First Gay Marriage, Then Pedophilia

[g5000]

pedophilia HAS rational basis for being illegal.

the others do not.

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

its stupidity

polygamy has no rational basis for being illegal in a free society except for the state benefits part being the only rationale

it doesn't matter if I personally like polygamy or not

I like fast and loose rules


sometimes

on Tuesdays specially

There ya go. Polygamy down. What's next? Oh yeah, pedophilia. Just as predicted. There is no rational basis for an age of consent being 18. Ot 16. Or any other arbitrary number.

Actually, there is a rational basis. It is a physiological fact that the brain of a minor is not fully developed, particularly in the area responsible for judgement. A child is literally incapable of making adult decisions.

That inability doesnt end until age 25 or so. Are you suggesting raising the marriage age to 25?
I have seen plenty of 8 and 9 year olds make very good decisions, better than a lot of adults, btw.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is what he is, and the truth of the matter is that the arms-dealer does not matter, period.

The hetero-fascists are the "bigots because [they] denigrate any one that does not subscribe to [their] disengenuous [sic] lies about why" they hate marriage equality.

 

[The Rabbi]

pedophilia HAS rational basis for being illegal.

the others do not.

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

Not sure how that happens.
Middle eastern countries have practiced polygamy for millenia and I dont see much harm that can be directly attributed to it.

 

[jillian]

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

most pedophiles would be considered heterosexual.

but why deal in actual reality when you can spread homophobia

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.



Public belief in
the stereotype The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

 

[kaz]

pedophilia HAS rational basis for being illegal.

the others do not.

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have seen plenty of 8 and 9 year olds make very good decisions, better than a lot of adults, btw.

You are sounding more and more like a pedophile every day.

It's about the aggregate, fool.

The aggregate? WTF does that mean?? That isnt an argument.
So far no one has made an argument as to why the pedophiles are wrong. They sound exactly like less informed people arguing against gay marriage. Not surprisingly.

 

[g5000]

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

This is exactly the argument I have been making all along. I am not opening any door. It's been open.

I have pointed out the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia many times. You have to prove a rational basis for banning gays from marriage. I.e., proof of harm.

Your bunch has failed, miserably. That's why you deflect with pedophilia and bestiality, which ARE harmful. You are trying to establish linkage which simply is not there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

They post stuff totally oblivious to the rich irony of what they write. I am enjoying skewering them on their own comments and arguments immensely.

 

[The Rabbi]

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

This is exactly the argument I have been making all along. I am not opening any door. It's been open.

I have pointed out the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia many times. You have to prove a rational basis for banning gays from marriage. I.e., proof of harm.

Your bunch has failed, miserably. That's why you deflect with pedophilia and bestiality.

Same way you'd have to show a rational basis for age of consent laws. So far no one has.

 

[g5000]

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

They post stuff totally oblivious to the rich irony of what they write. I am enjoying skewering them on their own comments and arguments immensely.

You are too stupid to even realize how stupid your arguments are.

 

[g5000]

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

This is exactly the argument I have been making all along. I am not opening any door. It's been open.

I have pointed out the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia many times. You have to prove a rational basis for banning gays from marriage. I.e., proof of harm.

Your bunch has failed, miserably. That's why you deflect with pedophilia and bestiality.

Same way you'd have to show a rational basis for age of consent laws. So far no one has.

I have shown it. Nice try.

 

[Moonglow]

Well we got swinging and orgies out of straights being married....I'll try not to mention the other things like pederast, pedophilia, molestation, incest, shhh.....

 

[The Rabbi]

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

They post stuff totally oblivious to the rich irony of what they write. I am enjoying skewering them on their own comments and arguments immensely.

You are too stupid to even realize how stupid your arguments are.

Then you should have absolutely zero problem coming up with a rational basis for age of consent laws. Right?

 

[The Rabbi]

This is exactly the argument I have been making all along. I am not opening any door. It's been open.

I have pointed out the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia many times. You have to prove a rational basis for banning gays from marriage. I.e., proof of harm.

Your bunch has failed, miserably. That's why you deflect with pedophilia and bestiality.

Same way you'd have to show a rational basis for age of consent laws. So far no one has.

I have shown it. Nice try.

No you haven't. That was easily refuted.
Next.

 

[kaz]

I have seen plenty of 8 and 9 year olds make very good decisions, better than a lot of adults, btw.

You are sounding more and more like a pedophile every day.

It's about the aggregate, fool.

The aggregate? WTF does that mean?? That isnt an argument.
So far no one has made an argument as to why the pedophiles are wrong. They sound exactly like less informed people arguing against gay marriage. Not surprisingly.

That isn't true, I saw it I thought on the first page. Gay relationships between consenting adults are not the same as a non-concentual between an adult and a child. All relationships between adult and children are and should be considered non-consentual because you cannot consent to sex with an adult until you are an adult.

 

[g5000]

Researchers have carefully scrutinized the pace and severity
of these changes and have learned that they continue into a person’s
early 20s. Dr. Elizabeth Sowell, a member of the UCLA
brain research team, has led studies of brain development from
adolescence to adulthood. She and her colleagues found that the
frontal lobe undergoes far more change during adolescence than
at any other stage of life.4 It is also the last part of the brain to
develop, which means that even as they become fully capable in
other areas, adolescents cannot reason as well as adults

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...on_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.pdf

 

[kaz]

Well we got swinging and orgies out of straights being married....I'll try not to mention the other things like pederast, pedophilia, molestation, incest, shhh.....

We do? How do I get in on that? I mean the first sentence, not the second...

 

[g5000]

Before you know it, Rabbi will be arguing "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"!

 

[kaz]

Polygamy in the aggregate has been quite harmful. It almost invariably means one man with multiple wives, which inevitably leads to children being forced into marriage.

You realize when you open the door to not recognizing marriage because you believe it's "in the aggregate ... quite harmful" then you are opening the door for other people to make that determination about gay marriage? The question is whether people define government marriage or if the government does. You can't have it both ways and say the people, but only when you agree with them.

This is exactly the argument I have been making all along. I am not opening any door. It's been open.

I have pointed out the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia many times. You have to prove a rational basis for banning gays from marriage. I.e., proof of harm.

Your bunch has failed, miserably. That's why you deflect with pedophilia and bestiality, which ARE harmful. You are trying to establish linkage which simply is not there.

You have me confused with someone, you're obviously not reading my posts.