prosecution? It was my understanding that it simply led to administrative discharge. And that's only when it's actually used.

As far as I know, they are all technically prosecutions. Some have been discharged simply for having a same sex marriage certificate.

How about the Stonewall riots?
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, they are all technically prosecutions. Some have been discharged simply for having a same sex marriage certificate.

That would be a direct violation of the code of conduct so I can see why they were discharged for it.

How about the Stonewall riots?

What about them? They were in 1969 and marked the beginning of the gay rights movement. It's not like they are really all that applicable to the state of gay rights today.

So again...can you point to any examples in the last thirty years that show a systematic, state sponsored prosecution of gays or not? You showed two isolated incidents that resulted in the overturning of sodomy laws....that's it. I am not really buying into this "gays are still victims" song and dance. At least not any more than any other group of people.

How about we make instances of victimization about the particular victim and perps rather than about group identities?
 
Hey, I'm straight and committed sodomy with my wife multiple times over the past week.

Guess that makes me gay since apparently sodomy = gay since sodomy laws = gay is illegal.
 
Hey, I'm straight and committed sodomy with my wife multiple times over the past week.

Guess that makes me gay since apparently sodomy = gay since sodomy laws = gay is illegal.

You did what with her grass? :shock:
 
No it doesn't criminalize being gay. It criminalizes breaking the military code of conduct which is a completely voluntary engagement since we don't have forced military service. And even then, it doesn't even require that you abstain from the act, only that you keep it discreet and not mix it with your military life.

Can you point to any examples of DADT resulting in prosecution? It was my understanding that it simply led to administrative discharge. And that's only when it's actually used.

Your interpretation would make sense. . . however . . .

If someone sees you - off duty - in another town - on a date with your gay partner and kissing - and they take a photo and proove it - you can get booted for that.
It doesn't have to be *on duty* - it doesn't have to be *on base* - it doesn't have to even be *in uniform* or anything.
If you - at any time - are discovered to be 'doing something gay' - you can get the boot.

You can get the boot for what you did BEFORE you joined, as well.

Very FEW people actually *violated* DADT's code - some people are "discovered" through some nosy **** ONLINE or - or as is the example I gave: on the weekend OUT OF TOWN and no where near 'duty' at all. So - the act *says* "Don't ASK Don't TELL" - but you don't need to be asked and you don't need to tell . . . you just need to be discovered, spied or snooped on.

If person A is in the military - and person B is not in the military.
Person A doesn't tell or is never discovered - but someone who knows person B (at their school, for example) figures out that person B is involved with military person A - then the person who makes that discovery/connection can anonymously turn in person A without *ever* even meeting them.
And person A can get the boot.

So DADT is misleading title.
The entire act is frequently abused and a bunch of bull**** - a great way for non-military homophobes to exact some sort of personal deviant revenge on hard working citizens.

It's twisted and wrong.

Now - if these situations I've mentioned *didn't actually EVER* happen - then it would be a different story and your view of it would be more on target.
But you're way off base with how you think it really pans out.
 
Last edited:
What a sad loss. I wish the best for his family as I personally know they are have a terrible time dealing with this.

You personally know them?
 
History of sodomy laws

It happens in other countries as well, there are places you can get your head cut off for being gay.

there are places you can get your head cut off for being a christian as well, but I don't seem you whining about them needing special protection.
 
Yeah - that's true.
And in other places you can be severely punished just for being in the presence of a man who's not a member of your own family.

Or caught and dismembered because you're an albino.
 
As far as I know, they are all technically prosecutions. Some have been discharged simply for having a same sex marriage certificate.

How about the Stonewall riots?


try Army Reg 600-9....you can be prosecuted and discharged for being fat.

if your arguement is that DADT is an example of how it is illegal to be gay, then AR 600-9 is equal proof of how it is illegal to be fat
 
Your interpretation would make sense. . . however . . .

If someone sees you - off duty - in another town - on a date with your gay partner and kissing - and they take a photo and proove it - you can get booted for that.
It doesn't have to be *on duty* - it doesn't have to be *on base* - it doesn't have to even be *in uniform* or anything.
If you - at any time - are discovered to be 'doing something gay' - you can get the boot.

You can get the boot for what you did BEFORE you joined, as well.

Very FEW people actually *violated* DADT's code - some people are "discovered" through some nosy **** ONLINE or - or as is the example I gave: on the weekend OUT OF TOWN and no where near 'duty' at all. So - the act *says* "Don't ASK Don't TELL" - but you don't need to be asked and you don't need to tell . . . you just need to be discovered, spied or snooped on.

If person A is in the military - and person B is not in the military.
Person A doesn't tell or is never discovered - but someone who knows person B (at their school, for example) figures out that person B is involved with military person A - then the person who makes that discovery/connection can anonymously turn in person A without *ever* even meeting them.
And person A can get the boot.

So DADT is misleading title.
The entire act is frequently abused and a bunch of bull**** - a great way for non-military homophobes to exact some sort of personal deviant revenge on hard working citizens.

It's twisted and wrong.

Now - if these situations I've mentioned *didn't actually EVER* happen - then it would be a different story and your view of it would be more on target.
But you're way off base with how you think it really pans out.

Uh, no. In order to violate DADT, you have to, in some public fashion, admit to or provide evidence of your homosexuality. Simply being at a gay bar or having someone shoot a photo of you is not enough. It may launch an investigation, but there are certain codes that have to be followed by the command in order to not violate DADT themselves. For instance, being seen going into or leaving a gay bar does not constitute a violation of DADT. However, having a same sex marriage certificate does as it is a public admission. Having a jilted ex lover report you usually doesn't result in a DADT discharge, however, having a public profile on a gay dating site will.

It's really hard to actually get discharged for DADT. And that's even when anyone cares at all.
 
OK, so you guys found two instances where the charges were dropped in one case and overturned in another along with repeal of the anti-sodomy law that wasn't widely enforced anyway.

I'm not finding that to be a shining endorsement of the "it's illegal to be gay" argument. Not at all.

Even in those cases its not illegal to "be gay" its illegal to engage in anal sex, and was so regardless of the genders of those involved.

With those anti-sodomy laws, it was also illegal for me to plug my wife in the ass.
 
Yeah it does. If you have been found to have committed sodomy while in service in the military then you will be arrested, charged, and prosectuted.

Again, Sodomy is not restricted to male/male gays only.

Also, how does that cover female/female gays sex acts?
 
The problem with "homosexuality has not been criminalized in the last 30 years" is because even before that it was largely treated as a mental illness. As such, criminalizing homosexuality would have been viewed like criminalizing insanity. It just wouldn't make sense.

And to be fair, nobody is arguing that being fat is a mental illness, but people are still arguing that being gay is.
 
The problem with "homosexuality has not been criminalized in the last 30 years" is because even before that it was largely treated as a mental illness. As such, criminalizing homosexuality would have been viewed like criminalizing insanity. It just wouldn't make sense.

And to be fair, nobody is arguing that being fat is a mental illness, but people are still arguing that being gay is.

Have you ever heard me expand upon my beliefs about what causes fatness? :lol:
 
Have you ever heard me expand upon my beliefs about what causes fatness? :lol:

Perfectly happy, functional people get fat, just as perfectly happy, functional people are gay. Neither is the result of nor caused by mental illness.

You can't fault people just because they have a strong preference to food or a strong preference to the same sex.
 
Last edited:
Perfectly happy, functional people get fat, just as perfectly happy, functional people are gay. Neither is the result of nor caused by mental illness.

You can't fault people just because they have a strong preference to food or a strong preference to the same sex.

I don't think food is so much a preference as it is a need. However, when that need becomes a form of recreation that eventually becomes what kills you, there is a mental dysfunction going on there.

I'll go on record as saying next to asian women drivers, fat people are at the top of my prejudices. I see a fat person (and by fat, I mean fat. not just a little meaty but fat) and all I can see is a person of little discipline, slovenly attention to their own body, and too lazy to care about their own health. Basically, I see a distended, bloated meat sack filled with issues, baggage, and poor character. I also have an extreme aversion to poor hygeine and I see allowing oneself to become fat as the most blunt expression of it. People who get winded heaving their ponderous bulks in and out of the shower each day cannot possibly reach around their own girth to thoroughly clean their bodies. Add to that the fact that residual moisture trapped between folds of what may as well be lifeless flesh is a breeding ground for all manner of bacteria, molds and funguses. It's why fat people reek of a sickening mixture of rotted vegetation and talcum powder. My stomach turns when I think about what lies beneath the surface roundness of their bodies and swims between the pendulous folds of skin.

I also see waste when I look on a fat person. I see an expression of overconsumption in everything from the obvious question of how much food they have to scarf down each day to maintain that kind of corpulence to how much extra fabric it took to cover their bulbous asses. How much extra water does it take when they attempt to bathe their mildewing flaps of flesh? I even think about the drain on their gas mileage when trying to transport all that extra weight. I think about the drain on medical resources keeping their heart going despite the fact that it is being slowly choked, straining against a blanket of lard and grissle for each pump before it finally gives up and sputters out from exhaustion, having had enough of swimming in grease and slime.

And don't even get me started about how disdainful I become when I see a fat person smoking.

But, all that aside, we live in a free country and everyone should have the right make whatever decisions they wish about their own bodies. And they have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their lives without being attacked at random. If I believed in hate crimes legislation, I would say add them to it. If I believed in hate crimes legislation...
 
I can see is a person of little discipline, slovenly attention to their own body, and too lazy to care about their own health.

I'm all of those things and I'm not fat. :mrgreen:

But after your interesting description I'm feeling a little more motivated to take that 6 mile walk I had planned for today. :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom