That's not what some people would say about homosexuality. So who should we believe? Or are you always right? Marriage is between a man and a woman. What prevents gays from getting married is that one of them wasn't born a woman! That's not America's fault, ya' know! As to freedom, if you think we're so free, then why can't men marry 12-13 year old girls? Or goats? Or sheep? Why can't you drive 100 mph in downtown NYC? "Love" ain't got nothin' to do without the marriage laws and rules. I love my dog, but the laws won't let me marry him. So is that discrimination?? Baron Max
It's only a matter of law that that little girl is NOT of the age to consent. So ...if gays get to change the laws to benefit themselves, why shouldn't pedos get to change the laws to benefit them? Just change the consent age to, say, 12 or 13, then pedos could talk the little girls into sex without having to worry about the cops. See? Ain't no difference ....if you can change one law, why not change others? Hell, as a matter of fact, I think little 13-yr old girls in India marry old farts regularly and with the blessings of the government as well as their parents. See? What's the big deal? Baron Max
JDawg: yes I know that, of course. The heart of my comment was edited out by spidergoat, who seems to be highly selective in whose comments he singles out for punishment. This forum, indeed this very thread, contains personal insults FAR more egregious than my comment, but I don't see them being edited. If you had been able to read it in its entirety, my comment would have made sense. So much for free speech......
I've seen far more insults from the gay-supporters than from the opposing side of the debate. I don't think I've posted a single personal insult in all this time on this thread. But I still think if the gays can change a law, why can't the pedophiles change a law, too? Surely you gay-supporters wouldn't be against such actions because that's exactly what y'all are wanting to do. So ..you should support pedophiles if they want to change the age of consent laws, right? Baron Max
One of these harms and violates other people, the other does not. Does harm.... does not harm. DOES..... DOES NOT. These are OPPOSITES..... get it? This has been explained to you approximately half a gazillion times, or something like that. Personally, I think you understand perfectly well the difference there, and your fanatical repetition of this flawed analogy is simply because you desire to keep arguing. You are dug in and entrenched, and it is just inconceivable to you that you should give any ground. That's my personal opinion, for what it's worth (which won't be much to you, I'm sure, and that's fine). By the way, I'm still waiting for your pledge of support in fighting the special rights of heterosexuals. I know you're an enemy of special rights. So can I count on you?
Not if the age laws are changed ...and the pedophile can talk the little girl into consenting to... whatever. See? No harm without full consent. And I have to say that I've heard and read numerous articles about the harm that homosexuality has 'caused lots of young men. So.....? No, I don't. One group wants to change laws to benefit themselves. The other group wants to change laws to benefit themselves. Sounds the same to me, how 'bout to you? Well, ya' know what they say about opinions, right? They're like assholes, everyone has at least one. What special rights for heteros?? Huh? I don't know what you're talkin' about. Baron Max
Could you point me to some of them? I mean credible sources -- not fundamentalist religious groups or conservative think tanks. (And I'm not saying all conservative think tanks are dishonest; I'm just saying give me a source where I don't have to suspect an obvious bias.) This is really a fundamental plank in your arguments? Are you sure you want to stick with this one? Let's consider two groups of people. Group A wants a law to give them a minor tax break if they engage in some sort of charity work. Group B wants a law that says everyone in the country has to give half their income to Group B. Both groups want a law for their own benefit. Are you saying we should give them equal consideration? Person A wants to be protected from murder (it's for his own benefit). Person B wants to be able to murder people because it's fun (it's for his own benefit). Do we treat them equally? Hey, they BOTH have the same reason for their desires, so their desires must be equal, right? Of course you don't. I've noticed you often dodge with the ol' "huh?" response when someone makes a point that is difficult for your position.
No, actually I can't becuase it was just stuff I've read in the papers over the years. And besides, even if I had a "link", I don't know how to post it. One special interest group should not be permitted to change laws just for their own special interests. And if y'all get to do it, why can't others do the same with laws they don't like? The cute little scenarios are not even close to what we're talking about .....and you know it. Wanna' try again? You type all that, but wouldn't even tell me what you were talking about in the first place? I didn't know, so I asked. Baron Max
Wanna try again to answer my charge? The charge is that, by your own logic, if two groups benefit from changing certain laws, we must view them equally simply because they both benefit -- regardless of what the specific issue is. This is your own argument; you have been pushing it throughout this entire thread. You cannot disassociate yourself from it, try as you will. It was explained in more than one previous post. And you dodged it back then too. It must be a particular thorn in your side if ignoring it is your best solution.
I don't see anywhere that I've said "regardless of what the issue is". If I did, where did you see it? I've been using the pedo issue because I can't think of another example that's as disgusting to as many people. If you can think of one, let me know! But, yes, that's essentially my argument for that portion of the discussion. It simply shows that a special-interest group should NOT be the ones to make the decisions about any relative laws. Or do you still think so? Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going back over all the posts to try to figure out what the fuck you're talking about. So if you're comfortable ignoring it, then so am I. Actually I can't ignore it, because that means that I know what you're talking about, ....so lets just say that we're dropping it from the discussion because it's obviously not importatn to either of us. Baron Max
I think that it says somewhere that a man is not to lie with another man. I don't think it specifically says that he shouldn't suck his cock or stick his dick in a man's asshole, but..... Well, we can read somewhat between the lines, can't we? Baron Max
But you see, it's NOT simply a "special interest group" we're talking about here. It is not only gays who want to be treated fairly. There is a wide spectrum of straight people who support this as well. I am one of them, there are obviously many more here at this forum, and I know many in "real life" -- and I'm sure most here can say the same It is unsurprising that pedophiles want their actions legalized, but can you point to a sizable portion of the non -pedophiles in our society who support them? The answer is "no." So we should naturally be more suspicious of their demands.
what is says is, "a man should not lie with another man, his punishment will be stoning to death" (or somthing like that anyway) and no the word homosexual does not appear in the bible, because itis a reletivly new word.
Not exactly. Here are some translations of Leviticus 18:22 ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination." KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination". LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1 NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination . In Hebrew it says "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The first part of the verse is literally translated: ""And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" The second part contains a word that means moral sin, or sin that rebells from God. Some liberal theologians translate it to mean that ritual anal sex between two men in a pagan temple is forbidden. Some theologians interpret it to mean that two men may not have anal sex together a womens bed. It is difficult to understand what it really means. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm#levi Another important thing to consider is the bible depicts intimate relationships between people of the same sex. These relationships are so intimate that they would appear to only be appropriate between couples. Here is some more information. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav
Hetero males can't marry other males; homo males can't marry other males. What the fuck do you see in that to make you say marriage laws are unfair? Homos are treated precisely, exactly, the same as heteros. No, see, what gays want is SPECIAL CONSIDERATION just because of who and how the like to fuck! Yeah, ....because it's special interest. Yeah, I agree, we should be suspicious of any group that wants special consideration under the law. As to the number of heteros who support gay rights ....would you like to take the issue to a vote tomorrow before the citizens of the USA? Baron Max
The comparison we make is not "males marrying males" but "loving couples getting married". Heterosexual couples can marry, homosexual couples cannot. To paraphrase something I read recently: What the fuck do you see in that to make you say marriage laws are fair? Homos are treated completely, totally, differently than heteros. No, see, what gays want is EQUAL CONSIDERATION without regard for whom and how they like to fuck!
no they want the laws to change for them, and we have to stand aside and just let it happen? why should thousands of years of traditions get lost because homosexuals want to marry?
So, ...if you want to be treated like normal males, then that's exactly the way gays are treat now. The laws basically prevent males from marrying males. See? Perfectly equal ....marriage ain't got nothin' to do with "love" or "how or what you fuck". Baron Max
Thousands of years of tradition? Who cares? Maybe we shouldn't cure diseases because humans have traditionally died from them.
