Lame argument Max. You are so hooked up on gender it causes you to make lame rebuttals. It's about the personal choice of individuals regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The state should not care or differentiate, a tax paying citizen has the same rights as any other. No Max, you are so blinded by this that you can't see it. It is solely about equality and freedom, and the state not needing to prevent things. Supposedly America is 'The Land of the Free'. Well, if you are a white heterosexual christian it is, differ and suffer.
So ...the state should create no laws at all????? Hetero males can't marry other males; homo males can't marry other males. Perfectly equal rights under the law. So ...the state shouldn't create laws about age either, so pedophiles can do and enjoy what they do best? that's his personal choice, ain't it? And the only thing that makes it "wrong" is the age of the little girl he likes. And since the state should care or differentiate, ....? Agreed. Pedophiles should be free to do what they enjoy without the constraints of those silly "age of consent" laws. Baron Max
We use to have laws against interracial marriages. According to your logic they were fair, all white people couldn't marry black people and all black people couldn't marry white people. We gave interracial couples "special" rights. Again, the domino affect rational doesn't work. If you can demonstrate a situation where it has happened then I would be more than willing to entertain that idea.
I think you're wrong. I don't think that there was ever a law preventing blacks from marrying whites. I think it was just "not done", but there was no law. If you know of one, please present it to us. Sure it does, you just can't see it or you're unwilling to see it. Giving special rights to homos, over and above the rights of normal people will definitely hava a domino effect on laws ...ain't no doubts. Baron Max
anti-miscegenation laws existed, at one point or another, in most of our states. The first "law" was created shortly after the mayflower hit land. I learned about them in grade school- I assumed everyone knew about them http://www.ask.com/web?q=anti-miscegenation laws&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir Demonstrate to me one situation where this has happened. One law that was passed and led to the creation of a series of laws afterwards. And the 13th amendment doesn't count. Thank-you for easing my research time this morning Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evidently the law would not discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Straight males would be perfectly free to marry straight males if they so wished.
The state shouldn't not enact any laws that differentiate between citizens on the grounds of gender or sexuality. Absurd argument Max, playground stuff, really. Two people want to get married, they should be allowed to, end of story. You have a hard on for this subject Max, you keep bringing it up, and it is abstraction to absurdity. We are talking about the rights of consenting adults, please try and stay on topic. Says the guy who 'understands' the desire for 13 year old girls. I said the state should not enact laws based on gender or sexuality, I didn't bring up your favourite fantasy. Keep it on topic Max, and try and make a reasonable argument.
You keep equating pedophilia with homosexuality. It's not a fair comparison. That is no more valid than equating heterosexual marriage and pedophila. They are completely differentiable based on the fact that in most, if not all, cases of pedophilia victimizes and harms one of the parties involved whereas long-term homosexual relationships (of the sort that might lead to marriage) are always consensual and harm neither partner. No one is arguing that laws protecting people from being directly harmed by another are wrong. The "harm" you assert to society from gay marriage, on the other hand, is entirely speculative and may be based in its entirety on the fact that you find such relationships offensive. In general, Americans do not have the right "not to be offended." Being members of a free society inevitably means that we will be confronted with speech, behavior, art, religion, philosophies and other things that offend us. So long as those things do not cross a line into physical or significant and verifiable psychological harm, we should err on the side of allowing it. If I had a choice between never having to be weirded out by homosexual marriage and never having to be weirded out by white supremacist marriage, I'd ban the white supremacist marriages (since they raise little racist kids like these and I think that is a far greater harm to society than homosexual marriage will ever be). I know, though, that in the long run, it's better to suffer things that may not be my cup of tea, in the name of liberty, than to enforce my preferences on others.
lol- i knew that link was the neo-nazi olsen twins before I even clicked it. let's hope that when they grow up they find reality
Anything they want to do?? Hmm, interesting, but a little drastic, wouldn't you say? The only thing that makes a man a pedophile is some silly law! And you don't seem to be so understanding or caring about laws, so....? Homos want to change the marriage laws to suit themselves; pedophiles would like to change the age laws to suit their own wants and desires. I see no difference ...both are laws that discriminate according to gender or age. And you've already said/implied that such laws are wrong! Baron Max
By that logic, you are implying than a man and a woman who marry are really no different than state-sponsored pedophiles. After all, the only difference between that couple and a pedophile, is that the law permits the couple to do what they want.
They only do that because of the silly age laws ...which are discriminatory according to age! If a pedophile was permitted to woo the little girls and patiently win her over, there'd be no need for harm and there'd be no victim. I think that's what makes a society ...a like-minded group of people living together in harmony. When that harmony is threatened, the members of society should and do act to prevent it. So the members of society have to put up with things that offend them? Is that what you think a society is or should do? If so, you have a strange idea of what a society is. What you seem to be talking about is a group of people who are being forced into doing things that they don't want to do. Is that how you see human societies? And you want to call that "freedom"? Freedom for whom? Baron Max
Just to be clear here, do you have a specific group in mind when you say pedophile? Most people assume the most extreme and reprehensible case, like a 30 year old and some pre-teen. I assume that you are referring to something like mid-20 year old and a 17 year old. There should be some revising of the laws and terminology of pedophile imo. It is unfair to group someone who is attracted to 17 year olds with someone who is attracted to children. Especially since almost every male can find some 16 and 17 year olds attractive. I certainly do. I don't consider myself a pedophile though because I am more attracted to my own university age group and I wouldn't be interested in relations with girls of that age. Sorry for going OT.
So you're okay with laws that discriminate according to age? If so, how is that different to discriminating according to gender? Or sexual preference? If one is okay to change because of the special interests of gays, why is it not okay to change the age laws for the special interests of pedophiles? And the remainder of your post seems to be an interesting excuse for discriminating according to SOME ages, but not others. How can you see it all so clearly with ages, yet not see it at all for gay marriage? Aren't both laws set by the members of society ...as they wish their society to be? How can one special-interest group be permitted to change the laws that society want to keep in place? Baron Max
Of course there is some age discrimination. We don't allow children to vote either, we don't even allow 18 year olds to buy alcohol... I really can't understand why you see age based laws based for youth to be discrimination. To be brief: it really screws up kids, so we are protecting them for their own good. I said 17 was OK, because 17 year olds can sometimes be responsible enough to handle such things, especially when it is the case of a 17 year old girl going to a college party, which happens all the time.
No! The harm to the child is not caused by that fact that the sex is "illegal", it's caused by the fact that the sex is physically and psychologically damaging. The legal status of an act has nothing to do with the harm being caused or not being caused by that act. There are four classes of things, in this context: (Category 1) Harmful things that are illegal. (Category 2) Harmful things that are legal. (Category 3) Harmless things that are illegal. (Category 4) Harmless things that are legal. Pedophilia is in Category 1. Heterosexual marriage is in category 4. Homosexual marriage is presently in category 3 in the United States. Yes. I agree. Unfortunately for your argument, homosexual marriage threatens no one in any substantial way, and less so than racism and religious intolerance. If you can justify banning homosexual marriage on the basis of its perceived (but by no means proven or even "demonstrated") social and moral effects, then I can justify banning marriage between racists or between atheists (or between any two people with whom I happen to disagree). If you want freedom as it exists in the United States, then you have to take the good with the bad, so long as the bad does not unduly cause anyone harm. The alternative is the rejection of the American ideal of liberty. That's why we have freedom of speech, religion, association, the right to use birth control, and countless other things with which some may disagree.
"The people" once thought the Earth was flat. "The people" can be -- and often are -- completely wrong.
A fundamental fact seems to have escaped you: it is the people who are allowed MORE freedoms and legal perks who have the "special rights" -- which at the present time is heterosexuals. I, like you, am against "special rights." Let us work to end the "special rights" of heteros, shall we?
