The Homosexual Dilemma

[boedicca]

Oops. Wrong thread. I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I don't need courts to know right from wrong.

Dred Scott proved that.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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

Once again. What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia as you claimed?

 

[bodecea]

Oops. Wrong thread. I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.

Howey's cool. He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'

 

[mdk]

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?

The old Focus on the Family Jewels letter. Classic. I am still a fan of when WND claimed soy sauce causes homosexuality. Too funny.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I don't need courts to know right from wrong.

Dred Scott proved that.

Mark

And Dred Scott was eventually struck down by the approval of the 13th Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

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:

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?

The old Focus on the Family Jewels letter. Classic. I am still a fan of when WND claimed soy sauce causes homosexuality. Too funny.

That was a good one too.

 

[80zephyr]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.

And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'

Well, not yet. The APA is working to accomplish that.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

You said:

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.

Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.

And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret. The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist. If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Not if you're a bigot.

Mark

 

[boedicca]

Oops. Wrong thread. I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.

Howey's cool. He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'

He's a vulgar moron.

 

[bodecea]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.

And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'

Well, not yet. The APA is working to accomplish that.

Mark

Oh? Is this more insider info?

 

[bodecea]

Oops. Wrong thread. I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.

Howey's cool. He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'

He's a vulgar moron.

Well, he DOES get under some skins, doesn't he?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Mark: I don't need courts to know right from wrong. Dred Scott proved that.

Me: Yep, the slavers felt the same way.

If you want to be happy, Mark and GreenBean and Where R My Keys, marry the opposite sex.

 

[boedicca]

Oops. Wrong thread. I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.

Howey's cool. He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'

He's a vulgar moron.

Well, he DOES get under some skins, doesn't he?

Gross, considering that he's a walking talking disease vector.

 

[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?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

When we allow homosexuals to marry, we are taking law to the point of absurdity. And, less than 20 years ago, everyone thought the chances of it happening were virtually nil.

It appears you "logic" has serious flaws in it.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"Then you will lose, Mark. You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.
I don't need courts to know right from wrong."

Dred Scott proved that.

Yep, the slavers felt the same way.

Really? Who took the Constitution from him?

 

[bodecea]

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:

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?

You said:

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.

Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.

And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret. The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist. If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.

Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his. Focus on the Family Jewels.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I don't need courts to know right from wrong.

Dred Scott proved that.

Mark

And Dred Scott was eventually struck down by the approval of the 13th Amendment.

Matters not. That the courts ruled it at one time proves my point.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

You said:

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.

Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.

And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret. The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist. If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.

Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his. Focus on the Family Jewels.

If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion. James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.