The Homosexual Dilemma

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

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

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?

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.

Got news for you dummy, an adult female is nearly 27, and an adult male almost 29. That's reality, 18 is a line in the sand.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Good luck with that. Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time.

Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time, as well. I guess you'll be jerking off and fingering yourself no matter what laws they make.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

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?

 

[kaz]

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.

 

[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.

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]

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

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.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.

What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.

You disagree. So?

So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.

Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.

Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?

Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.

Just like everyone else.

People, any people, have a right to demand equality.

Yes....I'm sure these guys are saying "finally, someone GETS it!"

 

[kaz]

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.

 

[kaz]

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. ...

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.

A logical point. so far that's over Coyote's head, she just wants to talk about how she feels about it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good luck with that. Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time.

Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time, as well. I guess you'll be jerking off and fingering yourself no matter what laws they make.

Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

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?

 

[kaz]

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. ...

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.

Hey...the racial standard applied equally too. Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.

Being black or white changes who can you marry. Being straight or gay doesn't. Ouch, fail, right out of the gate.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.

You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.

 

[kaz]

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Really? See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.

was that supposed to make sense? Do you know what slippery slope means?

 

[Coyote]

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?

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.

 

[kaz]

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. ...

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.

 

[kaz]

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.

True but irrelevant.

 

[Coyote]

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Really? See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.

was that supposed to make sense? Do you know what slippery slope means?

No...it doesn't make sense

I think I meant that for another post