When will we ban Homosexuality,Transexulism, and beastiality?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That question is too fucking stupid to even try to answer. I suppose that you also think that children can consent to sex?? Or maybe that consent is not necessary?? Adult humans have power over both animals and children . I can't believe that anyone is so stupid as to not get that.

Put a 200 lb adult male in a room with a 100 lb adult female. The 200 lb male could in most cases force himself on the female and that would be rape. In other words, the male has the ability to exercise power over the female. However, that does not take away the ability of the female to have sex consentually with the male. The female may even initiate it.

While I agree with it being against the law for adults to have sex with children, if you think that many horny 14 year old boys would not jump at the opportunity of having sex with a hot adult female, you are crazy. So saying that children cannot give consent is more of a legal claim than an actual claim. I know that when I snuck and lusted at my uncle's playboy magazines as a young teen (a child), I was doing so willfully.......with consent.

No, it's an actual claim. Children do not have the tools to make that decision.

Yet the LGBTQ community thinks children have the "tools" to decide their sexual identity and become trainies.

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

Oh, stop being shy... you tell me. let's hear it. I would say, "why don't you ask them?", but I'm sure the reason you invent will be much more fun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Put a 200 lb adult male in a room with a 100 lb adult female. The 200 lb male could in most cases force himself on the female and that would be rape. In other words, the male has the ability to exercise power over the female. However, that does not take away the ability of the female to have sex consentually with the male. The female may even initiate it.

While I agree with it being against the law for adults to have sex with children, if you think that many horny 14 year old boys would not jump at the opportunity of having sex with a hot adult female, you are crazy. So saying that children cannot give consent is more of a legal claim than an actual claim. I know that when I snuck and lusted at my uncle's playboy magazines as a young teen (a child), I was doing so willfully.......with consent.

No, it's an actual claim. Children do not have the tools to make that decision.

Yet the LGBTQ community thinks children have the "tools" to decide their sexual identity and become trainies.

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

No, it's an actual claim. Children do not have the tools to make that decision.

Let's simply agree that it's morally wrong for adults to have sex with children and for humans to have sex with animals.

I have reached a point in this discussion where even if I'm technically right about what it means to consent, I am still "wrong".

Yes, but for the reason I stated. Which is why it is immoral, with which you agree. So on what basis do you agree? I'm stumped.

We are operating off of different definitions of consent. If consent is simply giving permission, then.....well do I really want to go there again.

No, it's that one of is considering informed consent versus uninformed consent, and the other is not. If you consented to me giving you a million dollars, and I then proceeded to bury you alive in one million dollars of pennies...did you consent? By your definition, yes.

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

 

[Gracie]

The first two are life time choices that would be against human rights to ban as those people can't help who they're.

The last choice must be banned.

Oh'yess, you're a religious person and believe that your dumb beliefs should be forced on everyone.

This is why I don't believe in god anymore.

Why should the last be banned if both the human and animal consent? And don't tell me animals can't consent........they do with each other all the time.

Are you serious??? If so...on iggie you go.
ANIMALS CANNOT GIVE CONSENT!!!! Jeez

A dog humping your leg is not consent?

Oy. Another one.

Poof.

 

[Avatar4321]

The first two are life time choices that would be against human rights to ban as those people can't help who they're.

The last choice must be banned.

Oh'yess, you're a religious person and believe that your dumb beliefs should be forced on everyone.

This is why I don't believe in god anymore.

Why should the last be banned if both the human and animal consent? And don't tell me animals can't consent........they do with each other all the time.

Why shouldn't a belief in a god be banned?

Two adult people should be able to have sex and marry. If you don't believe that then you're a big government asshole.

People should be able to choose their gender as it is biological based on research.

You're no different then the taliban or isis. Get out out of my fucking country! I'd support droning your ass.

So unless we let the government regulate same sex relationships, we are big government?

Do you guys think this stuff though ever?

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

 

[JoeMoma]

Put a 200 lb adult male in a room with a 100 lb adult female. The 200 lb male could in most cases force himself on the female and that would be rape. In other words, the male has the ability to exercise power over the female. However, that does not take away the ability of the female to have sex consentually with the male. The female may even initiate it.

While I agree with it being against the law for adults to have sex with children, if you think that many horny 14 year old boys would not jump at the opportunity of having sex with a hot adult female, you are crazy. So saying that children cannot give consent is more of a legal claim than an actual claim. I know that when I snuck and lusted at my uncle's playboy magazines as a young teen (a child), I was doing so willfully.......with consent.

No, it's an actual claim. Children do not have the tools to make that decision.

Yet the LGBTQ community thinks children have the "tools" to decide their sexual identity and become trainies.

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

Oh, stop being shy... you tell me. let's hear it. I would say, "why don't you ask them?", but I'm sure the reason you invent will be much more fun.

I'm simply pointing out that the sexual preference people and the gender identity people seem to be on the same bandwagon.

 

[Avatar4321]

The first two are life time choices that would be against human rights to ban as those people can't help who they're.

The last choice must be banned.

Oh'yess, you're a religious person and believe that your dumb beliefs should be forced on everyone.

This is why I don't believe in god anymore.

Why should the last be banned if both the human and animal consent? And don't tell me animals can't consent........they do with each other all the time.

Why shouldn't a belief in a god be banned?

Two adult people should be able to have sex and marry. If you don't believe that then you're a big government asshole.

People should be able to choose their gender as it is biological based on research.

You're no different then the taliban or isis. Get out out of my fucking country! I'd support droning your ass.

So unless we let the government regulate same sex relationships, we are big government?

Do you guys think this stuff though ever?

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

Only when it helps people do they believe in small government. They think people should fucking die if they're not part of the top 1%. when it comes to religious fascism = they're big fucking fascist government. Their war on the drugs is the biggest cluster fuck ever but they support it as it hurts the little guy.

So the little guy is hurt when he can't get high?

You realize the use of mind altering drugs keeps the little guys down, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The first two are life time choices that would be against human rights to ban as those people can't help who they're.

The last choice must be banned.

Oh'yess, you're a religious person and believe that your dumb beliefs should be forced on everyone.

This is why I don't believe in god anymore.

Why should the last be banned if both the human and animal consent? And don't tell me animals can't consent........they do with each other all the time.

Why shouldn't a belief in a god be banned?

Two adult people should be able to have sex and marry. If you don't believe that then you're a big government asshole.

People should be able to choose their gender as it is biological based on research.

You're no different then the taliban or isis. Get out out of my fucking country! I'd support droning your ass.

So unless we let the government regulate same sex relationships, we are big government?

Do you guys think this stuff though ever?

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

 

[JoeMoma]

No, it's an actual claim. Children do not have the tools to make that decision.

Yet the LGBTQ community thinks children have the "tools" to decide their sexual identity and become trainies.

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

Let's simply agree that it's morally wrong for adults to have sex with children and for humans to have sex with animals.

I have reached a point in this discussion where even if I'm technically right about what it means to consent, I am still "wrong".

Yes, but for the reason I stated. Which is why it is immoral, with which you agree. So on what basis do you agree? I'm stumped.

We are operating off of different definitions of consent. If consent is simply giving permission, then.....well do I really want to go there again.

No, it's that one of is considering informed consent versus uninformed consent, and the other is not. If you consented to me giving you a million dollars, and I then proceeded to bury you alive in one million dollars of pennies...did you consent? By your definition, yes.

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why should the last be banned if both the human and animal consent? And don't tell me animals can't consent........they do with each other all the time.

Why shouldn't a belief in a god be banned?

Two adult people should be able to have sex and marry. If you don't believe that then you're a big government asshole.

People should be able to choose their gender as it is biological based on research.

You're no different then the taliban or isis. Get out out of my fucking country! I'd support droning your ass.

So unless we let the government regulate same sex relationships, we are big government?

Do you guys think this stuff though ever?

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

Married people should not get benefits single people don't get.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet the LGBTQ community thinks children have the "tools" to decide their sexual identity and become trainies.

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

Yes, but for the reason I stated. Which is why it is immoral, with which you agree. So on what basis do you agree? I'm stumped.

We are operating off of different definitions of consent. If consent is simply giving permission, then.....well do I really want to go there again.

No, it's that one of is considering informed consent versus uninformed consent, and the other is not. If you consented to me giving you a million dollars, and I then proceeded to bury you alive in one million dollars of pennies...did you consent? By your definition, yes.

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why shouldn't a belief in a god be banned?

Two adult people should be able to have sex and marry. If you don't believe that then you're a big government asshole.

People should be able to choose their gender as it is biological based on research.

You're no different then the taliban or isis. Get out out of my fucking country! I'd support droning your ass.

So unless we let the government regulate same sex relationships, we are big government?

Do you guys think this stuff though ever?

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

Married people should not get benefits single people don't get.

Okay, not sure I even disagree there, but it's about more than that. Such as, property rights upon death. Such as, when only immediate family is allowed to visit an ill or dying person. Or spousal rights for those in the military. I'm sure we could come up with a long list, if we took the time.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

We are operating off of different definitions of consent. If consent is simply giving permission, then.....well do I really want to go there again.

No, it's that one of is considering informed consent versus uninformed consent, and the other is not. If you consented to me giving you a million dollars, and I then proceeded to bury you alive in one million dollars of pennies...did you consent? By your definition, yes.

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

No, it's that one of is considering informed consent versus uninformed consent, and the other is not. If you consented to me giving you a million dollars, and I then proceeded to bury you alive in one million dollars of pennies...did you consent? By your definition, yes.

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

 

[Slyhunter]

So unless we let the government regulate same sex relationships, we are big government?

Do you guys think this stuff though ever?

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

Married people should not get benefits single people don't get.

Okay, not sure I even disagree there, but it's about more than that. Such as, property rights upon death. Such as, when only immediate family is allowed to visit an ill or dying person. Or spousal rights for those in the military. I'm sure we could come up with a long list, if we took the time.

What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?
There should be no spousal privileges within marriage that can't be arranged without marriage.

 

[JoeMoma]

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That makes zero sense. Banning those marriages requires bigger government, not allowing them. Restricting gender identity requires bigger government , not leaving it alone. How freaking stupid.

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

Married people should not get benefits single people don't get.

Okay, not sure I even disagree there, but it's about more than that. Such as, property rights upon death. Such as, when only immediate family is allowed to visit an ill or dying person. Or spousal rights for those in the military. I'm sure we could come up with a long list, if we took the time.

What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?
There should be no spousal privileges within marriage that can't be arranged without marriage.

"What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?"

The law that says hospital security can use force to enforce a hospital's policy, and when the hospital has a policy of "only immediate family" for a set of situations. Which is true of every hospital. yes, before gay people could get married, their partners could and would get turned away.

 

[JoeMoma]

no. By my definition, I did consent to give you a million dollars. Having a million dollars in pennies used to bury me would be a separate event that I did not consent to.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

The ages at which one is granted legal adult decision making privileges are quite staggered.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

 

[JoeMoma]

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.
United States Age of Consent Laws By State

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Or perhaps now your getting it. Consenting to one thing does not make consent to events after the first automatic.

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

The ages at which one is granted legal adult decision making privileges are quite staggered.

"The ages at which one is granted legal adult decision making privileges are quite staggered."

Easy to say, low hanging fruit. Now it's just one, big amorphous blob containing the meaning of "adult decision making privileges" that we now get to squabble over and sift through and mold. No, I think i'll pass on that discussion for now.