The Homosexual Dilemma

[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?

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I am sure its comforting to them.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender. But you don't need to sign your posts anymore. We know.

No you haven't. Marriage laws allow anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex. This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.

Not anymore in most states.

And their arguments are so preciously archaic too.

Half the time you can't tell if they are being serious or just trolling.

I'm guessing one is a troll, or they may be tag-teaming.

 

[MaryL]

I am baffled, why is this even an issue? All Americans have the same rights, end of story. I don't buy the pro gay propaganda, that BS that they are being "denied" love. Homos can and DO LOVE anyone they want, and I am not getting in their way. A lot of Americans find that KIND love rather disgusting, if not self indulgent. And we are not sure how allowing what we think of as narcissistic sexual perverts the same gravitas as Civil rights for WOMEN, Blacks or immigrants fair or logical. Homosexual rights are a phony self sustaining argument. And I don't care to ague about it anymore.

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

"the person they love" seriously?

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

Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.

Who says? You? What gives you the authority to make such a claim?

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Totally incorrect. She was lovingly planned by my wife and I. She had her...I adopted her. One of the best things in our lives.

Where's her father? Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion. It was entirely a self centered act.

We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.

Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude. Not quite the same, is it?

Legally, it is.

So you admit that morality is not the centerpiece of your movement.

Not that I needed your confirmation.

This IS a country of laws, you know. And we ARE talking legal marriage, you know.

 

[80zephyr]

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

"the person they love" seriously?

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

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

Yes, please continue.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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

That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight. He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.

James Dobson did all that? Or are you telling more lies?

Yes, let me pull up reference to the article. It was a hoot when it came out.

Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic... Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development

.this is my favorite part:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.

You are the demonic Left.

Not lying at all. He did say that as I quoted. Did you take the time to read the entire piece? Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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."

But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action. Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same? They got your playbook and they covet your success.

The Constitution is the play book, and you are guilty of fallacy of absurd comparison.

 

[80zephyr]

"the person they love" seriously?

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

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

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

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

Wrong again. But, you already knew that.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

I am baffled, why is this even an issue? All Americans have the same rights, end of story. I don't buy the pro gay propaganda, that BS that they are being "denied" love. Homos can and DO LOVE anyone they want, and I am not getting in their way. A lot of Americans find that KIND love rather disgusting, if not self indulgent. And we are not sure how allowing what we think of as narcissistic sexual perverts the same gravitas as Civil rights for WOMEN, Blacks or immigrants makes any sense. Homosexual rights are a phony self sustaining argument. And I don't care to ague about it anymore.

So, you do not get in the way of legalized gay marriage. Good.

 

[bodecea]

No.

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

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

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

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

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

"the person they love" seriously?

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

Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.

Who says? You? What gives you the authority to make such a claim?

Mark

Well, it USED to be about what the parents wanted.

 

[80zephyr]

But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action. Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same? They got your playbook and they covet your success.

Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis. What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia. Share with us your reasoning.

Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.

How so? What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?

Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Hello? I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia. Did you forget to post it?

And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.

Did you forget to post it?

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was entirely a self centered act.

Son, many conceptions are self centered acts.

You are talking zany.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight. He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.

James Dobson did all that? Or are you telling more lies?

Yes, let me pull up reference to the article. It was a hoot when it came out.

Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic... Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development

.this is my favorite part:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.

You are the demonic Left.

Not lying at all. He did say that as I quoted. Did you take the time to read the entire piece? Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.

I'm a fast reader. Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches. Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.

 

[bodecea]

Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis. What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia. Share with us your reasoning.

Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.

How so? What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?

Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Hello? I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia. Did you forget to post it?

And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.

Did you forget to post it?

Mark

What? Where do you jump from Point A to Persimmons?

 

[bodecea]

That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight. He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.

James Dobson did all that? Or are you telling more lies?

Yes, let me pull up reference to the article. It was a hoot when it came out.

Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic... Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development

.this is my favorite part:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.

You are the demonic Left.

Not lying at all. He did say that as I quoted. Did you take the time to read the entire piece? Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.

I'm a fast reader. Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches. Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.

I put a quote in there....did you not see it?

So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?

 

[80zephyr]

Where's her father? Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion. It was entirely a self centered act.

We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.

Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude. Not quite the same, is it?

Legally, it is.

So you admit that morality is not the centerpiece of your movement.

Not that I needed your confirmation.

This IS a country of laws, you know. And we ARE talking legal marriage, you know.

Did you feel the same way when gays were not allowed to marry? Or is this a recent development?

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I am baffled, why is this even an issue? All Americans have the same rights, end of story. I don't buy the pro gay propaganda, that BS that they are being "denied" love. Homos can and DO LOVE anyone they want, and I am not getting in their way. A lot of Americans find that KIND love rather disgusting, if not self indulgent. And we are not sure how allowing what we think of as narcissistic sexual perverts the same gravitas as Civil rights for WOMEN, Blacks or immigrants fair or logical. . Homosexual rights are a phony self sustaining argument. And I don't care to ague about it anymore.

Because the worst bullies guilty of the most heinous atrocities have always been "victims". People do horrible things while claiming they're the objects of persecution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.

The debate is whether the decision is right or not. What society does has no bearing.Mark

Then you will lose, Mark. You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.

 

[80zephyr]

Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.

How so? What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?

Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Hello? I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia. Did you forget to post it?

And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.

Did you forget to post it?

Mark

What? Where do you jump from Point A to Persimmons?

I asked the same question as you. What part is unclear?

Mark