The Homosexual Dilemma

[hipeter924]

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?

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]

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

 

[Carib Gyal]

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Really? See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.

was that supposed to make sense? Do you know what slippery slope means?

I think it's a gay reference, it's when the cleft of a guy's ass is generously lubed and....

You get the picture....

 

[Coyote]

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"? That automatically is discrimminatory. Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"? That automatically is discrimminatory. Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

Blacks wanting freedom, Women wanting the vote, Mixed-race couples wanting to marry, women wanting legal abortions, the US wanting a nation governed by men and not a king. Shall I continue, dumbass?

 

[Coyote]

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

 

[Coyote]

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry.

Those are retarded examples. SURELY you can see the that?

So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking. In the mean time, you have nothing. The law is applied equally to everyone. That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.

Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages. It's applied equally.

True but irrelevant.

You are the one that ask me to "where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking" and now you say it's irrelevant?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.

You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.

I jerk off, ****, you finger yourself. Rub it out as you desire.

 

[Carib Gyal]

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.

You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.

I jerk off, ****, you finger yourself. Rub it out as you desire.

Bend over and finger away, thumber.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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]

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.

And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'

 

[Coyote]

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?

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.

And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'

But marriage laws allowing any person to marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex were also applied equally. So by your logic, we should have sex between adults and children legalized in 10 years or less....as soon as enough successful challenges make it to the Supreme Court.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

 

[Coyote]

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

 

[Coyote]

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?

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Nope. Children have never had the same rights as adults.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.

Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been redefined as one woman/one man.

Well, the enlightenment was fairly recent, so that serves reason.

 

[Coyote]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.

Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been redefined as one woman/one man.

Well, the enlightenment was fairly recent, so that serves reason.

What enlightenment? It's still pretty dark in here.