how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[Katzndogz]

Accidental double post

 

[bodecea]

It could be a case of normal biological imperitives overcoming your aberration.

That's pretty funny! I'll have to share that with the Fertility Clinic we had artificial insemination done at. They could post that on the bulletin board for all to chuckle at. Straight and Gay couples both.

Do you REALLY think that a biological imperitive to have childen has anything to do with fertility??????

That's TRULY odd. Many women who for any one of a hundred reasons cannot have children still have a biological imperitive to have a baby. Otherwise there would be no fertility clinics or adoption centers. You don't honestly think that fertility clinics are there specifically for homosexuals do you?

You have a mental and emotional aberration that makes you sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. This has absolutely nothing to do with a biological need to have a child. In point, a few years ago a woman who was legally male got pregnant. She also had a biological imperitive to have a child. Naturally that need is very powerful and can overcome many mental and emotional abnormalities.

Actually, those who express a unfounded fear for those different than themselves, and try to excuse that fear with wild, unsubstantiated claims about those different have a mental and emotional aberration....a stunting of their maturity.

 

[Dragon]

In time to come when pederasty is the new sexual freedom to be normalized this will become more important.

Despite your cherry-picked anecdotes, the reality is that pederasty is LESS tolerated today than it once was, not more.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

In time to come when pederasty is the new sexual freedom to be normalized this will become more important.

Despite your cherry-picked anecdotes, the reality is that pederasty is LESS tolerated today than it once was, not more.

so it may seem......certainly there is more awareness....

however......why is it schools are handing out the morning-after pill to underage girls......?

it will only encourage promiscuity...

you can bet there are pederasts who will take advantage of this.....all they have to do is tell the girl to go see her school nurse the following morning.....talk about enabling....

 

[Katzndogz]

In time to come when pederasty is the new sexual freedom to be normalized this will become more important.

Despite your cherry-picked anecdotes, the reality is that pederasty is LESS tolerated today than it once was, not more.

so it may seem......certainly there is more awareness....

however......why is it schools are handing out the morning-after pill to underage girls......?

it will only encourage promiscuity...

you can bet there are pederasts who will take advantage of this.....all they have to do is tell the girl to go see her school nurse the following morning.....talk about enabling....

Fortunately sanity raised its head and the Plan B pill won't be available to under age girls over the counter.

 

[Dragon]

so it may seem......certainly there is more awareness....

however......why is it schools are handing out the morning-after pill to underage girls......?

it will only encourage promiscuity...

you can bet there are pederasts who will take advantage of this..

I seriously doubt it, because I don't think pederasts are really concerned about whether they get their victims pregnant or not. Either they'll get caught for raping children or they won't; if they do, a pregnancy is the least of their worries.

Do you understand that "promiscuity" and pederasty are two completely different things? Preventing teen pregnancy may encourage teen sex, but it won't encourage teenagers to be raped by adults because that isn't a choice on their part.

 

[Katzndogz]

so it may seem......certainly there is more awareness....

however......why is it schools are handing out the morning-after pill to underage girls......?

it will only encourage promiscuity...

you can bet there are pederasts who will take advantage of this..

I seriously doubt it, because I don't think pederasts are really concerned about whether they get their victims pregnant or not. Either they'll get caught for raping children or they won't; if they do, a pregnancy is the least of their worries.

Do you understand that "promiscuity" and pederasty are two completely different things? Preventing teen pregnancy may encourage teen sex, but it won't encourage teenagers to be raped by adults because that isn't a choice on their part.

THe rape of girl children like that of boy children is usually to pre-pubescent children anyway.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Gays claim they can have children and still be gay. How does that wash with your "gays are never guilty of anything" horseshit?

The fact is that child molesters always go after one sex, exclusively. It's a matter of choice, not opportunity. Any claims to the contrary are simply lies. It's a product of the "defend homosexuality as normal at all costs" mentality.

Should we just go after men in general? How about heterosexual men??? Because no matter what you say, female children are always molested more than male children.

There are homosexual child molesters who do not molest girls and heterosexual child molesters who do not molest boys. There is no "third way" where child predators are separate and apart from either homo or hetero sexuality. Although psychological studies and opinions are moving in that direction finding pederasty a distinct sexual orientation in and of itself and entitled to the protections of every other form of sexual orientation.

Pederasty will never be entitled to the protections of the other forms of sexual orientation because children are incapable of consent.

 

[Oscar Wao]

however......why is it schools are handing out the morning-after pill to underage girls......?

it will only encourage promiscuity...

No, it's called making sure that kids are safe if they decide to engage in sexual activity.

You can't stop kids from having sex. However, you CAN make sure that they are safe and protected from STDs and pregnancies if you teach them the proper preventive measures.

 

[Katzndogz]

Should we just go after men in general? How about heterosexual men??? Because no matter what you say, female children are always molested more than male children.

There are homosexual child molesters who do not molest girls and heterosexual child molesters who do not molest boys. There is no "third way" where child predators are separate and apart from either homo or hetero sexuality. Although psychological studies and opinions are moving in that direction finding pederasty a distinct sexual orientation in and of itself and entitled to the protections of every other form of sexual orientation.

Pederasty will never be entitled to the protections of the other forms of sexual orientation because children are incapable of consent.

For one reason only. An arbitrarily applied age of consent. Just lower the age of consent. What's the difference between a child one day before its birthday and one day after that changes "consent".

 

[bodecea]

There are homosexual child molesters who do not molest girls and heterosexual child molesters who do not molest boys. There is no "third way" where child predators are separate and apart from either homo or hetero sexuality. Although psychological studies and opinions are moving in that direction finding pederasty a distinct sexual orientation in and of itself and entitled to the protections of every other form of sexual orientation.

Pederasty will never be entitled to the protections of the other forms of sexual orientation because children are incapable of consent.

For one reason only. An arbitrarily applied age of consent. Just lower the age of consent. What's the difference between a child one day before its birthday and one day after that changes "consent".

You keep bringing this up. You want it to happen (I don't) you need to petition your congressperson to get the laws changed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interestingly enough, marriage itself as an institution seems to be on the decline.

WASHINGTON — Married couples have dropped below half of all American households for the first time, the Census Bureau says, a milestone in the evolution of the American family toward less traditional forms.

Married couples represented just 48 percent of American households in 2010, according to data being made public Thursday and analyzed by the Brookings Institution. This was slightly less than in 2000, but far below the 78 percent of households occupied by married couples in 1950.

What is more, just a fifth of households were traditional families — married couples with children — down from about a quarter a decade ago, and from 43 percent in 1950, as the iconic image of the American family continues to break apart.

In recent history, the marriage rate among Americans was at its highest in the 1950s, when the institution defined gender roles, family life and a person’s place in society. But as women moved into the work force, cohabitation lost its taboo label, and as society grew more secular, marriage lost some of its central authority.

“The days of Ozzie and Harriet have faded into the past,” said William Frey, the senior demographer at Brookings who analyzed the data. (The proportion of married couples slipped below half over the past decade, but was first reported as a precise count by the 2010 census.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html

 

[Jarhead]

Interestingly enough, marriage itself as an institution seems to be on the decline.

WASHINGTON — Married couples have dropped below half of all American households for the first time, the Census Bureau says, a milestone in the evolution of the American family toward less traditional forms.

Married couples represented just 48 percent of American households in 2010, according to data being made public Thursday and analyzed by the Brookings Institution. This was slightly less than in 2000, but far below the 78 percent of households occupied by married couples in 1950.

What is more, just a fifth of households were traditional families — married couples with children — down from about a quarter a decade ago, and from 43 percent in 1950, as the iconic image of the American family continues to break apart.

In recent history, the marriage rate among Americans was at its highest in the 1950s, when the institution defined gender roles, family life and a person’s place in society. But as women moved into the work force, cohabitation lost its taboo label, and as society grew more secular, marriage lost some of its central authority.

“The days of Ozzie and Harriet have faded into the past,” said William Frey, the senior demographer at Brookings who analyzed the data. (The proportion of married couples slipped below half over the past decade, but was first reported as a precise count by the 2010 census.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html

hmmm...a biker and a sailor.

Bet I know where you stand on this issue.

 

[Katzndogz]

Interestingly enough, marriage itself as an institution seems to be on the decline.

WASHINGTON — Married couples have dropped below half of all American households for the first time, the Census Bureau says, a milestone in the evolution of the American family toward less traditional forms.

Married couples represented just 48 percent of American households in 2010, according to data being made public Thursday and analyzed by the Brookings Institution. This was slightly less than in 2000, but far below the 78 percent of households occupied by married couples in 1950.

What is more, just a fifth of households were traditional families — married couples with children — down from about a quarter a decade ago, and from 43 percent in 1950, as the iconic image of the American family continues to break apart.

In recent history, the marriage rate among Americans was at its highest in the 1950s, when the institution defined gender roles, family life and a person’s place in society. But as women moved into the work force, cohabitation lost its taboo label, and as society grew more secular, marriage lost some of its central authority.

“The days of Ozzie and Harriet have faded into the past,” said William Frey, the senior demographer at Brookings who analyzed the data. (The proportion of married couples slipped below half over the past decade, but was first reported as a precise count by the 2010 census.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html

Of course it's on the decline. We are just following the path already well worn.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia | The Weekly Standard

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

 

[Katzndogz]

Pederasty will never be entitled to the protections of the other forms of sexual orientation because children are incapable of consent.

For one reason only. An arbitrarily applied age of consent. Just lower the age of consent. What's the difference between a child one day before its birthday and one day after that changes "consent".

You keep bringing this up. You want it to happen (I don't) you need to petition your congressperson to get the laws changed.

I'm merely telling you what the next step is. You, laughably, believes your personal moral code won't permit it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interestingly enough, marriage itself as an institution seems to be on the decline.

WASHINGTON — Married couples have dropped below half of all American households for the first time, the Census Bureau says, a milestone in the evolution of the American family toward less traditional forms.

Married couples represented just 48 percent of American households in 2010, according to data being made public Thursday and analyzed by the Brookings Institution. This was slightly less than in 2000, but far below the 78 percent of households occupied by married couples in 1950.

What is more, just a fifth of households were traditional families — married couples with children — down from about a quarter a decade ago, and from 43 percent in 1950, as the iconic image of the American family continues to break apart.

In recent history, the marriage rate among Americans was at its highest in the 1950s, when the institution defined gender roles, family life and a person’s place in society. But as women moved into the work force, cohabitation lost its taboo label, and as society grew more secular, marriage lost some of its central authority.

“The days of Ozzie and Harriet have faded into the past,” said William Frey, the senior demographer at Brookings who analyzed the data. (The proportion of married couples slipped below half over the past decade, but was first reported as a precise count by the 2010 census.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html

hmmm...a biker and a sailor.

Bet I know where you stand on this issue.

Hey.........I got married once, and made it for 7 years, but seems that she and Navy life were incompatible, because she hated all the moving and deployments. Got 2 sons out of it, and decided that as long as I was active duty, I would remain single.

Now that I'm retired? No, not in a hurry to race off to the altar again, but if someone who I trust and like comes into my life, there is a possibility.

But...........I don't think it's right to keep gays from having the same ability to make themselves miserable as the rest of us have via marriage.

Trust me...........I lived with a lesbian couple in Va. Beach while I was stationed there, and they'd been together longer than I'd been married, as well as seemed to have a really stable and healthy relationship.

Yes, gays SHOULD be allowed to marry.

But like I said, apparently the largest threat to marriage today isn't gays as much as it is young people being disenchanted with the whole idea, because they saw so many failed marriages growing up.

 

[Jarhead]

Interestingly enough, marriage itself as an institution seems to be on the decline.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html

hmmm...a biker and a sailor.

Bet I know where you stand on this issue.

Hey.........I got married once, and made it for 7 years, but seems that she and Navy life were incompatible, because she hated all the moving and deployments. Got 2 sons out of it, and decided that as long as I was active duty, I would remain single.

Now that I'm retired? No, not in a hurry to race off to the altar again, but if someone who I trust and like comes into my life, there is a possibility.

But...........I don't think it's right to keep gays from having the same ability to make themselves miserable as the rest of us have via marriage.

Trust me...........I lived with a lesbian couple in Va. Beach while I was stationed there, and they'd been together longer than I'd been married, as well as seemed to have a really stable and healthy relationship.

Yes, gays SHOULD be allowed to marry.

But like I said, apparently the largest threat to marriage today isn't gays as much as it is young people being disenchanted with the whole idea, because they saw so many failed marriages growing up.

We have friends that are a gay couple...just got married as a matter of fact. They are as devoted to each other as my wife and I are....I bet their marriage lasts to the end...as mine will with my wife.....and I know two separate heterosexual couples that cheat on each other and just a matter fo time before those marirages end.

Sorry...just dont get why people are against gay marriage. I think they are afraid of what they dont understand?

And again...thanks for your service <S>

 

[sfcalifornia]

There are homosexual child molesters who do not molest girls and heterosexual child molesters who do not molest boys. There is no "third way" where child predators are separate and apart from either homo or hetero sexuality. Although psychological studies and opinions are moving in that direction finding pederasty a distinct sexual orientation in and of itself and entitled to the protections of every other form of sexual orientation.

Pederasty will never be entitled to the protections of the other forms of sexual orientation because children are incapable of consent.

For one reason only. An arbitrarily applied age of consent. Just lower the age of consent. What's the difference between a child one day before its birthday and one day after that changes "consent".

Agreed. That is why age of consent varies from not only state to state but country to country. Drinking age is also an arbitrary age limit. Voting age is an arbitrary age limit. There are very mature sixteen and seventeen year olds and there are very immature 22 year olds.

But it has to be set at some point, doesn't it? Otherwise, what is the alternative? Everyone has to take a test?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Interestingly enough, marriage itself as an institution seems to be on the decline.

WASHINGTON — Married couples have dropped below half of all American households for the first time, the Census Bureau says, a milestone in the evolution of the American family toward less traditional forms.

Married couples represented just 48 percent of American households in 2010, according to data being made public Thursday and analyzed by the Brookings Institution. This was slightly less than in 2000, but far below the 78 percent of households occupied by married couples in 1950.

What is more, just a fifth of households were traditional families — married couples with children — down from about a quarter a decade ago, and from 43 percent in 1950, as the iconic image of the American family continues to break apart.

In recent history, the marriage rate among Americans was at its highest in the 1950s, when the institution defined gender roles, family life and a person’s place in society. But as women moved into the work force, cohabitation lost its taboo label, and as society grew more secular, marriage lost some of its central authority.

“The days of Ozzie and Harriet have faded into the past,” said William Frey, the senior demographer at Brookings who analyzed the data. (The proportion of married couples slipped below half over the past decade, but was first reported as a precise count by the 2010 census.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html

Of course it's on the decline. We are just following the path already well worn.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia | The Weekly Standard

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

Marriage is on the decline in Japan too. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Japan and nor has there been any serious legislature introduced to make it legal.

Marriage decline in developed countries is due to a large number of factors and you cannot place the blame for marriage decline on marriage recognition of gay couples. Besides, wouldn't recognition of gay marriage help to increase marriage rates? It's the gays who want to get married now, not the straights.

 

[Dragon]

I'm merely telling you what the next step is.

But it's not "the next step." You only think that because YOU draw a similarity in your own mind between homosexuality and pederasty in that both are "perversions." But as we don't believe there is such a thing as "perversion," for us that's a nonexistent similarity.

Here, perhaps this will help. I ALREADY don't consider pederasty a "perversion." So there's no "next step" to be taken as far as that goes; we're already there. But on the other hand, I do consider pederasty to be coercive and cruel.

It's all about how people treat each other, not about whether a particular act violates an antique code of sexual taboos. And pederasty is a SERIOUS violation of reasonable expectations as to how people are to treat one another.

As noted above, tolerance within society for pederasty is on the decline, not on the increase. As pornography becomes increasingly accepted, child pornography is an exception. The unusual thing about the Church molestation scandals is not that molestation happens in the Church but that it is being brought to light and made a source of outrage. Society's condemnation of sexual victimization of children is getting STRICTER, not looser.

How do you reconcile that with your views that acceptance of homosexuality leads to acceptance of pederasty? After all, advances in gay rights are not just now happening. With gay people increasingly protected against discrimination in housing and employment, with sodomy laws struck down by the courts, with several states already accepting same-sex marriage, wouldn't you, on your theory, expect to see more acceptance of pederasty, too?

Since we DON'T see that, but rather see the opposite, are you ready to reconsider your idea?