The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

A tiny group does. A minority does not a slippery slope make. Westboro Baptists anyone?

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

I don't recall you asking me. But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt). Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights. Except for in the bible belt of course.

Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents. Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.

Don't you have anything to say about the FACT that the age of consent is going UP in most places? Or doesn't that fit your theme?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?

Mark

Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.

Are you functionally retarded by any chance?

 

[80zephyr]

I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.

So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want? Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.

In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.

And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.

Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that. They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.

I hate Ayn Rand kids. Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.

They're cocky? Lol.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.

Right?

 

[bodecea]

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

I don't recall you asking me. But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt). Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights. Except for in the bible belt of course.

Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents. Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.

Absolutely true.

Mark

Yeah...that "Toddlers and Tiaras" stuff is disgusting. And what some hetero adult did to Jon Benet Ramsey. Horrible.

 

[bodecea]

He didn't say you were, he said you were like a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.

From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread. Thanks for that clarification. It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point. LOL.

Save this thread actually is about gays.

Do try and keep up.

Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace. Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves. Only government can enforce discrimination. A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.

The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.

And? Every socialist country has been a disaster. I don't see many leftists admit that it is a failed system.

Mark

Israel's a failed country?

 

[bodecea]

Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?

Mark

Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.

Are you functionally retarded by any chance?

Sadly....80zephyr joins a growing group of posters who seem unable to discern the difference. It's rather scary.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A tiny group does. A minority does not a slippery slope make. Westboro Baptists anyone?

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Not true. They are not unanimously rejected, they and the Koran burning whacko minister and a few others are all marginalized by the mainstream but still maintain a small amount of support.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

Like the Westboro's - they are a fringe group with little support.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

That might be because no one has seen your purported thread after thread request (including myself).

I will however staight outright (just in case my obvious posts have not made it obvious) that I do not support child abuse or pedophilia in any way shape or form.

I am concerned though, given the disproportionate number of "hetero's" engaged in pedophilia (far more girls are attacked then boys) and involved in pedophilia activist groups (per the list on wikipedia) - that I have yet to see you take a stand against it.

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

Read my posts.

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

Read my posts.

And to this moment, even as the contributor claims that Pedophilia is a tiny minority with which contributor disagrees... the contributor can't simply come out and reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and explain the basis for that rejection.

Here's what that looks like...

"Children are not small adults. They are innocent of the world innocent of sexual desire and innocent of all that comes with sex. As such they've no means to even begin to understand sex, what its good for or any other aspect of it.

To pursue children for sexual gratification is MORALLY wrong, in every instance and there is no science, no rationalization that can change that.

The arguments that "Some children may benefit from a loving sexual relationship by a caring adult" is, from my perspective, evidence for the trial of the individual who makes such a public advocacy. Upon nothing more than evidence which connects the person to the advocacy is all that should be needed to lock that person into prison for the rest of their natural life.

Adults found having engaged in sex with a child should be executed."

See how easy that is?

 

[peach174]

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

 

[bodecea]

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

 

[80zephyr]

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

If left unchecked, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will erase the penalties for the sexual abuse of a child entirely... and establish Adult/Child love as a protected class, with contest of them listed as a hate crime, within the next generation.

 

[peach174]

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.

Right?

Wrong

 

[peach174]

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

You should take a look on the INTERNET how gays are forcing the Churches in Denmark, France and England.
One rich gay couple is suing a Church in England because they refused to marry them.

 

[hipeter924]

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

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.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Really? Even churches right here in Idaho are being threatened if they don't perform same sex marriages. Coeur d'Alene city officials have told pastors they'll go to jail if they don't marry gays. If tolerance is what you pride yourself on, you're on the WRONG side.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark

Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.

 

[80zephyr]

Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?

Mark

Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.

Are you functionally retarded by any chance?

Lol. Society sets adulthood. It is an arbitrary number society sets using a code of morals in develops from...nothing. There are no "rules" when setting a moral code. Therefore, all taboos are arbitrary. If a 7 year old girl can marry in a Muslim country, they are now following their own arbitrary moral code. And if they have slaves, it is again their moral code. So it stoning to death a homosexual.

Your problem is, is that you are so ingrained in your own arbitrary morality that you can claim you need to be an adult to be moral. As I have already pointed out with my examples, that is simply not true.

And for you to state your own moral code is right while a Muslin countries would be wrong has no basis in fact. They are all arbitrary.

We could, as a society, condone murdering each other, and that would become part of our moral code.

So now tell me, which moral code isn't arbitrary?

Mark

 

[bodecea]

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

If left unchecked, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will erase the penalties for the sexual abuse of a child entirely... and establish Adult/Child love as a protected class, with contest of them listed as a hate crime, within the next generation.

Is that why the current trends are RAISING the age of consent at the same time gays are gaining more rights? I don't think it's turning out the way you think it is.