Gay Marriage supporters said this would never happen...

[NYcarbineer]

A few days ago, I got a great big belly laugh from a gay marriage advocate over my assertion that government sanctioning of sexuality through gay marriage would open the door to other less desirable possibilities, like pedophilia.

"Oh, you must be out of your mind-- we know better than to have sex with children!" they chortled in disbelief that I would even argue such ridiculous nonsense. "That will never happen," they said.

Well... here ya go...
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

===================================================

Now we know from every liberal "cause" that has ever come down the pike, if academia is saying it today, it will be on the legislative docket tomorrow, if liberals have their say.

Here's yet another alarming immoral indicator:
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

===================================================

My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.

Now, I am not some prudish stick in the mud who hates gay people and doesn't want them to be happy in life. I happen to have some very close gay friends, one such couple who's wedding I attendended in 1986! Did I mention this was in rural Alabama? Of course it wasn't a state-sanctioned "marriage" by law, it was merely a private wedding ceremony on a hillside with a Rastafarian minister and close family and friends attending, but there was no Sheriff Bubba Billybob there to tell them they couldn't do it, nor were there any Bible-thumping protesters preventing the event. They had a cake... not sure who made it for them, but it was there. They had a photographer, went on a honeymoon, we threw rice... they've been together now for nearly 30 years. Curiously enough, neither of them support "Gay Marriage!"

Their viewpoint (and mine, which was adopted from them), is that the government should not be involved with "marriage" at all. That should be left to individuals and churches to define in society, and NOT mandated by the government. Instead, they favor comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would essentially eliminate all government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with simple partnership agreements by contract between any two consenting adults. This approach would ostensibly give all sides what they claim to want. Religious people get to maintain "sanctity of traditional marriage" while gay couples obtain a way and means to acquire the benefits and tax advantages of a couple. It also has an added bonus, in that such a contract could be used for a variety of platonic relationship arrangements, like a daughter caring for her aging mother, or two spinster sisters living together.

It's a purely sensible approach that resolves the issue once and for all.

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

 

[bendog]

I believe the assertion was that courts were not going to approve raping children as a result of gay marriage. Thus far, that appears to be the case.

Well the courts don't have a precedent yet. And it's not "raping children" any more than homosexual sex is men raping other men. It's perfectly NORMAL for grown men to want to have sex with children... That's not my opinion, it's what these "academics" had to say at Cambridge University.

So now... you DO understand what the "equal protection clause" is, right? It's that part of the constitution which says we can't bestow the right to do something on one class of citizen but not on another. It's exactly why bans on interracial marriage were overturned. But you see, marriage is the union of a man and woman... that's what marriage is. There is no discrimination against any class, you can get married if you're gay, straight or in-between, they don't ask you that when you obtain a marriage license.

When you re-define marriage to include same-sex unions, it becomes something it is not. It is then accommodating a sexual proclivity, whether directly or by implication. You can't just say we're doing this but there is no sexuality involved, that is why you're doing it. Straight men aren't going to marry straight men. The law is not being changed to accommodate them. So you've established that marriage can be changed and redefined to accommodate a sexual lifestyle or preference. And this IS a problem, according to the Constitution.

Other sexual proclivities must be afforded the same rights. The same exact argument for "gay marriage" can and will be made by polygamists, pedophiles, and all kinds of other sexual deviants, because they have the right to equal protection under the law. Cases will be made against the "antiquated laws" establishing age criteria or number of partners, or whether those partners need to be human. Who are YOU to judge them? What gives you the right to deny them what you allowed for homosexuals? ...Not the Constitution!

there you go. For you two consenting adults equals rape if you don't approve of how they do it. Back in the basement for you

 

[Boss]

I believe the assertion was that courts were not going to approve raping children as a result of gay marriage. Thus far, that appears to be the case.

Well the courts don't have a precedent yet. And it's not "raping children" any more than homosexual sex is men raping other men. It's perfectly NORMAL for grown men to want to have sex with children... That's not my opinion, it's what these "academics" had to say at Cambridge University.

So now... you DO understand what the "equal protection clause" is, right? It's that part of the constitution which says we can't bestow the right to do something on one class of citizen but not on another. It's exactly why bans on interracial marriage were overturned. But you see, marriage is the union of a man and woman... that's what marriage is. There is no discrimination against any class, you can get married if you're gay, straight or in-between, they don't ask you that when you obtain a marriage license.

When you re-define marriage to include same-sex unions, it becomes something it is not. It is then accommodating a sexual proclivity, whether directly or by implication. You can't just say we're doing this but there is no sexuality involved, that is why you're doing it. Straight men aren't going to marry straight men. The law is not being changed to accommodate them. So you've established that marriage can be changed and redefined to accommodate a sexual lifestyle or preference. And this IS a problem, according to the Constitution.

Other sexual proclivities must be afforded the same rights. The same exact argument for "gay marriage" can and will be made by polygamists, pedophiles, and all kinds of other sexual deviants, because they have the right to equal protection under the law. Cases will be made against the "antiquated laws" establishing age criteria or number of partners, or whether those partners need to be human. Who are YOU to judge them? What gives you the right to deny them what you allowed for homosexuals? ...Not the Constitution!

there you go. For you two consenting adults equals rape if you don't approve of how they do it. Back in the basement for you

But that's not what I said, is it? This has nothing to do with what I approve of. If it were up to me, people wouldn't be able to marry until they were 30 years old. This is about how our Constitution is designed and what is coming down the pike as soon as we Constitutionally okay gay marriage. For you, the law should only apply to sexual proclivities you are comfortable with.

Now I think I laid out a pretty damn reasonable and bold plan for Civil Unions as a social conservative. It's a way to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of everyone involved. But for some reason, you want to ignore that and stereotype me. This is what is wrong with politics in America today, your "SIDE" doesn't want to budge one inch. You arrogantly proceed to try and ram your liberal agenda down our throats against our will. Instead of trying to find some reasonable compromise where we can resolve this issue, you'd rather KEEP the issue, to hell with the gay people, you need something to use as a wedge to divide people so they'll emotively go vote for your asswipe political leaders.

 

[g5000]

That "slippery slope" is a truism.

No, it isn't. It is a logical fallacy.

Take a course in logic.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

Hey, don't judge them, like gay people, they can't change who they are attracted to, they are born that way...

 

[francoHFW]

OP- IT DIDN"T HAPPEN- same old bs, for brainwashed, ignorant hater dupes ONLY lol...

 

[g5000]

So now... you DO understand what the "equal protection clause" is, right? It's that part of the constitution which says we can't bestow the right to do something on one class of citizen but not on another.

You left out one very critical detail which collapses your entire argument and that of every other slippery slope logical fallacy fool.

We cannot bestow a privilege on one class of citizen but not on another without a rational reason for doing so.

An adult-child relationship is not a consensual one. Thus there is a rational reason for banning such societal harms.

None of you dumb fucks has ever come up with a rational reason for banning gay marriage.

 

[1776]

Liberals eventually "evolve" into allowing sex with kiddies and animals.....

 

[bodecea]

That "slippery slope" is a truism. If you are going to legalize one perversion, why would you not legalize all the perversions? Why not Incest? Why not beastiality? Why not Man and young boy?

Are their "rights" not as important as the gays? So, are the limp wrists opposed to some guy marrying his sister? How dare they!

Like I said - that slippery slope is a son-of-a-bitch.


Perverts gonna be perverts..........

All those other practices are AGAINST the law! No one has an interest in legalizing them except for a handful of very sick people.

Got news for you sonny. Fags used to be against the law, too. My how times have changed.

Again - perverts are gonna be perverts.

So did whites marrying blacks...and women voting...and so on and so forth. Your point would be.....?

 

[Kosh]

Whoa hold on...So you're saying that Pedophiles are saying that Pedophilia is normal? I'm shocked!

Next thing you're going to tell me that Gambling Addicts say that losing your shirt in a Casino is normal

Ironic comments from this far left Obama drone..

 

[bodecea]

Liberals eventually "evolve" into allowing sex with kiddies and animals.....

In that, we are decades, if not centuries behind conservatives in "evolving".


(If you want to play that game, I can too.)

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

The first step for the homosexual rights agenda was to normalize it and remove its designation as a mental illness as well...


LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

 

[Boss]

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

 

[bodecea]

So now... you DO understand what the "equal protection clause" is, right? It's that part of the constitution which says we can't bestow the right to do something on one class of citizen but not on another.

You left out one very critical detail which collapses your entire argument and that of every other slippery slope logical fallacy fool.

We cannot bestow a privilege on one class of citizen but not on another without a rational reason for doing so.

An adult-child relationship is not a consensual one. Thus there is a rational reason for banning such societal harms.

None of you dumb fucks has ever come up with a rational reason for banning gay marriage.

It is very frightening to see so many on the RW not know what "legal consent" is and why it is so important.

 

[bodecea]

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

So...what have you actively done to get government out of marriage...besides decline getting a government marriage license which I will "assume" you've done already.?

 

[Boss]

So now... you DO understand what the "equal protection clause" is, right? It's that part of the constitution which says we can't bestow the right to do something on one class of citizen but not on another.

You left out one very critical detail which collapses your entire argument and that of every other slippery slope logical fallacy fool.

We cannot bestow a privilege on one class of citizen but not on another without a rational reason for doing so.

An adult-child relationship is not a consensual one. Thus there is a rational reason for banning such societal harms.

None of you dumb fucks has ever come up with a rational reason for banning gay marriage.

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you can ignore equal protection if you have a rational reason. It's just not there.

An adult-child relationship may be consensual... that's what the "academics" at Cambridge are arguing. You say there are "societal harms" but the same argument is made regarding homosexuality. You can't have it both ways. The reason to ban "gay marriage" is because that isn't marriage. Gays are allowed to marry the same as anyone, but that is a matrimonial relationship between a male and female, it's not anything else.

The only thing that prevents "man-child" marriage is the law regarding age of consent, and that used to be 12-years-old in America... not that long ago, actually. So the same "get with the times" arguments made for homosexuals can be made for pedophiliacs and hebephilacs. Under 'equal protection' in the Constitution, there is no rationale for denying that "right" once you've established sexuality as a criteria for it. You'll have to live with it.

 

[1776]

Given liberals like you are scum, you are just like those people.

Liberals eventually "evolve" into allowing sex with kiddies and animals.....

In that, we are decades, if not centuries behind conservatives in "evolving".


(If you want to play that game, I can too.)

 

[Boss]

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

So...what have you actively done to get government out of marriage...besides decline getting a government marriage license which I will "assume" you've done already.?

I advocate my plan for Civil Union reforms. Is there something else I can do?

 

[koshergrl]

The first step for the homosexual rights agenda was to normalize it and remove its designation as a mental illness as well...


LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

See my signature..

And this thread, where several of our most vociferous pro-gays are proclaiming it's normal and beautiful for a woman to be sexually aroused by the act of nursing her own infant..and it's abnormal, prudish and hateful to question the normalcy of such feelings:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/364173-a-mothers-love-runs-deep.html

 

[bodecea]

Given liberals like you are scum, you are just like those people.

Liberals eventually "evolve" into allowing sex with kiddies and animals.....

In that, we are decades, if not centuries behind conservatives in "evolving".


(If you want to play that game, I can too.)

As I said...and as you so eloquently illustrate....conservatives are decades if not centuries ahead of liberals in"evolving" in those directions you brought up.