Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[Toro]

No, no, no, FreeXenon. Homosexual marriage leads to terrorism. Why do you hate America so much?

 

[Nik]

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

THE ADVOCACY OF THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY>>>>>Yes, I'd be fine with it.

And you are lying about the APA study. I know several people who were molested as kids. All of them are still effected by it, even though it is years later.

I am? Well let's see if that is TRUE...

Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm,regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. ...

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

Now Rind is a sychophant of the Kinsey Institute of Indiana University... Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a homosexual and LONG STANDING Advocate of Adult/child sex, began his infamous career upon his book which he published in 1948... "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and such was cited as a guide for this 'study of child abuse.'

Now these "social scientists" claimed 317 to 2,045 children were induced into "weeping," "screaming," "fainting" and "convulsing" orgasm... one as yound as 2-months-old, and was said to have "derived definite pleasure" from oral, manual, and worse, in these 'tests' for harm to children that were brought to orgasm... by these "SCIENTISTS"... which is a facade these loathesome, dispicable, sub-human perves use to provide them the means to legally engage in and be paid for... practicing that which serves their own 'sexual orientation'...

And YOU would accept this...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the board...

What you've witnessed in the testimony of this member is the stark absence of reason... which conclusively establishes that the open-minded centrist has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION on which to rest.

They have NO MEANS to recognize ANY line that provides ANY MEASURABLE STANDARD by which our culture can determine what is and is not acceptable in terms of human behavior.

This intellectual limitation provides that they will accept whatever 'science' tells them is 'right...' Without the means to reason, this member falls prey to the normalization, which would provide for the LEGALIZATION for adults to pursue sexual gratification in children... the same for the legalization for human beings to engage in sexual intercourse with ANIMALS.

What more do you need to realize that there is no means to negotiate in good faith with these people... BECAUSE THERE IS NO END TO THE DEPTHS WHICH THEY ARE WILLNG TO ACCEPT.

To negotiate with this ideology is to CONCEDE TO IT... to meet it halfway provides that it undermines the viability of our culture just that much FARTHER.

I began this debate by proposing that the advocates of Homosexuals being accepted as suitable for Marriage SIMPLY POST THE DEFENSE WHICH THEY WOULD USE TO DEFEND THE NEW STANDARD WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY ARE ASKING US TO ACCEPT...

Yet there is not a single post, from a single one of those advocates where such a defense has been offered.

Which stands as not merely conclusive evidence, but INDISPUTABLE evidence that their IMPLICATION THAT THEY SIMPLY WANT THE CULTURE TO ADJUST THE STANDARD IS A LIE! It is a deception of the damnable variety... as their goal is not to modify the standard of normalcy... BUT TO STRIP THE CULTURE OF ANY SENSE OF A STANDARD!... of any sense of 'normal'.

I knew when I offered that challenge that there would be no defense coming, because the evidence was already conclusive, in my mind, that they were not desirous of equality... that their belief was that any standard was UNFAIR... because that is the nature of standards... they will always prevent someone from doing something. Which is what I sought to prove... to expose the lie as such and to help the unwashed amongst us to realize what is at stake.

But I never imagined that I would get one of them to loose sight of the prize and admit to the whole... that inevitably, where the frame-work was established to provide for the rationalization; where the pseudo-science of 'sexuality' had 'determined' that such unspeakable debauchery was 'OK...' that they would EMBRACE IT... that they would complictly APPROVE IT.

Would anyone care to defend this member's position?

Would anyone else like to lend an open mind to the potential that 'somewhere down the road... where 'science says its OK..' that they would 'have no problem' with adults pursuing children and ANIMALS for sexual pleasure?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all?

So much for the APA study that shows that kids benefit from sexual contact.

Way to outright lie, dumbshit.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Having sex with animals isn't violating anyone else's rights. Unless of course, the animals belong to someone else....

Could be a great way to "prove" macroevolution.

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

PI, the legal argument to this is capacity not speech.

Neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent. Thus, if you have sex with a minor, it is statutory rape. It doesn't matter if they jump on you, pull your thingy out and do it all themselves, rape. You on them. Provided that you were a willing participant in some way.

Same goes for animals. It doesn't matter if your wife taught your lab to talk and he said, "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love sex with you." Still no consent. The law says your lab is too dumb to consent, even if he could do it verbally.

Next.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, no, no, FreeXenon. Homosexual marriage leads to terrorism. Why do you hate America so much?

Wait ... I though smoking pot supported terrorism now.

 

[Toro]

PI, the legal argument to this is capacity not speech.

Neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent. Thus, if you have sex with a minor, it is statutory rape. It doesn't matter if they jump on you, pull your thingy out and do it all themselves, rape. You on them. Provided that you were a willing participant in some way.

Same goes for animals. It doesn't matter if your wife taught your lab to talk and he said, "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love sex with you." Still no consent. The law says your lab is too dumb to consent, even if he could do it verbally.

Next.

Now, wait for them to break out the "People will want to marry their car" argument...

 

[Toro]

No, no, no, FreeXenon. Homosexual marriage leads to terrorism. Why do you hate America so much?

Wait ... I though smoking pot supported terrorism now.

No. This week its watching Desperate Housewives.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, no, no, FreeXenon. Homosexual marriage leads to terrorism. Why do you hate America so much?

Wait ... I though smoking pot supported terrorism now.

No. This week its watching Desperate Housewives.

Aah ... when it reaches tobacco then I might have a problem.

 

[xotoxi]

Marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government.

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government.

Yep. If they want it to be religious, no more laws for it, period.

 

[xotoxi]

Marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government.

Yep. If they want it to be religious, no more laws for it, period.

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

PI, the legal argument to this is capacity not speech.

Neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent. Thus, if you have sex with a minor, it is statutory rape. It doesn't matter if they jump on you, pull your thingy out and do it all themselves, rape. You on them. Provided that you were a willing participant in some way.

Same goes for animals. It doesn't matter if your wife taught your lab to talk and he said, "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love sex with you." Still no consent. The law says your lab is too dumb to consent, even if he could do it verbally.

Next.

Hmm... Tech... Check me if I'm wrong here... but "... where 'science' could show that animals {and children} can consent to sexual intercourse... ' that would necessarily be a function of 'capacity,' now wouldn't it?

Speech being, little more than evidence of a higher cognitive capacity... but the nod of affirmation would suffice... where the shalkng of the head in opposition was also a realized means... as would be the means to scratch a 'mark' in affirmation of a written contract... wouldn't that suffice?

The premise is clear and unambiguous... 'where science could provide that consent was obtainable...'

Now Rind's 'report' concludes that many children are perfectly suited to offer their consent... and where such is offered; 'loving sexual relationships with adults' is actually beneficial to some children...

This member declared that where such were to be established, that they would 'have no problem' with beastiality or adult/child sex...

The point is Tech, that the ranks of the social science corp, if you will, are LOADED with individuals who are of like mind and who are perfectly CERTAIN that such is possible; that children are psychologically suited to consent to sexual relationships... there can be no doubt that the hand licking sheep is perfectly capapble of offering consent... to oppose that certainty, one has to conclude that Ovis Aries as a species has been sustained by tens of thousands of years of unbridled rape... and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a sound conclusion to sustain that one.

Public mores are a function of cultural experience... contrary to mythical belief, these standards are not just jotted up as a means to punish the perves...

Beastiality is a very dangerous practice, as it subjects the participants to all manner of medical calamities... where disease is provided a means of transmission from one species to the next, which nature has sought to avoid the the biological baseline; wherein sexual arousal is NOT triggered through the consideration of animals.

Come on man... you can't be serious here.

I'm all for a reasoned discussion of the legalities, from principle to reasoned application... and anyone that's read my work, knows I love a good semantics argument... but this one is a real stinker...

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government.

Yep. If they want it to be religious, no more laws for it, period.

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

Yep. I hate that everything in our society is about sex now, everything. Civil unions should not be about sex and sexual activity should not in any way be a part of it. The current state of marriage is nothing more than legalized prostitution and sexual slavery.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

THE ADVOCACY OF THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY>>>>>Yes, I'd be fine with it.

I am? Well let's see if that is TRUE...

Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm,regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. ...

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

Now Rind is a sychophant of the Kinsey Institute of Indiana University... Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a homosexual and LONG STANDING Advocate of Adult/child sex, began his infamous career upon his book which he published in 1948... "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and such was cited as a guide for this 'study of child abuse.'

Now these "social scientists" claimed 317 to 2,045 children were induced into "weeping," "screaming," "fainting" and "convulsing" orgasm... one as yound as 2-months-old, and was said to have "derived definite pleasure" from oral, manual, and worse, in these 'tests' for harm to children that were brought to orgasm... by these "SCIENTISTS"... which is a facade these loathesome, dispicable, sub-human perves use to provide them the means to legally engage in and be paid for... practicing that which serves their own 'sexual orientation'...

And YOU would accept this...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the board...

What you've witnessed in the testimony of this member is the stark absence of reason... which conclusively establishes that the open-minded centrist has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION on which to rest.

They have NO MEANS to recognize ANY line that provides ANY MEASURABLE STANDARD by which our culture can determine what is and is not acceptable in terms of human behavior.

This intellectual limitation provides that they will accept whatever 'science' tells them is 'right...' Without the means to reason, this member falls prey to the normalization, which would provide for the LEGALIZATION for adults to pursue sexual gratification in children... the same for the legalization for human beings to engage in sexual intercourse with ANIMALS.

What more do you need to realize that there is no means to negotiate in good faith with these people... BECAUSE THERE IS NO END TO THE DEPTHS WHICH THEY ARE WILLNG TO ACCEPT.

To negotiate with this ideology is to CONCEDE TO IT... to meet it halfway provides that it undermines the viability of our culture just that much FARTHER.

I began this debate by proposing that the advocates of Homosexuals being accepted as suitable for Marriage SIMPLY POST THE DEFENSE WHICH THEY WOULD USE TO DEFEND THE NEW STANDARD WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY ARE ASKING US TO ACCEPT...

Yet there is not a single post, from a single one of those advocates where such a defense has been offered.

Which stands as not merely conclusive evidence, but INDISPUTABLE evidence that their IMPLICATION THAT THEY SIMPLY WANT THE CULTURE TO ADJUST THE STANDARD IS A LIE! It is a deception of the damnable variety... as their goal is not to modify the standard of normalcy... BUT TO STRIP THE CULTURE OF ANY SENSE OF A STANDARD!... of any sense of 'normal'.

I knew when I offered that challenge that there would be no defense coming, because the evidence was already conclusive, in my mind, that they were not desirous of equality... that their belief was that any standard was UNFAIR... because that is the nature of standards... they will always prevent someone from doing something. Which is what I sought to prove... to expose the lie as such and to help the unwashed amongst us to realize what is at stake.

But I never imagined that I would get one of them to loose sight of the prize and admit to the whole... that inevitably, where the frame-work was established to provide for the rationalization; where the pseudo-science of 'sexuality' had 'determined' that such unspeakable debauchery was 'OK...' that they would EMBRACE IT... that they would complictly APPROVE IT.

Would anyone care to defend this member's position?

Would anyone else like to lend an open mind to the potential that 'somewhere down the road... where 'science says its OK..' that they would 'have no problem' with adults pursuing children and ANIMALS for sexual pleasure?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all?

So much for the APA study that shows that kids benefit from sexual contact.

Way to outright lie, dumbshit.

A lie? Really?

Rind says a 9-year-old can consent to sex and that "The current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science."

So tell us Nik, what is this most recent conclusion of yours resting upon? You've clearly not read the 'study'... yet your position seems quite EMPHATIC... and stands in direct opposition to the would-be facts which Rind came to 'report'...

So help us out here... explain how you came to conclude that the Rind 'study' did not conclude that adult/child sex can be beneficial to children.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government.

Yep. If they want it to be religious, no more laws for it, period.

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, as I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and such is sustained ONLY through the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

 

[Ravi]

Quit being such a fucking retard, Pubic. Just because some idiot makes a claim it doesn't mean that claim is true.

Children are not mentally, or more importantly, legally allowed to enter into contracts or give consent to engage in adult activities. No matter how you wish it so.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yep. If they want it to be religious, no more laws for it, period.

The government should develop a "civil union" which is a contract between two (and only two) consentual human adults. This can be any two adults, and should not be thought of as a sexual contract any more than the contract between Manny and the Dodgers is sexual.

It would be a business contract, that could only be dissolved through arbitration, or divorce...or death of one of the parties.

Marriage would be religious. If a couple is married, they would have the option of a civil union and would just ahve to apply for it with the state.

Indeed... the instrument for such is readily available right now... Its called INCORPORATION... the legal instrument wherein multiple parties join to form one legal entity for the purposes of meeting their common goals and aspirations...

However, ss I've stated many times, the homosexual Lobby is NOT interested in this, as their goal is the legitimacy which Marriage represents... and decidedly NOT in the red herrings of 'legalities and equality.'

Really, how do you know what they are interested in. Xotoxi's proposal has been made, and perverts like you shot it down.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Quit being such a fucking retard, Pubic. Just because some idiot makes a claim it doesn't mean that claim is true.

Children are not mentally, or more importantly, legally allowed to enter into contracts or give consent to engage in adult activities. No matter how you wish it so.

HOLD THE PRESSES!

We have an advocate of the normalization of sexual deviancy who's come to declare that the lofty perch of SOCIAL SCIENCE is NOT INFALLIBLE!

Sweet MOTHER... PRAISE THE SAINTS!

So then you would disagree with Nik, in his conclusion that where SCIENCE! may determine that Children and animals would 'have the cognitive capacity' (props to Tech...) adequate to offer up their consent, that such activity would be WRONG!?

Now do I understand correctly that THIS is your point? That, YOU BELIEVE, that WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT SCIENCE MAY DETERMINE... Such behavior will ALWAYS BE UNACCEPTABLE and should never be considered as acceptable, normal, or otherwise appropriate?

If so... On what grounds?

(Of the few immutable truths, which our species is able to garner in this life... the most certain of those is that THIS conversation, wherein Ravi comes to explain that Rind was wrong... and that his 'findings;' which are founded upon the most referenced sexuality source in the full scope of 'Human Sexuality Studies:" The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University... are the rantings of a KOOK!... is that THIS discussion has come to an end... at least where she feigns some measure of sustainable moral underpinnings. Which, by no means, is to suggest that she will not return to spew any of the litany of empty cliches or platitudes which she hopes will set her back on track... and not further expose her unwavering loyalty to the psuedo-science of 'human sexuality studies'... which serves as the sandy foundation of the advocacy to normalize sexual deviancy.

As where the veracity and authority of these idiots is undermined, so goes the authority on which the normalization of deviancy rests... and we can't have THAT!

 

[KittenKoder]

So far the only ones advocating this are PI and ... well ... Yurt ... no one else seems to think pedophilia is acceptable on any level.

 

[Nik]

I am? Well let's see if that is TRUE...



http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

Now Rind is a sychophant of the Kinsey Institute of Indiana University... Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a homosexual and LONG STANDING Advocate of Adult/child sex, began his infamous career upon his book which he published in 1948... "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and such was cited as a guide for this 'study of child abuse.'

Now these "social scientists" claimed 317 to 2,045 children were induced into "weeping," "screaming," "fainting" and "convulsing" orgasm... one as yound as 2-months-old, and was said to have "derived definite pleasure" from oral, manual, and worse, in these 'tests' for harm to children that were brought to orgasm... by these "SCIENTISTS"... which is a facade these loathesome, dispicable, sub-human perves use to provide them the means to legally engage in and be paid for... practicing that which serves their own 'sexual orientation'...

And YOU would accept this...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the board...

What you've witnessed in the testimony of this member is the stark absence of reason... which conclusively establishes that the open-minded centrist has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION on which to rest.

They have NO MEANS to recognize ANY line that provides ANY MEASURABLE STANDARD by which our culture can determine what is and is not acceptable in terms of human behavior.

This intellectual limitation provides that they will accept whatever 'science' tells them is 'right...' Without the means to reason, this member falls prey to the normalization, which would provide for the LEGALIZATION for adults to pursue sexual gratification in children... the same for the legalization for human beings to engage in sexual intercourse with ANIMALS.

What more do you need to realize that there is no means to negotiate in good faith with these people... BECAUSE THERE IS NO END TO THE DEPTHS WHICH THEY ARE WILLNG TO ACCEPT.

To negotiate with this ideology is to CONCEDE TO IT... to meet it halfway provides that it undermines the viability of our culture just that much FARTHER.

I began this debate by proposing that the advocates of Homosexuals being accepted as suitable for Marriage SIMPLY POST THE DEFENSE WHICH THEY WOULD USE TO DEFEND THE NEW STANDARD WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY ARE ASKING US TO ACCEPT...

Yet there is not a single post, from a single one of those advocates where such a defense has been offered.

Which stands as not merely conclusive evidence, but INDISPUTABLE evidence that their IMPLICATION THAT THEY SIMPLY WANT THE CULTURE TO ADJUST THE STANDARD IS A LIE! It is a deception of the damnable variety... as their goal is not to modify the standard of normalcy... BUT TO STRIP THE CULTURE OF ANY SENSE OF A STANDARD!... of any sense of 'normal'.

I knew when I offered that challenge that there would be no defense coming, because the evidence was already conclusive, in my mind, that they were not desirous of equality... that their belief was that any standard was UNFAIR... because that is the nature of standards... they will always prevent someone from doing something. Which is what I sought to prove... to expose the lie as such and to help the unwashed amongst us to realize what is at stake.

But I never imagined that I would get one of them to loose sight of the prize and admit to the whole... that inevitably, where the frame-work was established to provide for the rationalization; where the pseudo-science of 'sexuality' had 'determined' that such unspeakable debauchery was 'OK...' that they would EMBRACE IT... that they would complictly APPROVE IT.

Would anyone care to defend this member's position?

Would anyone else like to lend an open mind to the potential that 'somewhere down the road... where 'science says its OK..' that they would 'have no problem' with adults pursuing children and ANIMALS for sexual pleasure?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all?

So much for the APA study that shows that kids benefit from sexual contact.

Way to outright lie, dumbshit.

A lie? Really?

Rind says a 9-year-old can consent to sex and that "The current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science."

So tell us Nik, what is this most recent conclusion of yours resting upon? You've clearly not read the 'study'... yet your position seems quite EMPHATIC... and stands in direct opposition to the would-be facts which Rind came to 'report'...

So help us out here... explain how you came to conclude that the Rind 'study' did not conclude that adult/child sex can be beneficial to children.

Their point is that people are mixing child abuse (having sex with a 6 year old) with statutory rape type abuse (having sex with a 15 year old). Way to completely misinterpret the study.

 

[Ravi]

Science has recently shown that the human brain isn't fully developed until around the age of twenty-five...so whoever this person is, he is incorrect.

Again, it doesn't matter. Children are not legally allowed to enter into contracts.

Your hysteria driven claim that allowing gays to marry legitimizes pedophilia is no more valid than a claim that allowing straights to marry legitimizes rape.