Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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).
And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face. You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun. Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
Wait a minute. At the point of a gun? Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
And how is it going to go unanswered? You going to lynch some people?
Because it is sexually harassing minorsBecause 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).
And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
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.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.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).
And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
This fails as a straw man fallacy.
And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
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.
Oh yeah!
Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.
It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face. You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun. Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
Wait a minute. At the point of a gun? Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
And how is it going to go unanswered? You going to lynch some people?
Lifestyle ≠ race.
Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.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).And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
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.
Incorrect.It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
Mark
Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face. You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun. Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.
I'm glad you said it again. I thought you might try to deny ever saying that.
Because it is sexually harassing minorsBecause 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).And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
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.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.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).And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.
Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.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).People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
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.
Because it is sexually harassing minorsBecause 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).People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
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.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.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).People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
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.
Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.
Senior Moderator, I'm under no obligation to use your entire quote, nor did I edit what you said in any way. See? I just did it again. It doesn't violate the rules.
When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.Because it is sexually harassing minorsBecause 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).People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
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.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.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).People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]
Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.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).So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
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.Because it is sexually harassing minorsBecause 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).So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
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.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.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).So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
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.
When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.Because it is sexually harassing minorsBecause 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).So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
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.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.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).So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?[...]
That's where the "adult" part comes in to my quote:Children can not legally consent.
Good luck with that. Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time.That's where the "adult" part comes in to my quote:Children can not legally consent.
"Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet."
First, I want to examine the fallacies used by those who oppose same-sex marriage. In order to avoid creating straw men, each of these arguments stems from a direct quote.
“[H]er point was that if same-sex fits the bill of the contract, then everything fits the bill. And at some point who’s to say that you cannot have sex with a child…some point.” – Rush Limbaugh
This uses the slippery slope fallacy to wrongly insinuate that if we do X, then naturally, Y and Z will follow. That is to say that if people of the same gender are allowed to marry, then we’ll have to allow anyone to marry anyone or anything, including children, multiple partners, siblings, inanimate objects, animals or the dead.
However, there is no reason to think any of this will actually happen, for numerous reasons, some legal and some personal. For one thing, close to a dozen countries already permit same-sex marriage, and none have seen spikes in any of these behaviors. They are cultural taboos, and will remain so, no matter what.
The arguments against marriage to children, goats, corpses, pieces of fruit, etc., are simple: none of them can legally give their consent. Without consent between both parties, a marriage doesn’t exist and has no legal standing.
The prohibition against incest is also sensible. The state and society have a vested interest in not permitting inbreeding because of the potential for malformed children. Whether relatives who either can’t or don’t intend to have children should be allowed to marry is a potentially interesting question from a civil liberties standpoint, but even if incest was legal, (which absolutely nobody is talking about) it’s doubtful that there would be a sudden onslaught of siblings and cousins desperate to marry.
As for legalized group marriage, one could again argue that the state has no business barring activities between consenting adults, even if there are more than two, but polygamy has not been protected by the US Constitution since 1878, and until someone challenges that ruling, it’s essentially a dead issue – and a non sequitur, as nobody is demanding the right to a group marriage.
This fails as a straw man fallacy.And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
Homosexuality is not "special".
Mark
People can choose who to have sex with.
There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
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.
Oh yeah!
No there isn't. This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
