Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Homosexuality

Page 33 of 93 [ 1477 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 ... 93  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 3:51 pm

Hadron wrote:
In the same way we dont allow consentual paedophillia in this country, because people dont like the concept. Most laws are based on pragmatism, get used to it. Like the Blasphemy act, for instance. Voicing your opinion is all fair enough, but there are ways of doing so diplomatically, and also without you going into some online rage about it. As for other peoples rights yes I care, but being able to bugger someone up the arse doesnt count very high up my list of priortities, funilly enough.

I wasn't getting into an online rage because of this. I was already frustrated when I logged on here, because of something else, it took me about hbalf an hour to calm down and, unfortunately, I was posting on here during that half hour.
There's no such thing as consensual paedophilia. By law, a child cannot consent. That's why it's called the age of consent. And it's not illegal just because people don't like the idea. It's to protect children. Whereas who needs protecting from gay marriage? And kids marrying adults is completely different. We're talking about straight marriage (2 adults), gay marriage (2 adults) and paedophilia (adult + child).
People didn't like the idea of black people marrying white people. Did that make it all ok?



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 3:54 pm

Ragtime wrote:
JoeCapricorn wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
as they were created to do.

People weren't 'created' for anything. Although I guess you'll never accept evolution so I might as well not bother.


Hey, pointless arguments never stopped you before. :P


offtopic smartbutt answers have never kept you from thinking you're still right and know everything and are way above everything


For the record (or rather, to reset the record that Sedaka keeps skewing), I 1) don't know anything close to everything, and I 2) don't think I'm above everything, nor do I have any idea where you got these two ideas.


What if the afterlife turns out to be completely different from what is described in the Bible?


Then I'll be f***ed. Just make sure you're not.


not necessarily....


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

09 Aug 2007, 3:59 pm

JoeCapricorn wrote:
I say...

Image

Out of curiosity

Which of those two is Ragtime? :P


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


JoeCapricorn
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

09 Aug 2007, 4:00 pm

greenblue wrote:
JoeCapricorn wrote:
I say...

Image

Out of curiosity

Which of those two is Ragtime?


I dunno, but I'm the tree! I am SO the tree!



Elemental
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

09 Aug 2007, 4:04 pm

Sopho wrote:
I wasn't getting into an online rage because of this. I was already frustrated when I logged on here, because of something else, it took me about hbalf an hour to calm down and, unfortunately, I was posting on here during that half hour.
There's no such thing as consensual paedophilia. By law, a child cannot consent. That's why it's called the age of consent. And it's not illegal just because people don't like the idea. It's to protect children. Whereas who needs protecting from gay marriage? And kids marrying adults is completely different. We're talking about straight marriage (2 adults), gay marriage (2 adults) and paedophilia (adult + child).


It's your basic slippery slope fallacy. It does demonstrate the lack of empathy on their part, that mere homosexuality is compared to such an extreme and harmful kink.

Sopho wrote:
People didn't like the idea of black people marrying white people. Did that make it all ok?


I'm sure if the Internet had been around in the 60's, we'd have seen people like the ones on this thread doing the same dance about mixed-race marriages. Appeals to religion, vague statements about how it is "unnatural", sanctimonious worrying about the children, claims that seeing a white man and black woman (or vice versa) kissing in public makes them uncomfortable, etc.

In forty or so years, I predict that the same transition will have been made for gay marriage. A few diehards will still be against the notion, but for everyone else it will simply be the way things are, and it will seem the height of barbarism that we ever thought different as a society. The bigots will simply have been left behind.



Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 4:08 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
In the same way we dont allow consentual paedophillia in this country, because people dont like the concept. Most laws are based on pragmatism, get used to it. Like the Blasphemy act, for instance. Voicing your opinion is all fair enough, but there are ways of doing so diplomatically, and also without you going into some online rage about it. As for other peoples rights yes I care, but being able to bugger someone up the arse doesnt count very high up my list of priortities, funilly enough.

I wasn't getting into an online rage because of this. I was already frustrated when I logged on here, because of something else, it took me about hbalf an hour to calm down and, unfortunately, I was posting on here during that half hour.
There's no such thing as consensual paedophilia. By law, a child cannot consent. That's why it's called the age of consent. And it's not illegal just because people don't like the idea. It's to protect children. Whereas who needs protecting from gay marriage? And kids marrying adults is completely different. We're talking about straight marriage (2 adults), gay marriage (2 adults) and paedophilia (adult + child).
People didn't like the idea of black people marrying white people. Did that make it all ok?

Suppose the law were changed to allow consentual paedophillia. Then what would you say? To these paedophiles, it is no different to homosexuals being allowed to have sex. I was just demolishing your earlier, arguement btw. And striaght marriage is child + child often.



Elemental
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

09 Aug 2007, 4:12 pm

Ragtime wrote:
You ASSUME there's no logical reason. But you're not the Lord of Logic (hate to break it to you). There are some things you and I just don't know, which are true nonetheless. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's illogical.


I get the feeling we're talking from completely different mindsets. For me, it is simple. If the God you worship creates people so that they have the urge to do things which harm no other, and then punishes them for doing those things, then he is a sadist putting people through needless torment in this life or the next. I could not worship such an entity even with cast iron proof that he exists and set things that way. My own conscience and sense of right and wrong would not allow it.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:13 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
In the same way we dont allow consentual paedophillia in this country, because people dont like the concept. Most laws are based on pragmatism, get used to it. Like the Blasphemy act, for instance. Voicing your opinion is all fair enough, but there are ways of doing so diplomatically, and also without you going into some online rage about it. As for other peoples rights yes I care, but being able to bugger someone up the arse doesnt count very high up my list of priortities, funilly enough.

I wasn't getting into an online rage because of this. I was already frustrated when I logged on here, because of something else, it took me about hbalf an hour to calm down and, unfortunately, I was posting on here during that half hour.
There's no such thing as consensual paedophilia. By law, a child cannot consent. That's why it's called the age of consent. And it's not illegal just because people don't like the idea. It's to protect children. Whereas who needs protecting from gay marriage? And kids marrying adults is completely different. We're talking about straight marriage (2 adults), gay marriage (2 adults) and paedophilia (adult + child).
People didn't like the idea of black people marrying white people. Did that make it all ok?

Suppose the law were changed to allow consentual paedophillia. Then what would you say? To these paedophiles, it is no different to homosexuals being allowed to have sex. I was just demolishing your earlier, arguement btw. And striaght marriage is child + child often.

You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.



Elemental
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

09 Aug 2007, 4:15 pm

Hadron wrote:
Suppose the law were changed to allow consentual paedophillia. Then what would you say? To these paedophiles, it is no different to homosexuals being allowed to have sex. I was just demolishing your earlier, arguement btw. And striaght marriage is child + child often.


Speaking for myself, I'd say it was still wrong even if legal. It's very simple. Homosexuality between consenting adults causes no harm (or at least, not in greater proportions than heterosexual relationships), so therefore it should be allowed. Child abuse does cause provable harm, therefore it should be forbidden.



Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 4:16 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
In the same way we dont allow consentual paedophillia in this country, because people dont like the concept. Most laws are based on pragmatism, get used to it. Like the Blasphemy act, for instance. Voicing your opinion is all fair enough, but there are ways of doing so diplomatically, and also without you going into some online rage about it. As for other peoples rights yes I care, but being able to bugger someone up the arse doesnt count very high up my list of priortities, funilly enough.

I wasn't getting into an online rage because of this. I was already frustrated when I logged on here, because of something else, it took me about hbalf an hour to calm down and, unfortunately, I was posting on here during that half hour.
There's no such thing as consensual paedophilia. By law, a child cannot consent. That's why it's called the age of consent. And it's not illegal just because people don't like the idea. It's to protect children. Whereas who needs protecting from gay marriage? And kids marrying adults is completely different. We're talking about straight marriage (2 adults), gay marriage (2 adults) and paedophilia (adult + child).
People didn't like the idea of black people marrying white people. Did that make it all ok?

Suppose the law were changed to allow consentual paedophillia. Then what would you say? To these paedophiles, it is no different to homosexuals being allowed to have sex. I was just demolishing your earlier, arguement btw. And striaght marriage is child + child often.

You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.



JoeCapricorn
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

09 Aug 2007, 4:19 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
In the same way we dont allow consentual paedophillia in this country, because people dont like the concept. Most laws are based on pragmatism, get used to it. Like the Blasphemy act, for instance. Voicing your opinion is all fair enough, but there are ways of doing so diplomatically, and also without you going into some online rage about it. As for other peoples rights yes I care, but being able to bugger someone up the arse doesnt count very high up my list of priortities, funilly enough.

I wasn't getting into an online rage because of this. I was already frustrated when I logged on here, because of something else, it took me about hbalf an hour to calm down and, unfortunately, I was posting on here during that half hour.
There's no such thing as consensual paedophilia. By law, a child cannot consent. That's why it's called the age of consent. And it's not illegal just because people don't like the idea. It's to protect children. Whereas who needs protecting from gay marriage? And kids marrying adults is completely different. We're talking about straight marriage (2 adults), gay marriage (2 adults) and paedophilia (adult + child).
People didn't like the idea of black people marrying white people. Did that make it all ok?

Suppose the law were changed to allow consentual paedophillia. Then what would you say? To these paedophiles, it is no different to homosexuals being allowed to have sex. I was just demolishing your earlier, arguement btw. And striaght marriage is child + child often.

You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.


Let me just say one thing...

Comparing anything homosexuality related to pedophilia is hate speech!

Saying that gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia is a lie!

The slippery slope argument in general is just a lie propagated by anti-gay hate groups.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:19 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.



Elemental
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

09 Aug 2007, 4:24 pm

Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:27 pm

Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis. A man can't marry a man just because he does have a penis.
So instead of thinking of it as being equal because we all have the right to an heterosexual marriage, why don't people see it like that? I have the right to marry a man, but Ragtime doesn't. That's sexist discrimination.



Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 4:32 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.



Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 4:35 pm

Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis. A man can't marry a man just because he does have a penis.
So instead of thinking of it as being equal because we all have the right to an heterosexual marriage, why don't people see it like that? I have the right to marry a man, but Ragtime doesn't. That's sexist discrimination.

Simple biology, dearie. Adam and Steve together dont make kids, end of.