Nope, no states in the UK - though it is, as the name "United Kingdom" suggests, made up of several different countries. Two are self-governing, whilst Wales is a principality subordinate to Westminster. (There's a referendum in March which potentially will allow the Assembly greater lawmaking powers, so fingers crossed.)

This happened in England though, so yeah.

@Phil: If he's too weak minded or whatever to give someone permission to have sex with him, how does he have the wherewithal to decide he's gay? And as to the nymphomania thing. Have you ever had an addiction that was strong? You don't have a choice, or at least you don't see it if you do. ...This is completely unrelated, but are you from somewhere not the U.S. Because here almost any shrink will tell you you're gay if you've ever questioned it. Then again that depends on where you are too.

And I must ask you. Why would you want anyone controlling your sex life, other than you? I only said his family and or shrink, because traditionally family has been in control of such things. No one should really control it for you.

@Lorika: I live in the U.S. and I would never want my federal government to control me that way. Though I was told that each area in the UK had a separate governor, or rep with the federal government?

The thing is in this case that governments always move the way of more control, if you let them. They won't stop here. You can be sure of it.

Well, no, because there's no "Federal" government here. Federal government refers specifically to countries like the US, where many partially self-governing states are united overall in a federation.

Here in the UK, our central government is the parliament in Westminster. We ARE split into counties, which are a bit like states but not really, more like parish areas, with no distinctions in laws or anything between them. In national elections, representatives from the different parties stand for the ability to become Members of Parliament and travel to represent their county in the central government.

In theory this should mean that the person you vote for is representing your interests, but because the ruling party is determined by the number of seats more often than not people just vote for the representative of whichever party they want to see in power, rather than the actual person - or "governor" as you called them. There are also smaller-scale elections for county and town councils, which make decisions on day-to-day things and, since this is a welfare state, run things like the local hospitals and libraries and all. If you want a job at any of these places you apply directly to the council rather than the individual establishment, stating the position you want.

Then here in Wales there's the National Assembly, which in theory makes decisions on behalf of all of Wales, but in practise... I don't really know what they do. They can't really do anything, because they have to submit all proposals to central government in London, and it may take months or years for them to get around to "the Welsh thing." Some of it is even tactically blocked by English MPs. That's why the voting in March is so important, even though it hasn't been publicised much - again, a tactical thing. If the referendum passes with enough votes, the Assembly will have actual lawmaking powers. I can see why a lot of people would be afraid of that (for several different reasons).

Also, I don't know about in England, i.e all the places closer to London, but down here we never actually see our elected MP or anything. They head off to pastures greener to swim with the big fishes in the House of Commons. XD I'm sure people could email him if they wanted, but I don't see why anyone would bother, because on an individual basis MPs are pretty powerless. If people want a serious issue addressed or a petition seen they tend to go directly to the Prime Minister or the heads of one of the other parties, rather than one of the several hundreds of faceless men and women in the benches.

...Children can be gay. Children are gay. You don't "decide" you're gay, you're just attracted to certain people and then later someone puts a name to it.

Addicted /=/ not having a choice. You still choose to do it, and you definitely still choose the circumstances under which you do it. Again, when pyromaniacs commit arson, they are charged with arson; when someone robs a convenience store for money to buy meth with, they're still charged with robbery.

No, I'm in the US, but I'd dispute that claim. Not only does it seem (at least to me) like just bad policy since sexuality is not that absolute, but there's nothing that keeps idiots from becoming psychologists, and there are still psychologists who try and justify their homophobia through their work and even buy into the idea of a "cure".

I don't, but the way you presented it, friends/family members/psychologists controlling one's sex life was not that bad. If that's not how you meant it, I apologize. However, that's me now. I'm very thankful that I was not allowed to have sex when I was a child. While that didn't prevent all abuse, it did keep someone from raping me and claiming it was consensual and getting away with that claim even more easily than they would have had I been an adult. It kept me from having to protect my sexuality before I was ready to do so. It allowed me to have time to grow up and define my own sexuality and become someone not so easily intimidated sexually; that might not have happened otherwise. It's sad that he'll never make it to that point, and certainly, he has all my sympathy, but again, I would much rather someone not have sex and want to than have sex and not want to.

And they have a valid justification for this, this one case, that they would not have if they really did attempt to keep people of lower-than-average intelligence from reproducing. This is just the way governments work; pretty much every law and regulation is based on the idea of going only so far and no further. If A absolutely, without a doubt, always led to B, every government in the world would be a fascist dictatorship, because they all have limits on freedoms and privacy and personal choices that could, if the "slippery slope" were an absolute fact, very easily lead to something far more invasive and oppressive.

My problem here, and I'm sorry for not voicing it properly, is that if they have one case, just one case, that's justified, they will use it to justify others which may not be truly justified.

They might say that from now on, anyone with an IQ under X cannot have sex. They might extend it to include not being able to vote, based on the fact that they "have the mind of a child" and are therefore not old enough. They could strip his right to work, drive, etc. It's not a giant leap. It's happened before.

The US. wanted the government to investigate suspected terrorists, so they passed the patriot act. It allows them so suspend habeas corpus, and other various rights for no good reason, as they see fit.

USA Patriot Act: Pros And Cons | Lifescript.com

there's the quote and the link for you. So yes the slippery slope argument is kinda valid.

Not really. Slippery slope suggests that A will, inevitably, lead to B. That has been your argument: that it doesn't matter that they'd have to bring in completely different arguments to justify anything more, because it's related, if we allow this, we allow for eugenics and all sorts of things. So I disagree that it's valid.

And like I said, if you're going to apply it to one instance of government "intrusion", you must do so across the board. And the fact is, when you do that, you'll find that quite often, what you've said would not happen -- they simply stop and don't take it any further -- has happened and continues to happen. They already limit who can and cannot have sex. They already limit who can and cannot vote, and in fact the history of suffrage in most countries is the opposite of what you suggest; rather than becoming more limited, voting rights have been extended significantly. That is the nature of government, and even basic laws.

Actually the slippery slope argument kind of refers to the cascade effect with allowing someone a small amount of slack in an area. The old adage that if you give someone an inch they'll take a mile, applies here.

And since this is a subjective argument, and we've both stated our opinions, and reached an impasse, I would say I'm done. I'll let others argue how they will.

Except for the whole fact that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Source, source, source, source, source. So really it's not a valid argument at all.

Phil is correct though; especially in the recent history of the United States, the government is becoming less and less involved in what goes on in the bedroom, and several states are striking down sodomy laws that have historically been used to prosecute homosexuals. So if anything, the slope is slanted in the direction opposite of what you are suggesting.

Alright. most of your sources aren't sited. but here's a quot form the wikipedia article you put.

I showed A leading to B with the patriot act.

I'm done with this subject now, so don't post at me.

If you're done with it, don't try to put in the last word...

First of all, I shouldn't have to even CITE (not site, thanks) the common definition of a debate term, nor should my citations be required to cite other sources. Fallacies are an elementary part of debate and persuasion; if this is the first time you've heard of a fallacy, then I recommend you brush up on Debates 101. If you're going to try to change the operational definition of a term, however, this is not the place to do it, and would be considered off-topic. You are welcome to start a new thread if you don't think that the common definitions of fallacies are adequate.

The patriot act is a straw man; it's not relevant to sex laws. I demonstrated that states have been eliminating laws that prohibit certain types of sex, which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to imply (that the government is becoming more involved in restricting sex), so you have NOT established a chain of implication, and therefore your argument fits within the slippery slope fallacy. Basically, you haven't shown anything.

And for the record, this one ruling struck down sodomy laws in thirteen states alone.

I might also add that the patriot act is reactionary legislation tied to one specific event in history, and thus is hardly a step towards anything subsequent. Short of another catastrophic terrorist attack, I am highly skeptical that it will lead to any further similar legislation regarding the monitoring of the citizens and residents of our nation (and even then, this step would be a result of the attack, not of the prior legislation).

I think that its wrong for the state to decide that. He should be required to learn sexual education so that he is more aware of what he is doing either in a class or by a tutor of some sort.

I personally might be concerned if it might be clear that the other person was manipulating or abusing him. If the other person were, shall we say, closer to average intelligence, and was manipulating him, or tricking him into it, then I could see how the court might get involved, the same way they might if someone tricked a child into such a thing.

::edit:: I also might understand it if he was carrying a disease and couldn't understand it well enough and was therefore putting other people at risk.

If it was clearly consensual then I'd say it's a human rights violation.

IQ tests are too unreliable. The presence of math AT ALL is appalling. No matter how intelligent you are, if you have not been taught the formula for a given problem, you will not answer it correctly.

Then there are questions that could be answered differently based on how you think

Which are alike:
Car
Bike
Generator
Gas heater

Car and Bike are obviously the like answers....

But a Car and Generator both use gas. As well as both have engines.

Generator and Heater both generate a form of energy.

Coco took an IQ test and scored pretty low, one question was 'what is food' and she picked the flower, because as a gorilla, the flower was more edible than the food option.

IQ is no test for a person's intelligence. All it tests is a person's ability to think the same way as somebody else.

I don't like the idea of the government controlling who should and shouldn't have sex, I never have, despite that I understand their reasoning for it. I'm not familiar with the UK's current stance on gay rights as of right now, but I don't believe it's entirely anti-gay. I do believe a lot of it is a bit of, well, disgust at the idea of a stupid man having sex and the idea that the other man may be taking advantage of him. Whether he actually is or not is another question. However, it makes you wonder why the other man isn't being taken to court and only the man with the low IQ. BUT, anyways, I have to admit, if there was actual scientific proof that stupid people only had stupid children and actually could not take care of them, I'd be for it. I know, I'm a horrible person. I don't really care, I also think the same if there was actually proof that people with serious diseases could be prevented that way, I'd be all for it. As it turns out, there is no actual proof that IQ is 100% heritable. (Though I do have to agree that I don't believe IQ tests, as they seem to be rather left brained and I'm a rather right-brained person, and I've taken a lot of IQ tests for fun and gotten quite a few different results.)

Then again, I am all for restricting reproduction, as the world is becoming vastly overpopulated (though I don't agree with making it illegal. Perhaps more like charging an increasing fine or tax for each child (or pregnancy).) Though I also think that this doesn't really make much of a difference in the whole topic we're discussing of this guy being "too stupid to have sex", because he's 41, stupid or not, it's a little late in the game for them to try imposing something like that on him, ignoring all of the dehumanizing they're doing.

Again, I know, I don't care too much about human rights when it comes to sex. I mean, sorry, I like sex, and wouldn't want it taken away myself, but I don't believe it's a right, largely because it leads to children, and I don't believe that having children is a right, as there are so many people who abuse that 'right', and their children (I also believe that having a pet isn't a right, and that is becoming something that other people are agreeing with, as it were), and if it is a right, then why do gay and lesbian couples not have that 'right' in many places?

I kind of rambled there, and my views are probably a bit weird, but oh well.

Bottom line: I'm not entirely against the idea, but basing ability to consent or have/take care of children off of a test that has been contested since it came out isn't the way to do it. The problem is that no human really has a way to judge who is and isn't capable of consenting/taking care of children every time. (Right now it's usually only after they do something that people can actually tell.)

For clarification, you don't believe that having sex is a human right, because having sex makes babies?
But, then why can't he have sex with his consenting adult male partner?
I'm pretty sure gay sex does not lead to babies.

Your post talks in circles, and then seems to contradict itself at the bottom.

I do talk in circles sometimes. Actually, quite often.

Yes, because sex leads to babies I think it is (or perhaps more correctly, SHOULD be) a privilege, rather than a right. It's not as if humans as a rule will suffer any illness from not having sex (like how guys will mention 'blue balls'), besides a decreased birth rate.

And I don't think they should ban him from having sex, I'm actually largely talking about the couple who had their children taken away from them because they were "too stupid". Which is sad, and I don't know personally if they actually couldn't take care of their children, but assuming that such is the case, even if they were gay, I would agree with taking away their children if they were "too stupid" to take care of them.

I was talking a lot about the idea of restricting people who are "stupid" from having sex, but with the end contradicting, I've met some people with low IQs who weren't stupid, and some people with average or above average IQs who were idiots. An IQ test doesn't work, but if there was a more accurate method to test who would make a good parent and who wouldn't, I would say everyone has to take that before having kids.

Men actually do need to ejaculate. Not only is sex good for you, but research suggests that ejaculation can decrease prostate cancer risk!

I think that any test that would be put in place to determine if you are going to be a good parent is going to be very arbitrary and inaccurate and unfair. There's no way to predetermine if you are "ready and capable" of being a good parent. There are some people who are obviously not going to be good parents, like people who can't even take care of themselves, but that doesn't mean that every person shouldn't have the right to a family.

True, but you don't have to have sex to ejaculate!

And like I said, of course it would be flawed if we had humans do it. And really, even if we had computers do it because the computers were programed by people. Therefore, it would be nice, but unfortunately would end up just as flawed as our current "Wait and see" method.
(And the idea is that they can take classes if they fail, not that they're sterilized forever.)

Yeah, but gay sex doesn't make babies either, so why is that wrong then? It's a physical impossibility for two men, to make a baby. So why should they be subjected to the test, too?

And, sterilized forever or not, if they legally aren't allowed to have sex, because they can't pass a test, so they can't reproduce, so that only the "desirables" can be parents, it's basically another form of eugenics.

Again, I'm not saying that the idea applies to gay couples, and I'm also saying I'm not against eugenics. It was quite popular until the Nazis took it to mean that you can also kill those who don't fit with the standard. I'm also not saying that I'm all for it, either, but it's not the worst idea in the world. Better than letting people who will beat or molest their children have kids.

I'm not going to be making the laws for society anytime soon, as I have no desire to be a politician, so I don't have to worry about the details of the idea, honestly. For me, it's a silly, unimplementable idea that sounds good in theory, but people will mess it up, as they always do.

And this whole thread is based off the fact that a court ruled that a Gay retarded man wasn't intelligent enough to have sex, so forgive me if it seemed implied that gay sex was included. :/

The original post also to a degree covered the couple whose children were taken away because they were too stupid as well, and I kind of focused more on that part of the post than the man who was banned from sex with his partner.

Ah, I guess that's fair. But it only touched upon. o 3o
My mistake, regardless, I disagree with the notion.

True, and I can see where the confusion lie (as what I was focusing on was more a point to reinforce the main idea).

And that's alright. I'll probably end up disagreeing with myself when it's time for me to actually have kids, but oh well.