The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.

Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments. How does it feel to be so incompetent?

Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation. In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted. NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda. Congratulations!

And again, you go on about as if YOU are the expert on what NAMBLA will or will not be used for.

I never claimed expertise on anything. I'm a well educated man who knows that lawyers go with proven strategies, which should be obvious. Why would NAMBLA choose a legal strategy at variance with the one that met with such great success for the gay movement?

You go on and on about NAMBLA...what they are going to do.....more than anyone else here. You're the one schooling us all on NAMBLA.

 

[bodecea]

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

Oh? So, gays have no protected civil rights? Is that your assertion?

No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.

Well, no one else seems to be going on about it like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

The right to marry whom you will is protected.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

You have the save rights, civil and human, as everyone else.

Just because you're a sexual deviant, that doesn't give you special rights to alter key cultural standards, as a means to help you feel better about your nasty little kink.

And what you're searching for are "SPECIAL RIGHTS". I can't marry my besty so he can get on my health insurance and neither can you.

Both of us however can incorporate and through that association share responsibilities and benefits with our besties. But sadly, if we call our corporation "AT&T" or "IMB", that won't make us any more a legitimate function of either of those, than our naming it "marriage" would make it that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, Where's burlesque show is on. Get your popcorn , and let's have some fun.

The pud believes his opinion gives him the arbitrary right to label others and deny one the right to marry the person one loves.

If this deviant is the best the far right social con convention has as an example of its intelligentsia, the issue is over in favor of marriage equality by the end of June.

Scalia will be quoted, "Buncha dumb sucks, aren't they?" Marriage equality will be the law of the land.

 

[bodecea]

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

Oh? So, gays have no protected civil rights? Is that your assertion?

No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.

Exactly. Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else. That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Well, same-sex relations aren't an offense according to US law. So arguing that there is something legally wrong with homosexuality, isn't going to accomplish much in an argument against same-sex marriage - as first homosexual relationships would have to established as illegal again.

OH! So you're a law and order gal?

GREAT!

I say we put the law back to where two people of the same gender having sex is a felony, with a penalty for 25-life for the first offense... or death. I'm good with death for first offense, if you think it would help.

THEN there won't be a problem with it, because it will be ILLEGAL. Which will of course mean you Law and Order Homos will have nothing more to ***** about.

 

[bodecea]

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

You have the save rights, civil and human, as everyone else.

Just because you're a sexual deviant, that doesn't give you special rights to alter key cultural standards, as a means to help you feel better about your nasty little kink.

And what you're searching for are "SPECIAL RIGHTS". I can't marry my besty so he can get on my health insurance and neither can you.

Both of us however can incorporate and through that association share responsibilities and benefits with our besties. But sadly, if we call our corporation "AT&T" or "IMB", that won't make us any more a legitimate function of either of those, than our naming it "marriage" would make it that.

Why do you spend so much time thinking about the kind of sex that gay people have? I don't spend my time dwelling on the kind of sex straights have.

 

[bodecea]

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Well, same-sex relations aren't an offense according to US law. So arguing that there is something legally wrong with homosexuality, isn't going to accomplish much in an argument against same-sex marriage - as first homosexual relationships would have to established as illegal again.

OH! So you're a law and order gal?

GREAT!

I say we put the law back to where two people of the same gender having sex is a felony, with a penalty for 25-life for the first offense... .

THEN there won't be a problem with it, because it will be ILLEGAL. Which will of course mean you Law and Order Homos will have nothing more to ***** about.

Sorry. That isn't going to happen.

But it IS interesting to see your take on this.

 

[80zephyr]

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay. However - love is wrong when it damages a person. Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children. Children do not have the mental maturity to consent. Adults do. No rights are unlimited.

Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it? Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man? Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]

When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.

And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.

You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay. However - love is wrong when it damages a person. Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children. Children do not have the mental maturity to consent. Adults do. No rights are unlimited.

Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it? Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man? Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.

Children can not legally consent.

But what about those laws that prohibited homosexual conduct? Why are those to be ignored and laws restricting sex with minors to be observed? Why do we get to pick and choose which laws restricting deviancy are valid?

Its simple. Because they agree with it.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand'. Children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

Got news for you dummy, an adult female is nearly 27, and an adult male almost 29. That's reality, 18 is a line in the sand.

Absolutely true. So, the "age of consent" is set by bigots, correct?

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay. However - love is wrong when it damages a person. Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children. Children do not have the mental maturity to consent. Adults do. No rights are unlimited.

Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it? Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man? Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.

Mark

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]

When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.

And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.

You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.

Mark

Feel free to make your case, in a court of law, for lowering the age of consent for whatever your purposes are.

 

[bodecea]

You two boys seem awfully upset over the legal age of consent line.

 

[80zephyr]

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]

When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.

But what if a child did consent to it? Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?

I child can not legally consent and for good reason. They are not mature. We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason. So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them. This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.

Really? Then why do some states allow 15 year olds to marry, and others have to be 18?

Can you define "child"?

Or is a child based on your own morality?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Because it is sexually harassing minors
No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]

When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.

But what if a child did consent to it? Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?

I child can not legally consent and for good reason. They are not mature. We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason. So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them. This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.

You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12? Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?

Like I stated before. they are bigots, trying to push their own morality on the rest of us.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay. However - love is wrong when it damages a person. Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children. Children do not have the mental maturity to consent. Adults do. No rights are unlimited.

Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it? Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man? Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.Mark

The legislature defines that and age of consent.

You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.

You are absurd, absurd, absurd.

The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."

 

[bodecea]

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay. However - love is wrong when it damages a person. Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children. Children do not have the mental maturity to consent. Adults do. No rights are unlimited.

Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it? Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man? Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.Mark

The legislature defines that and age of consent.

You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.

You are absurd, absurd, absurd.

The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."

Are you sensing the underlying current here?

 

[80zephyr]

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

Because it is sexually harassing minors

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. **** five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a ****, I have a life to lead.

No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.

You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]

When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.

But what if a child did consent to it? Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?

It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.

Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]

You just pointed out that the age of consent varies by state. So tell me, why is a 15 year old, old enough to marry, and in some states they are not?

Could it possibly be that these laws concerning morality have no basis in fact?

Mark