First Gay Marriage, Then Pedophilia

[Redfish]

It always frightens me a little...the posters here who cannot or will not distinguish the clear differences between consenting adults and forcing one self upon a child or animal who cannot give consent...ever.

how about one man and three women in a consenting relationship, why can't they call it a marriage and have all the legal benefits?

why do you want to discriminate against them because of who they love?

 

[candycorn]

Hetero Marriage, Gay Marriage, Then Pedophilia

Always been pedophilia in states with hetero marriage.

Nothing new here.

Obviously hetero marriage leads to having kids and thus pedophilia. No kids=no pedophiles.

I think Rabid was listing his to-do list given his knowledge of Princess's junk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

Equal protection does not apply when 2 circumstances are not sufficiently similar to qualify as 'equal' under the law.

That's my legal argument. Now it's up to you to rebut that by showing that an adult human wanting to marry his pet turtle is 'equal' to 2 adult humans wanting to marry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if a 30 year old man and a 10 year old girl want to get married, and they claim that such a marriage is an integral part of their religious beliefs?

Are you slippery slopers going to fight that? Why?

 

[Redfish]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

Equal protection does not apply when 2 circumstances are not sufficiently similar to qualify as 'equal' under the law.

That's my legal argument. Now it's up to you to rebut that by showing that an adult human wanting to marry his pet turtle is 'equal' to 2 adult humans wanting to marry.

nice dodge, I said nothing about beastiality. I asked you about bigamy and polygamy and why you would condone discrimination against those people because of who they love and how they choose to live----------still waiting for your answer.

 

[Redfish]

What if a 30 year old man and a 10 year old girl want to get married, and they claim that such a marriage is an integral part of their religious beliefs?

Are you slippery slopers going to fight that? Why?

if the age of consent is 10, it would be legal. but the age of consent is not 10, so your strawman burns to the ground.

you libs keep saying consenting adults, then you bring up animals and little kids.

 

[G.T.]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

 

[DGS49]

I apologize in advance, because I'm going to write some things that people may find disturbing.

It was not so long ago that quasi-sexual relationships between men and boys were considered quite immoral, but not particularly harmful to the boy. It was illegal, you could go to jail for it, the public was shocked and horrified, but at the end of the day, the guy gave the boy a blowjob, so what? The ancient Greeks wrote glowingly about these relationships, as beneficial to both the boy and the man. - or did I just dream that up?

Contrast this scenario with, say, the forcible rape of a 10 year old girl by a 40-year-old man. In that case, the girl will certainly be scarred, both physically and emotionally, and probably for the rest of her life. But the boy who got blowed by Father O'Flannertyhan? Not so much.

And yet in the law, these two vastly different crimes are treated equally.

Part of the public's outrage about the Man-Boy scenario has to do with the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church. The outbreak of reports of pedophilia was followed immediately by an army of lawyers seeking to exploit the kids, their families, the Church and its liability insurance carriers for their own benefit. The kids were encouraged to emphasize and exaggerate the horror of the experiences, and the psychological damage that was done, in spite of the fact that often these relationships went on for years, with the boys willingly spending time with the pedophile priests, knowing exactly where those visits would lead.

Which is not to say that a 12-14 year old boy can legally consent to this sort of activity with a man, just that the lawyers had to create scenarios of psychological torture to explain to jurors why, if the kid found these experiences so horiffic, he continued to voluntarily visit the rectory every Sunday evening for 5 years.

The Church and its insurers have paid out more than a billion dollars in damage awards and settlements in the U.S. Would anyone exaggerate the psychological damage in order to get a seven-figure cash settlement? Hmmm.

Happily, I've never been involved in, or even heard of anyone I knew, being involved in any of these activities, despite going through 12 years of Catholic education. Heck, I even vacationed at a farm owned by a couple local priests on a few occasions. Neither I nor my parents ever gave it a second thought.

But I don't think NAMBLA is likely to make any inroads to get the laws changed to suit their preferences, as the Hoe-Moe-Sexuals have done with "marriage." As hinted above, if it hasn't happened in Massachusetts, the rest of the states are certainly safe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hetero Marriage, Gay Marriage, Then Pedophilia

Always been pedophilia in states with hetero marriage.

Nothing new here.

Obviously hetero marriage leads to having kids and thus pedophilia. No kids=no pedophiles.

I think Rabid was listing his to-do list given his knowledge of Princess's junk.

A hetero-fascist is all!

 

[bodecea]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

Nope. No more than legal hetero marriage did. But you keep on flapping them lips....you sound just like the anti-interracial marriage people did in the 60s & 70s.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if a 30 year old man and a 10 year old girl want to get married, and they claim that such a marriage is an integral part of their religious beliefs?

Are you slippery slopers going to fight that? Why?

if the age of consent is 10, it would be legal. but the age of consent is not 10, so your strawman burns to the ground.

you libs keep saying consenting adults, then you bring up animals and little kids.

1. The OP is talking about pedophilia, and I"M the one bringing in kids? lol

2. You said in another post that this would lead to ALL forms of marriage. A 30 year old marrying a 10 year old is one form of all forms of marriage.

3. If marrying 10 year olds is a religious belief, isn't that protected by the first Amendment?

It was when you were arguing for religious discrimination in businesses...what happened to your principle?

Change your mind? Is that change permanent, or just until the subject changes?

 

[bodecea]

What if a 30 year old man and a 10 year old girl want to get married, and they claim that such a marriage is an integral part of their religious beliefs?

Are you slippery slopers going to fight that? Why?

if the age of consent is 10, it would be legal. but the age of consent is not 10, so your strawman burns to the ground.

you libs keep saying consenting adults, then you bring up animals and little kids.

1. The OP is talking about pedophilia, and I"M the one bringing in kids? lol

2. You said in another post that this would lead to ALL forms of marriage. A 30 year old marrying a 10 year old is one form of all forms of marriage.

3. If marrying 10 year olds is a religious belief, isn't that protected by the first Amendment?

It was when you were arguing for religious discrimination in businesses...what happened to your principle?

Change your mind? Is that change permanent, or just until the subject changes?

The latter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hear what God's Word says about the sick abomination of sexual perversion==God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:24-32

That testimony is hearsay.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How does one skirt the defining points of the law regarding cosent when going from homosexual marriage to pedaphilia?

It's an interesting and yet entirely illogical positon from a legal aspect....

 

[DGS49]

Although a minor does not have the legal capacity to give "consent" to sexual intercourse (much less to enter into a marriage), giving or receiving oral or anal sex is not "having sex." President Clinton made that abundantly clear.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Although a minor does not have the legal capacity to give "consent" to sexual intercourse (much less to enter into a marriage), giving or receiving oral or anal sex is not "having sex." President Clinton made that abundantly clear.

If what you say is true, then why was he deemed to have perjured himself?

 

[The Rabbi]

Letting a grown man suck another grown man's dick is just as harmful as letting a grown man rape a ten year old. Everybody knows that! And that is why we will naturally have to allow both. Because that is the agenda here. To harm society, amiright?

Or something.

Didnt bother to read the linked article, eh? It's not like I redacted it (you know the word, right?).
No one is talking about rape. It's consensual sex between a man and a 10 year old boy. That's what the article said.

 

[The Rabbi]

It always frightens me a little...the posters here who cannot or will not distinguish the clear differences between consenting adults and forcing one self upon a child or animal who cannot give consent...ever.

And here's a resident gay absolutely assuring us there is no similarity whatsoever here.
Bother to read the article? The person quoted says there is no harm to 10 year old boys from such a thing. Argue with her over that one.
Why shouldnt age of consent be 10? Why should marriage be between one man and one woman? Same argument, different day.
Truth hurts.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yeah yeah the fudgpackers and carpet munchers will loudly tell us there is absolutely nothing in common between these two. But everyone knows the truth: sexual deviance is sexual deviance. And the arguments legitimating one are the same for all of them.
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL | UK | News | Daily Express

Good point.

It's just like if you allow people to own guns, they'll automatically want to murder people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah yeah the fudgpackers and carpet munchers will loudly tell us there is absolutely nothing in common between these two. But everyone knows the truth: sexual deviance is sexual deviance. And the arguments legitimating one are the same for all of them.
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL | UK | News | Daily Express

Good point.

It's just like if you allow people to own guns, they'll automatically want to murder people.

Your local priest touched you a lot when you were a kid, right?