The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

And vice versa.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

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

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

We don't, asswipe.

Of course you do, Its implied by your argument.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.

Not interested in your strawmen. Making accusations as to my motives just makes you full of shit. You have no idea what i think, and I didn't tell you. We are talking about logic. You interested in a debate about logic and our positions or you want to go all girl on me and gush about your feelings? If you want the latter, paintmywagon is probably interested, but i'm not. If you want the former, cut the crap and discuss the issue, not how you feel about it. I don't give a shit how you feel about it.

Dead. Nuts. On.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

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

Because it is sexually harassing minors

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

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

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

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.

Mark

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

Because it is sexually harassing minors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

I have already proved that the age of consent varies. I don't need to prove anything to you.

It is reality. Today.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.

Mark

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

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

I have already proved that the age of consent varies. I don't need to prove anything to you.

It is reality. Today.

Mark

And?

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

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

Because it is sexually harassing minors

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

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

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

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.Mark

The legislature defines that and age of consent.

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

You are absurd, absurd, absurd.

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

So then, why does the age of consent vary? BTW, I do not use religion to argue my stance.

Yet another strawman.
Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

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

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.Mark

The legislature defines that and age of consent.

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

You are absurd, absurd, absurd.

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

Are you sensing the underlying current here?

Yes, I am. You seem to believe your own moral beliefs trump those of others. Are you a bigot?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.

Mark

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

I have already proved that the age of consent varies. I don't need to prove anything to you.

It is reality. Today.

Mark

And?

And? It shoots hell out of your argument.

Next.

Mark

 

[MaryL]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its already happening.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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

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

Children can not legally consent.

Define children.Mark

The legislature defines that and age of consent.

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

You are absurd, absurd, absurd.

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

Are you sensing the underlying current here?

Yes, I am. You seem to believe your own moral beliefs trump those of others. Are you a bigot?

Mark

In what way would you consider me a bigot?

 

[bodecea]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights. Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children? Answer than one.

 

[hipeter924]

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

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

Because it is sexually harassing minors

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are a "bigot"[...]

Meh. If I wanted to waste time I could play name games like you, but I really don't see the point.

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.

Check, Mate.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

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

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

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

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

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

The right to marry whom you will is protected.

Really? Where? Do you see this circling right back to underage children? There's a reason your arguments can't escape that association.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.

Check, Mate.

Mark

Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

"the person they love" seriously?

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

If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.

Anyone that limits them is a bigot.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

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

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

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

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

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

They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

The right to marry whom you will is protected.

Really? Where? Do you see this circling right back to underage children? There's a reason your arguments can't escape that association.

YOU are the one who keeps bringing up underage children.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

"the person they love" seriously?

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

If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.

Anyone that limits them is a bigot.

Mark

You don't seem to understand what the word "bi-sexual" means.