12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

,.. i don't know but in movies it's cool when it's future and lots of misery, it looks cool and people are free. i would rather be free and starving than to be in this weird society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you would wear a leather jacket with one sleeve torn off and ride around the desert on a motorcycle with a shotgun scabbard on it, and fight skirmish’s with bandits and mutants for the gasoline you need.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

....LOL! You really can't read and comprehend English, can you? ...LOL!

Both laws are simply arbitrary laws. Pedo is when a older man has sex (or even touches!) a consenting girl under 18 ...arbitrary age set by law. if he does that he goes to jail and lives forever under a horrid stigma.

But that same man having sex with that same consenting girl 2 seconds after she turns 18, is perfectly legal! And everyone is happy for them that they found each other and are so in love and will live happily everafter in a gingerbread house.

.....and all that changed in just a few seconds!!!!

The gay marriage is simply one more of those laws. We set marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Sure, it's arbitrary, too.

But notice how quick you are to change ONE of those arbitrary laws and say it's "right", but seem dead set against changing the other arbitrary law and continue to say it's "wrong"?? Can't you see that?? If not, why? How?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then why aren't you? Who's paying for your Internet connection? who paid for you computer? Who pays for the house you live it? Who pays for the food you eat? And more importantly, where did the money come from?

Oh, wait ......are you just being a hippo-critter??? If so, sorry for my outburst!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Exactly! How'd you knoW? I want to fight monsters.. especially with a sword!!

My mom pays for them but i don't know wher she got the money... anyway, she doesn't like me to starve

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and there are others too so i have to stay home..

 

Okay I think I understand how you're looking at things here. You think that all laws are purposeless and without meaning, but yet you feel the urge to follow them anyway? That's just pathetic on several levels.

First off, one is not considered a pedophile if they lust after teenage boys/girls, pedophilia is attraction to younger protuberant children. The laws that I think you're talking about here deal with statutory rape which just deal with sex with minors. Most states have their laws written such that the scenario you describe, where a teen waits a day to turn 18 and suddenly what would have been a crime only hours before is now perfectly legal. There is usually a bit of a blur-area taking into account the age range between the two individuals.

Laws against statutory rape discourage child-predators and ensure that a parent has proper authority over who their young child is being sexually active with. They serve a purpose. Are the limitations of these laws perfect? Of course not, nothing ever is, but they serve their intended purpose well enough, and it's not like they're completely set in stone, as you would have them.

All of that is moot, of course, nothing but a straw man argument. There's no relation between this issue and same-sex marriage, so please do try to get back on topic. One law serves to protect children, another serves only to harass and belittle an innocent segment of the population. I should think that the distinction is clear enough.

 

Sorry, shotguns or occasionally very large revolvers are the only acceptable weapons for fighting mutants in a post-apocalyptic future (also for fighting zombies, though axes are also acceptable in that event, especialy if you should find yourself in a church).

 

??? Where did you pull that from? Please explain.

Agreed. But there IS a relation between the LAWS involved.

Well, it isn't clear ......and you know it! Almost any law will SEEM to be one or the other depending on which side of the fence ye're on! You call one law to "harass and belittle", yet many see that same law as "protecting" something or someone. No, Mystech, it is NOT clear .....and you know it.

Hey, Mystech, how many 15-18 yr olds think that all underage laws are "harassment and belittling"? Oops, well, except the ones that are useful to them, of course ....like not having to go to jail for a crime!! ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

Hmm?? And I'm trying to have a intelligent conversation with you?????

Damn, what does that say about ME? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

Yeah, you could definitely use a sword if you were skilled enough... like in the movie vampire hunter D.

 

Baron,

Could you please explain what you mean by this law "protecting" something or someone?

Thanks

 

Don't even get me started on that. Dude had a hand that was sentient and separate from his body, there's definitely something wrong with that. Besides, it's Japanese, swords is what they know!

 

I hate to answer a quote with a quote, but. . .

A sentiment which, of course I'd have to disagree with. Laws in which there are no victims, and which serve no purpose other than to serve as an extension of certain people's hatred and fear just have to go. It wasn't right in the 60s, and it isn't right now. The constitution is actually quite clear about this sort of thing, if anyone would bother to read it anymore.

Oh? is that so? Would you please go into greater detail about that, because I don't see any correlation at all. Your argument thus far that to change one law we somehow have to change all laws doesn't seem to hold. If medical Marijuana were legalized would we then have to legalize vehicular manslaughter? It simply does not follow.

Many, I'm sure, but all they have to do is wait. Besides, those laws are meant to legally enforce the authority of parents or guardians, and except in some certain very sad cases, power is better given to them than left in the hands of a child or teen. A case could be made to give more rights and less restrictions to teenagers, and of course such laws do vary from state to state, it’s not a black and white issue, but ultimately there’s a sound rational behind reserving full autonomy. But then I suppose the idea of sound logic is a bit difficult for you to grasp, isn’t it?

 

Mystch good job i think u hit it right on the nose and i do agree with you about why gay people not getting maried

 

If you're still reading, Mr Anonymous, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I'm sorry again that I confused your first post for this sort of thing, but I think you can understand how one might develop a sort of reactionary rage toward it.

Anyhow, David2, I'd urge you to read on in the thread, or even just read the first thread a bit more closely - this time using at least a middle school level of reading comprehension - and you are likely to find that I actually support same-sex marriage greatly.

 

...LOL! Trying to turn things around or misdirect things and make it confusing for everyone, huh? ..LOL!

No, my dear Mystech, but if gays and lesbians can change the laws on marriage, why shouldn't the teens (under 18) be allowed to change the laws that affect them, too? ...all without any opposition from any other interest groups?

And, hey, maybe we can have drunks change the laws on drinking and driving, too?! ...and without opposition from other groups!? ...LOL!

Hey, we could also have the drug laws changed by the druggies, too. ...without any opposition from other groups!

Ooh, and the porno laws changed by the porno industry. ...without any opposition from other groups!

Oh, and how 'bout changing the laws on prostitution ...we'll let the prostitutes change those laws, too. ...without any opposition from other groups.

Hey, I got another one ...how 'bout we let politicians and corporate executives change the laws on corruption? Ooooh, and without any opposition from other groups.

Yeah, ya' mean like the underage laws? No victims if it's all consent, right? I.e., it's all because of a FEAR that something bad might happen to the little tykes, right?

And drunk driving, too. Ain't no victims UNTIL there's an accident ...i.e., a law ONLY because people FEAR that something MIGHT happen.

I'm sure that there are millions of such "no victim" laws, but we still have them because "The People" want to keep them.

Many, many laws in this nation (and others!) are enacted ONLY out of fear of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ....ain't no victim UNTIL something happens. So how can we have those laws??? Are they because of people's "hatred and fear"?

If gays should be allowed to change gay laws, then drunks and teens should be allowed to change laws that affect them.

Well, yes, that's true. But we ain't talking about MY "sound logic", are we? I mean, if so .....you win!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

but i still say homosexuals should be allowed to marry!

 

Well, I still say that homos should NOT be allowed to marry. So my vote cancels out your vote.

Baron Max

 

i donn see a reason why YOUR opinion should act as the decision of someone's life!
so ur vote is negligible!

 

No, I'm afraid I'm not certain what you're talking about. I'm just paraphrasing statements that you yourself have made and, ironicaly continue to make throught the post I am quoting.

Please draw a parallel between drunk drivers and homosexuals for me. How do homosexuals endanger the well being of themselves and others? We could get into an argument about disease transmission regarding that question, but then there's an important distinction in that unprotect sex in general poses a health risk, not just homosexual intercourse whereas driving with any mental or physical impairment is generally prohibited by law and at least ticketable.

Again I don't really see the connection between homosexuals and drunk drivers. One group causes great risk of self-harm, property damage, and danger to the public at large, the other. . . just kind of wants people to shut up and leave 'em alone.

You seem to be tackling this issue from a very strange angle, Max, in your opinion what would be the reason for homosexuality, or same sex marriage to be considerd criminal?

Oh, hey, or copyright laws changed by Disney without any opposition from any other groups! Oh eer. . . wait, that's right. . . bunch of bastards.

Jesus Christ, are you still at it? Like to be blunt and redundant, don't you? Your reasoning was horribly flawed the first time you tried to draw this parallel, and your case isn't getting any stronger as you repeat yourself.

Damn it, now, what did I just tell you? Behave!

Drunks by definition are mentally and physically impaired and as such can not be trusted to act safely toward themselves or others. Teenagers are young and stupid, and physically their cerebral cortex (involved in more complex reasoning and decision making) is not yet fully developed so power over much of their life is legally delegated to their parents or guardian whom certainly have a controlling interest in them. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? There is legislation limiting the behavior of these groups because of a lack of ability to govern themselves in a societal adequate fashion, and because of the enormous risk of damaging or criminal behavior associated with both groups.

If this is the purpose that laws regarding these two groups serve what purpose, then would be served by denying Homosexuals the legal status of marriage? Are you trying to say that you feel that homosexuals are impaired individuals who are not qualified to make their own decisions in life as would any other competent adult? That's some rather nasty thinking, and I certainly think a lot of expiation would be in order if that's the case.

I don’t particularly think that guys who try to date strippers are exactly well suited to make their own relationship decisions, however I’m civilly minded enough to realize that this doesn’t constitute some sort of community issue, or problem that needs to be legislated away. I'm sure that most would agree that that is a very reasonable philosophy, so I'm afraid that the argument of "Well I don't like homosexuals, so they shouldn't be able to do as they wish and cary about their lives if I say different" is going to be adiquate.