Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[Nik]

No.... that is DECIDELY NOT THE POINT...

The POINT IS:

That you stated that where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'

What's more, you claimed that the Rind Study did NOT provide the conclusion that Children were capable of consent and actually benefitted from 'a consenual loving relationship with an adult.' Which was sumarily REFUTED....

The Point THEN BECAME, the foundation of your conclusion (noted above) and the elements of that foundation... PARTICULARLY where it has been INDISPUTABLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS AN EFFORT AMONGST THE MOST PROLIFIC SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY USE THEIR PERCEIVED AUTHORITY TO INFLUENCE THE CULTURE THAT ADULT/CHILD SEX IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND OTHERWISE NORMAL!

A position which you specifically stated 'WAS FINE WITH YOU!'

Now again... an advocate of the normalization of adult/child sex comes to obfuscate the issue, to obscure the conclusions which they've offered and the IMPACT OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS ON THEIR CREDIBILITY.

Quote me where I said that "where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'"

For animals perhaps, children no. Lying again, pub?

Yeah... I'm lyin' That's Right Nik... This is NOT A TEXT FORUM where the record is WRITTEN FOR ANYONE TO EXAMINE... THUS SUCH IS QUITE COMMON...

But let's take a look at this post:

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

Yes, I'd be fine with it.

And you are lying about the APA study. I know several people who were molested as kids. All of them are still effected by it, even though it is years later.

Now I can't help but to notice that you're "Nik" and that would necessarily mean that this was YOU saying just that... wouldn't it, NIK?

I was talking about animals, not children.

 

[Ravi]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

What responsibilities are you talking about?

 

[Ravi]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

Are you conceding, Pubic?

What immutable responsibilities are rejected?

 

[Ravi]

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

Let us demand a few more rights so we can impress our ideals into someone else's lives. Heck let us get together to go lobby congress so we can make those that we are taking the rights away from pay for it while we are at it. If it is all about money and power to control other peoples thoughts no doubt the average family needs their share to. Obviously by the looks of what is going on in DC and some of the states the average family is missing that "special" representation.

I cannot fathom what you are babbling about. What rights are being taken away from "those that we are taking the rights away from?" Your right to not be offended?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Quote me where I said that "where SCIENCE established that Children and Animals could consent to sexual intercourse... that YOU 'were fine with that...'"

For animals perhaps, children no. Lying again, pub?

Yeah... I'm lyin' That's Right Nik... This is NOT A TEXT FORUM where the record is WRITTEN FOR ANYONE TO EXAMINE... THUS SUCH IS QUITE COMMON...

But let's take a look at this post:

Yes, I'd be fine with it.

And you are lying about the APA study. I know several people who were molested as kids. All of them are still effected by it, even though it is years later.

Now I can't help but to notice that you're "Nik" and that would necessarily mean that this was YOU saying just that... wouldn't it, NIK?

I was talking about animals, not children.

HUH... yet that is you adhereing to the quote which YOU SOURCED, as indicated...

But I will accept your modification...

Which of course begs the question... If you accept the science wherein animals are said to be capable of consent; and that as a result, such would be perfectly fine with you that people could engage in sexual relations with animals upon their consent... then WHAT, pray tell, is the basis wherein you come to conclude that where science established that CHILDREN were capable of consent to sexual relations, that sex with children would not be acceptable to you?

Now, come Counselor... Square this up for us...

 

[Nik]

Yeah... I'm lyin' That's Right Nik... This is NOT A TEXT FORUM where the record is WRITTEN FOR ANYONE TO EXAMINE... THUS SUCH IS QUITE COMMON...

But let's take a look at this post:




Now I can't help but to notice that you're "Nik" and that would necessarily mean that this was YOU saying just that... wouldn't it, NIK?

I was talking about animals, not children.

HUH... yet that is you adhereing to the quote which YOU SOURCED, as indicated...

But I will accept your modification...

Which of course begs the question... If you accept the science wherein animals are said to be capable of consent; and that as a result, such would be perfectly fine with you that people could engage in sexual relations with animals upon their consent... then WHAT, pray tell, is the basis wherein you come to conclude that where science established that CHILDREN were capable of consent to sexual relations, that sex with children would not be acceptable to you?

Now, come Counselor... Square this up for us...

The problem with animals is that they can't talk. Science could cure that. Problem with children is that their minds aren't developed enough to consent. Thats not gonna change.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

Let us demand a few more rights so we can impress our ideals into someone else's lives. Heck let us get together to go lobby congress so we can make those that we are taking the rights away from pay for it while we are at it. If it is all about money and power to control other peoples thoughts no doubt the average family needs their share to. Obviously by the looks of what is going on in DC and some of the states the average family is missing that "special" representation.

I cannot fathom what you are babbling about.

Ya can't fathom? Well now... whatta shame... what must life me in the absence of the means to fathom... but such is the nature of left-think...

What rights are being taken away from "those that we are taking the rights away from?" Your right to not be offended?

Well, no valid right can be taken away from anyone, by another of equitable power.

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES...

It's rather frustrating...

We're a civilized people, who tend towards enduring the burden until it becomes unbearable... the long pause, wherein our endurance is being tested, tends to lead those who would rob us of our means to exercise our rights, into a false sense of security... in which they erroneously conclude that there is no point at which we will rise up... and inevitably, demand what we know is right, in terms from which there is negotiation; and through a level of determination, which they've no means to comprehend.

Such has proven to be a cultural ending mistake, in the past; for those who have failed to recognize the nature of our metal and the permenance of the bed-rock on which our we and principles are founded...

 

[KittenKoder]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I was talking about animals, not children.

HUH... yet that is you adhereing to the quote which YOU SOURCED, as indicated...

But I will accept your modification...

Which of course begs the question... If you accept the science wherein animals are said to be capable of consent; and that as a result, such would be perfectly fine with you that people could engage in sexual relations with animals upon their consent... then WHAT, pray tell, is the basis wherein you come to conclude that where science established that CHILDREN were capable of consent to sexual relations, that sex with children would not be acceptable to you?

Now, come Counselor... Square this up for us...

The problem with animals is that they can't talk. Science could cure that. Problem with children is that their minds aren't developed enough to consent. Thats not gonna change.

ROFL... Counselor... You're not very bright are you?

Now what we have here friends is the advocates of the normalization of sexual deivancy coming to revise their gaff... wherein they have admitted, IN SPADES... that where science WOULD POTENTIALLY "PROVE" that children and animals COULD consent to sexual relations, that they'd have NO PROBLEM with accepting such.

Which proves what?

It proves that they have absolutely MORAL UNDER PINNINGS...

That they are easily swayed to lift their 'current position' on such issues and all that it takes to do so, is the subjective opinions of homosexuals, pedophiles and others; those that suffer such 'sexual orientations;' who place themselves in a position to make such dubious decrees... which serve as nothing more than the 'scientific basis by which LAWS are changed, cultures are influenced and as a means to advance their own personal KINKS.

Notice that Nik here has NOT stated that, under NO circumstances would he accept adult/child sex as 'normal'... he's simply restated the conventional wisdom that children's brains are not sufficiently developed to make an informed decision...

But can there be ANY doubt that where SCIENCE PROVED that Childrns brains WERE sufficiently developed, that the good counselor would readily hop on the CHILD LOVIN' TRAIN...

He's already jumped on the Livestock lovin' train... all we're lacking to make it official is SCIENCE to put together enough 'evidence' to convince the weaker links... of which the good counselor is a member in good standing.

 

[xotoxi]

If the State passed a law TODAY, that all Marriages were null and void and required all formerly married couples to re-apply for license...

I wouldn't advocate that. Marriage would be retroactively observed and recognized by the state.

Bottom line, Marriage as it is presently defined works for me... where the state would attempt to redfine marriage... they're going to be contested in the strongest possible terms.

If a certain church or religion was to recognize gay marriage as a marriage in the eyes of the Lord, would you recognize it as such?

And if you would not, do you think that the state, or the people, should recognize it?

 

[xotoxi]

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards...

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

 

[KittenKoder]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

What rights are being taken away by allowing gay people to marry who they want?

 

[Article 15]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

 

[Toro]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Its hilarious when people say that the rights of 96% of the population being taken away by giving 4% of the population the same rights.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If the State passed a law TODAY, that all Marriages were null and void and required all formerly married couples to re-apply for license...

I wouldn't advocate that. Marriage would be retroactively observed and recognized by the state.

Bottom line, Marriage as it is presently defined works for me... where the state would attempt to redfine marriage... they're going to be contested in the strongest possible terms.

If a certain church or religion was to recognize gay marriage as a marriage in the eyes of the Lord, would you recognize it as such?

And if you would not, do you think that the state, or the people, should recognize it?

No... As there is no means within reason for two people of the same gender to be married.

It's an absurdity beyond measure. That is not to say that two men or two woman can't have a deep and abiding love and respect for one another... that they can't commit to one another... cohabitate and otherwise exist to serve the interests of the other.

But Marriage is an entity unto itself... and it is not redfinable to include those who are in no way suited to the institution.

 

[KittenKoder]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

He can't answer the question, plain and simple, he has to avoid it completely because there simply are none being taken away.

 

[Toro]

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

He can't answer the question, plain and simple, he has to avoid it completely because there simply are none being taken away.

It's a well-documented fact that whites lost a whole bunch of rights when blacks were finally allowed to vote.

 

[xotoxi]

If the State passed a law TODAY, that all Marriages were null and void and required all formerly married couples to re-apply for license...

I wouldn't advocate that. Marriage would be retroactively observed and recognized by the state.

Bottom line, Marriage as it is presently defined works for me... where the state would attempt to redfine marriage... they're going to be contested in the strongest possible terms.

If a certain church or religion was to recognize gay marriage as a marriage in the eyes of the Lord, would you recognize it as such?

And if you would not, do you think that the state, or the people, should recognize it?

No... As there is no means within reason for two people of the same gender to be married.

It's an absurdity beyond measure. That is not to say that two men or two woman can't have a deep and abiding love and respect for one another... that they can't commit to one another... cohabitate and otherwise exist to serve the interests of the other.

But Marriage is an entity unto itself... and it is not redfinable to include those who are in no way suited to the institution.

You didn't answer my question.

If a certain church or religion was to recognize gay marriage as a marriage in the eyes of the Lord, would you recognize it as such?

And if you would not, do you think that the state, or the people, should recognize it?

 

[Article 15]

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

He can't answer the question, plain and simple, he has to avoid it completely because there simply are none being taken away.

Yep.