It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

No, what you are reading are not comparisons between homosexuality and other things, there is nothing to compare homosexuality to. The analogies are to show you the absurdity of your position when it comes to legitimizing homosexuality through gay marriage.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?

So now, let's jump ahead 10-12 years and discuss "Joe" a man who is NOT a pedophile but a hebephile. That is someone similar to a pedophile but they are attracted to adolescents. So now, Joe is in a relationship with a 13 year-old girl who is totally cool with their relationship and views Joe as the love of her life, and Joe feels the same about her. He is petitioning the court for the right to "marry the person he loves" without discriminating against him. Please explain to me how the very same exact arguments you've made for "gay marriage" don't apply to Joe? AND... keep in mind, Joe's girl fully consents to their relationship.

 

[Boss]

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level.

History... You showing me speculation on archaeological discoveries of homosexuality in ancient cultures is not proof of other civilizations acknowledging gay marriage. What we define as marriage has NEVER been between same genders... until NOW. You've offered nothing to prove otherwise... some smart ass proved it was between same genders in 2001, but that is considered part of "NOW." Before 2001, all the way back to where "marriage" was first used to define a human relationship, it has meant the union of male and female and nothing else. All kinds of parameters have existed within that definition, that doesn't change what it is.

Adulterers certainly CAN NOT marry their mistresses unless they want to be charged with bigamy. They can certainly get a divorce and marry the person that was their mistress... is that what he meant? That would make his mistress his wife and not his mistress anymore. Words and their definitions certainly seem to be a challenge for you guys.

 

[Montrovant]

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level.

History... You showing me speculation on archaeological discoveries of homosexuality in ancient cultures is not proof of other civilizations acknowledging gay marriage. What we define as marriage has NEVER been between same genders... until NOW. You've offered nothing to prove otherwise... some smart ass proved it was between same genders in 2001, but that is considered part of "NOW." Before 2001, all the way back to where "marriage" was first used to define a human relationship, it has meant the union of male and female and nothing else. All kinds of parameters have existed within that definition, that doesn't change what it is.

Adulterers certainly CAN NOT marry their mistresses unless they want to be charged with bigamy. They can certainly get a divorce and marry the person that was their mistress... is that what he meant? That would make his mistress his wife and not his mistress anymore. Words and their definitions certainly seem to be a challenge for you guys.

EverCurious never claimed to be king either. You are the one who brought that up, but when it's turned back on you, suddenly you want to cry foul?

You don't expect me to live by your wishes or standards....except when it comes to the definition of marriage, apparently.

I was clearly talking about EverCurious's mentions of history. If you want to bring up the link I gave earlier, however, it may not be proof of same sex marriage in ancient cultures, but it is evidence. That you want to dismiss such evidence out of hand, likely because it goes against your repeated statements that marriage has only ever meant between a man and woman (or man and women, or men and woman, or men and women), is your own issue.

I think it's extremely likely EverCurious meant that adulterers can marry their mistresses once both parties are single. That seems obvious. It was a response to this statement by you, "Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse.". They have every right to marry the person they are having an affair with once they dissolve their current marriages. As you said, words and their definitions seem to be a challenge for you.

Why is it that when you give your opinion on what society should do, what the law should say, what the definition of words are, it is fine, but when someone else gives their opinions, they are trying to be king and force their views on others?

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

No, what you are reading are not comparisons between homosexuality and other things, there is nothing to compare homosexuality to. The analogies are to show you the absurdity of your position when it comes to legitimizing homosexuality through gay marriage.
.

Yet your analogies are always the same- homosexuals therefore 'pedophiles'. Homosexuals therefore public masturbation

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

So now, let's jump ahead 10-12 years and discuss "Joe" a man who is NOT a pedophile but a hebephile. That is someone similar to a pedophile but they are attracted to adolescents. So now, Joe is in a relationship with a 13 year-old girl who is totally cool with their relationship and views Joe as the love of her life, and Joe feels the same about her. He is petitioning the court for the right to "marry the person he loves" without discriminating against him. Please explain to me how the very same exact arguments you've made for "gay marriage" don't apply to Joe? AND... keep in mind, Joe's girl fully consents to their relationship.

Sure- I doubt any explanation will make any headway with you- but sure.

Let us use real life examples:
Jim and John were in love with each other, were both of an age that they could give legal consent to have sex or marry, were both of sound mind so that they could provide legal consent. But the law said that they could not marry- so they both petition the court for their rights to marry each other.

Joe and Peggy were in 'love' with each other, Joe was of legal age, but Peggy is only 13 years old, and in that state she is too young to provide consent to either sex or marriage. Joe appeals the court for permission to marry Peggy, arguing that he not being allowed to marry the person he loves is discriminatory and violates his Constitutional rights.

The court rejects his claim- explaining to him that in a marriage both parties must consent to the marriage, and that Peggy is unable to provide legal consent. And then proceeds to notify the authorities to have Joe investigated for possible Statutory rape or child molestation, since sex between them is illegal.

Now the ridiculous thing about this whole scenario is that it is possible for Joe to legally marry Peggy in at least one state, I believe it requires both her parents permission(they can provide consent for her) and the courts approval.

Laws regarding the age of consent for both sex and marriage have varied tremendously over the years- generally in the last 100 years- as America has grown more liberal- the age of consent has risen.

 

[Syriusly]

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level.

And I am perfectly consent with leaving the issue of 'gay marriage' where it is now.

You are the one who has started an entire thread because you are so upset about legal marriage between homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

I think its time to repost the original Post again- in all of its glory

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

 

[Boss]

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level.

History... You showing me speculation on archaeological discoveries of homosexuality in ancient cultures is not proof of other civilizations acknowledging gay marriage. What we define as marriage has NEVER been between same genders... until NOW. You've offered nothing to prove otherwise... some smart ass proved it was between same genders in 2001, but that is considered part of "NOW." Before 2001, all the way back to where "marriage" was first used to define a human relationship, it has meant the union of male and female and nothing else. All kinds of parameters have existed within that definition, that doesn't change what it is.

Adulterers certainly CAN NOT marry their mistresses unless they want to be charged with bigamy. They can certainly get a divorce and marry the person that was their mistress... is that what he meant? That would make his mistress his wife and not his mistress anymore. Words and their definitions certainly seem to be a challenge for you guys.

EverCurious never claimed to be king either. You are the one who brought that up, but when it's turned back on you, suddenly you want to cry foul?

You don't expect me to live by your wishes or standards....except when it comes to the definition of marriage, apparently.

I was clearly talking about EverCurious's mentions of history. If you want to bring up the link I gave earlier, however, it may not be proof of same sex marriage in ancient cultures, but it is evidence. That you want to dismiss such evidence out of hand, likely because it goes against your repeated statements that marriage has only ever meant between a man and woman (or man and women, or men and woman, or men and women), is your own issue.

I think it's extremely likely EverCurious meant that adulterers can marry their mistresses once both parties are single. That seems obvious. It was a response to this statement by you, "Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse.". They have every right to marry the person they are having an affair with once they dissolve their current marriages. As you said, words and their definitions seem to be a challenge for you.

Why is it that when you give your opinion on what society should do, what the law should say, what the definition of words are, it is fine, but when someone else gives their opinions, they are trying to be king and force their views on others?

Why are you spending so much time trying to explain why EverCurious was wrong? An adulterer cannot marry his mistress. He can marry the person who was once his mistress, after he divorces his wife and providing his mistress has divorced any husband she may have, but once she marries him, she is no longer (by definition) his mistress. So he simply cannot marry his mistress. That is what seems obvious to me.

Now the question I asked is... why doesn't he "have every right to marry" his mistress while still married to his wife? It's not harming gay or traditional marriage... why can't we make that happen? And the other things I've mentioned, why can't those also be made to happen? Come on man, we have people out there being denied their "every right" to marry the person they love.

 

[Boss]

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER.

Now let's get back to my example. Why can't Joe's 13-year-old girlfriend consent to sex or marriage? Why do you insist on calling Joe's love-making to the person he loves "rape" instead? She consents and he consents... she understands what sex is and what consent means. She knows what marriage is, she hasn't lived under a rock all her life. So why can she not freely give her own consent? Why is it YOUR business? How does it harm YOU? Does Joe not have the same 14th Amendment rights? Would it be different if Joe were a homosexual? Could he "have every right to marry the person he loves" then?

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

How about you stop being all stiff-butted and preaching to me what we know is right and wrong and explain how the hell Joe's rights are less important or why Joe's girlfriend can't give legal consent? So far, you've come just shy of breaking out the hymnals to explain how this is considered some sort of a moral abomination in your religious beliefs but you're not explaining how Joe's Constitutional RIGHT to marry the person he loves can be denied.

 

[Montrovant]

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level.

History... You showing me speculation on archaeological discoveries of homosexuality in ancient cultures is not proof of other civilizations acknowledging gay marriage. What we define as marriage has NEVER been between same genders... until NOW. You've offered nothing to prove otherwise... some smart ass proved it was between same genders in 2001, but that is considered part of "NOW." Before 2001, all the way back to where "marriage" was first used to define a human relationship, it has meant the union of male and female and nothing else. All kinds of parameters have existed within that definition, that doesn't change what it is.

Adulterers certainly CAN NOT marry their mistresses unless they want to be charged with bigamy. They can certainly get a divorce and marry the person that was their mistress... is that what he meant? That would make his mistress his wife and not his mistress anymore. Words and their definitions certainly seem to be a challenge for you guys.

EverCurious never claimed to be king either. You are the one who brought that up, but when it's turned back on you, suddenly you want to cry foul?

You don't expect me to live by your wishes or standards....except when it comes to the definition of marriage, apparently.

I was clearly talking about EverCurious's mentions of history. If you want to bring up the link I gave earlier, however, it may not be proof of same sex marriage in ancient cultures, but it is evidence. That you want to dismiss such evidence out of hand, likely because it goes against your repeated statements that marriage has only ever meant between a man and woman (or man and women, or men and woman, or men and women), is your own issue.

I think it's extremely likely EverCurious meant that adulterers can marry their mistresses once both parties are single. That seems obvious. It was a response to this statement by you, "Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse.". They have every right to marry the person they are having an affair with once they dissolve their current marriages. As you said, words and their definitions seem to be a challenge for you.

Why is it that when you give your opinion on what society should do, what the law should say, what the definition of words are, it is fine, but when someone else gives their opinions, they are trying to be king and force their views on others?

Why are you spending so much time trying to explain why EverCurious was wrong? An adulterer cannot marry his mistress. He can marry the person who was once his mistress, after he divorces his wife and providing his mistress has divorced any husband she may have, but once she marries him, she is no longer (by definition) his mistress. So he simply cannot marry his mistress. That is what seems obvious to me.

Now the question I asked is... why doesn't he "have every right to marry" his mistress while still married to his wife? It's not harming gay or traditional marriage... why can't we make that happen? And the other things I've mentioned, why can't those also be made to happen? Come on man, we have people out there being denied their "every right" to marry the person they love.

I don't have a problem with polygamy being legal. However, in the case of an adulterer and his mistress, I doubt the adulterer's wife or husband would consent to the mistress joining the marriage. A polygamous marriage would require all parties agreeing to the terms.

Why can't he have marriages to separate women? Maybe some sort of specific contract could be written up to cover it, but there are certain parts of marriage which would come into conflict in such a situation. The question of who has power of attorney in medical crises would be an example.

Why do you spend so much time spouting your opinions, telling us what is or is not true of marriage, then complain that someone else is acting like a king when they do the same?

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER.

Now let's get back to my example. Why can't Joe's 13-year-old girlfriend consent to sex or marriage? Why do you insist on calling Joe's love-making to the person he loves "rape" instead? She consents and he consents... she understands what sex is and what consent means. She knows what marriage is, she hasn't lived under a rock all her life. So why can she not freely give her own consent? Why is it YOUR business? How does it harm YOU? Does Joe not have the same 14th Amendment rights? Would it be different if Joe were a homosexual? Could he "have every right to marry the person he loves" then?

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

How about you stop being all stiff-butted and preaching to me what we know is right and wrong and explain how the hell Joe's rights are less important or why Joe's girlfriend can't give legal consent? So far, you've come just shy of breaking out the hymnals to explain how this is considered some sort of a moral abomination in your religious beliefs but you're not explaining how Joe's Constitutional RIGHT to marry the person he loves can be denied.

Was the concept of consent unchangeable before the federal same sex marriage ruling? If not, why is it suddenly so relevant?

You haven't brought up pedophiles marrying children?

Well I thought I understood the concept of "marriage" but apparently I was wrong. So why is "consent" any different?

And how were gay people not being given equal rights? Marriage licenses are not issued on the basis of whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. IF that were what was happening, I could see your argument, but that's not what is happening. They aren't allowed to do something that IS NOT marriage and call that marriage. The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

As far as why 13 year olds cannot consent, it is a question of emotional and intellectual maturity. Yes, the age of consent is something that changes with time and place. Yes, it can and probably will continue to change in the future. Yes, picking a particular age of consent is a very inexact system; some people mature more quickly than others. None of that was untrue before Obergefel. None of that is more or less true since Obergefel. You keep harping on consent as though same sex marriage will somehow inevitably lead to lowering of consent laws. Why? Did the age of consent lower after marriage moved from polygamy to monogamy? Did age of consent lower when marriage moved away from immediate family members? Did age of consent lower when arranged marriages without input from the couple involved became taboo? Did age of consent lower when interracial marriage bans were struck down? Why does the change of gender, having nothing to do with consent, suddenly require consent laws to change?

 

[Faun]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

No, what you are reading are not comparisons between homosexuality and other things, there is nothing to compare homosexuality to. The analogies are to show you the absurdity of your position when it comes to legitimizing homosexuality through gay marriage.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?

So now, let's jump ahead 10-12 years and discuss "Joe" a man who is NOT a pedophile but a hebephile. That is someone similar to a pedophile but they are attracted to adolescents. So now, Joe is in a relationship with a 13 year-old girl who is totally cool with their relationship and views Joe as the love of her life, and Joe feels the same about her. He is petitioning the court for the right to "marry the person he loves" without discriminating against him. Please explain to me how the very same exact arguments you've made for "gay marriage" don't apply to Joe? AND... keep in mind, Joe's girl fully consents to their relationship.

You are fucking deranged.

Adolescents can't legally consent to sex with adults.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

And no one is "falsely" accusing you of talking about pedophiles raping children -- you did indeed broach the subject ...

They HAVE equal access to marry... MARRIAGE is the union of a man and woman! It's nothing else! It can't BE anything else! It's not about a sexual preference or behavior, it's what it is... the union of a man and woman in matrimony. What gays are denied it the right to call something "marriage" that doesn't fit the definition. We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.​

 

[Syriusly]

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

I never claimed to be king. I don't go around expecting you to live by my wishes or standards. I am perfectly fine with leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states and the people to decide for themselves, or to remove government from the marriage business entirely because I don't think they belong there and they certainly don't belong there at the federal level.

History... You showing me speculation on archaeological discoveries of homosexuality in ancient cultures is not proof of other civilizations acknowledging gay marriage. What we define as marriage has NEVER been between same genders... until NOW. You've offered nothing to prove otherwise... some smart ass proved it was between same genders in 2001, but that is considered part of "NOW." Before 2001, all the way back to where "marriage" was first used to define a human relationship, it has meant the union of male and female and nothing else. All kinds of parameters have existed within that definition, that doesn't change what it is.

Adulterers certainly CAN NOT marry their mistresses unless they want to be charged with bigamy. They can certainly get a divorce and marry the person that was their mistress... is that what he meant? That would make his mistress his wife and not his mistress anymore. Words and their definitions certainly seem to be a challenge for you guys.

EverCurious never claimed to be king either. You are the one who brought that up, but when it's turned back on you, suddenly you want to cry foul?

You don't expect me to live by your wishes or standards....except when it comes to the definition of marriage, apparently.

I was clearly talking about EverCurious's mentions of history. If you want to bring up the link I gave earlier, however, it may not be proof of same sex marriage in ancient cultures, but it is evidence. That you want to dismiss such evidence out of hand, likely because it goes against your repeated statements that marriage has only ever meant between a man and woman (or man and women, or men and woman, or men and women), is your own issue.

I think it's extremely likely EverCurious meant that adulterers can marry their mistresses once both parties are single. That seems obvious. It was a response to this statement by you, "Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse.". They have every right to marry the person they are having an affair with once they dissolve their current marriages. As you said, words and their definitions seem to be a challenge for you.

Why is it that when you give your opinion on what society should do, what the law should say, what the definition of words are, it is fine, but when someone else gives their opinions, they are trying to be king and force their views on others?

Why are you spending so much time trying to explain why EverCurious was wrong? An adulterer cannot marry his mistress. He can marry the person who was once his mistress, after he divorces his wife and providing his mistress has divorced any husband she may have, but once she marries him, she is no longer (by definition) his mistress. So he simply cannot marry his mistress. That is what seems obvious to me.

Now the question I asked is... why doesn't he "have every right to marry" his mistress while still married to his wife? It's not harming gay or traditional marriage... why can't we make that happen? And the other things I've mentioned, why can't those also be made to happen? Come on man, we have people out there being denied their "every right" to marry the person they love.

What you are speaking about would be considered 'bigamy'- and as to why a man cannot marry his mistress is because he is already in a contract with another woman- the two of them had previously consented to marry each other.

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults- you ask why this man cannot have an additional contract with another woman- because it violate the contract between himself and the first woman.

Not only that, it is very easy for States to provide examples of men who have abandoned their first wives for their mistresses to demonstrate the harm that such a bigamous relationship harms the first wife.

I think that you are so obsessed about two men being able to marry each other that you are blinding yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that..

Clearly you do. You keep on bringing up situations- sex and marriage which require sex- and providing examples of non-consensual sex and 'marriage'.

If by 'moral concepts' if you cannot see any 'moral' difference between two adult men having a consensual sexual relationship- and a man raping a woman- then I don't think it is 'seculars' that want to destroy your morals- I have concerns about what morals you have.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

I don't have any problem with the concept. I think it's a good moral concept to have. The thing is, it's a concept and concepts can be changed to suit agendas. If moral concepts are under attack by seculars who want to destroy them, why shouldn't I worry equally as much about this one? You giving me your reassurances doesn't do if for me, sorry... if you were the king or something, maybe I would trust it all to your judgement and that would be that.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Again, I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children. You've repeatedly lied and claimed I have. I specifically asked about hebephiles. You keep dodging my question and wanting to talk about men having sex with 4-year-old girls, which I have not brought up... EVER..

Why yes you have. Almost from the start. Your very first post you equate homosexuals to pedophiles- by post #50 you are equating two men marrying to a pedophile marrying a child. You have brought it up repeatedly. Only later did you try to make about 'hebephiles'. Did you think I would forget- a quick search found you referring to pedophiles marrying children 9 times- perhaps there were more times- this were the ones I found easily.

Why did you decide to lie and say I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children ?

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

Now I have not talked about pedophiles raping children as you continue to accuse me off falsely, but let's talk about this "rape of children" a minute... is forcible rape the same as statutory rape? If a 15 year old consents to sex with an adult, is that the same as forcible rape? Should that even be considered "rape" in our current lexicon of PC values?
.

Once again you seem to have a real struggle with the concept of 'consent'.

You have repeatedly brought up pedophiles marrying children- children cannot consent to get married, nor can they consent to have sex. Every time you refer to pedophiles marrying children that is you referring to pedophiles raping children.

Forcible rape is not the 'same' as statutory rape- but they both revolve around consent. A man who slips a woman a ruffie and then has sex with her unconscious body is as guilty of rape as the man who holds a gun to her head. But they are different.

None of us have any struggle identifying those actions all being wrong- because of lack of consent.

If you want to change our current laws so that 15 year olds can consent- well that would be returning to the law of about 100 years ago. Even now, 15 year olds can give consent in certain states.

But 4 year old girls cannot. Do you think that a man having sex with a 4 year old girl should be considered 'rape' in your current lexicon of PC values?

Now let's get back to my example. Why can't Joe's 13-year-old girlfriend consent to sex or marriage? Why do you insist on calling Joe's love-making to the person he loves "rape" instead? She consents and he consents... she understands what sex is and what consent means. She knows what marriage is, she hasn't lived under a rock all her life. So why can she not freely give her own consent? Why is it YOUR business? How does it harm YOU? Does Joe not have the same 14th Amendment rights? Would it be different if Joe were a homosexual? Could he "have every right to marry the person he loves" then?.

I went to great lengths to answer you- that 13 year old girl can no more provide consent to marriage than a 4 year old girl can.

Again- why the hell do you not understand what 'consent' means?

A man slips a ruffie to a woman and has sex with her while she is unconscious- that is rape- because she could not consent to sex.
A man has sex with a 13 year old girl- and it is RAPE- just as a man having sex with a 4 year old girl is RAPE- because neither can provide consent.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

You keep on whining about morals and you don't understand why a 13 year old cannot provide consent?

 

[Syriusly]

I have actually been trying to have a conversation with Boss but his dialogue has devolved back to his deranged OP.

He is lying about what he has said in the this thread.
He repeatedly equates homosexuals to pedophiles.
And he does not understand what 'consent' is- which should be a concern for any person who he is around.

This entire thread is his butthurt rant attacking homosexuals- and a cry for America to return to the good old days of driving homosexuals back to the closet.

 

[EverCurious]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own fucking parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole fucking thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

 

[Boss]

I went to great lengths to answer you- that 13 year old girl can no more provide consent to marriage than a 4 year old girl can.

But you didn't explain anything other than your moral hang-up regarding maturity which you go on to admit is arbitrary and can't be measured accurately by age. I'm sorry but "we can't allow it because it's not appropriate" isn't a very good answer. A lot of people feel that way about homosexual marriage. You're not explaining why you get to pick and choose what is appropriate but others have to sit down and shut up. Are we all to defer to your moral judgement now?