You've Won.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Er, no. There is no God.

Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uhmm, lawmakers are elected by the people. The majority of the people find, as you said, such behavior disgusting. So it's sort of a "might makes right" deal. When you think about it democracy is based on might makes right, because the majority has the might.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lady, I tried to explain this to you a number of times but you just don't seem to read.

Laws are not made based on; your idea of God, the mass' idea of God (well, they are quite frequently, but they are not suppose to be), ethics or morals.

Laws are made based on what is going to benefit society the most while keeping in mind the rights of the minorities.

Pedophelia is amazingly detrimental if legal to a society. Therefore - it is illegal. This isn't so complicated!

 

Lady, I believe the issue now becomes "consent"

Lady

Point-by-point:

• So God created deviant sexual behavior,right? Assuming for the sake of argument that God exists as described in the Bible, yes.

• Despite Scientific Proof, this is what many people are led to believe. Despite which scientific proof? A lack of evidence in an incomplete process? By the same measure, I might remind you that some people are led to believe that God exists, despite scientific proof.

• If the above statment holds true ... It doesn't. But I'll pretend it does.

• Why is it that our laws are hypocritical and society discrimatory against those who practice Pedophilia,bestialism,and incestous lifestyles. Because pedophilia and bestialism involve issues of consent in the fact that consent is not necessarily present. Bearing Lysander Spooner in mind, we might examine the notion that the right of sexual consent was given to a ten year-old girl in 1875, and that her favor could be bought. As a consent issue, is a ten year-old fully conscious of the damage sexual contact can do to her body? If the answer is yes, then we ought not prosecute pedophiles but work toward normalization of the phenomenon. I find this solution distasteful to say the least. Animals? Show me proper consent in the animal kingdom. That a dog can be compelled to f--k a woman does not show consent. Why not, one might ask. The dog seems to enjoy it. Well ... fine. If a woman has an orgasm, it can't be rape. The necessity of conscious consent is possible between adults. A human and a dog or a goat? I don't see consent. A child? It's going to take some hard convincing to get me to believe that one of my best friends could consent to performing fellatio at age eight. Or six. Or two, for that matter. Incest? My objection is that incest seems quite pathetic. What, you can't go find someone who's not family who is willing to have sex with you? Buy a hooker, at least.

• Why show prejudice and pass judgements against sexual behavior's that aren't acceptable by society. Because those behaviors do not respect consent. God and the "sinner" are not the only important ones here. There are the others involved. Two adults of the same gender can consent to gratify each other sexually. Our laws strive to protect individuals from exploitative harm, so it seems quite reasonable to prohibit those sexual conducts which do not respect the necessity of consent.

• I remind you, bestialism, incest, and pedophilia is the will or creation of God(right?) not a choice. Nonetheless, bestialism and pedophilia, at least, suspend the choices of the other to an unacceptable degree. These acts harm people who are not willing to be harmed. Incest has the same danger in reproduction, and for that reason alone it ought to be curtailed. However, in this day of casual sex, birth control, and sexual fetish, reproduction is not as sure a result of sexual activity as it once was. In this context, we must decide as a society whether incest really is that pathetic. I tend to think it is, but I could be wrong.

• These people could no more choose their sexual desire's than their skin color. In twelve years of actively involving myself in the political arguments surrounding homosexuality, I have found that even the gays find this comparison distasteful. A homosexual can choose to partake in sexual activities that do not appeal to him or her, much like a wife can choose to partake in bad sex with her husband. A black person cannot choose to not be black without massive violations of the body, and at that point, they would be on par with Michael Jackson.

• So why I ask you, discriminate against these innocent human beings? Well, near as I can tell, most people are just a little freaked out at the idea of having sex with a child, though the "hot oral high school teens" movement on the internet seems to be a little more successful than it should be. Furthermore, as we see with NAMBLA, some pedophiles proclaim their needs. In that case, I, as a parent, wishing to protect my child against such dangers, would have an obligation to object. If my child isn't that important to me, I suppose I can choose to say nothing.

• After all, it's not their fault. Just as homosexuals find it repulsive to engage in heterosexual relations so to do these people find it repulsive to engage in the"accepted sexual behaviors" condoned by society. Spend more time with pedophiles and bestialists. The child molester I know certainly enjoys sex with adult women. So it's not quite fair to say he would be repulsed by accepted sexual behaviors condoned by society. Nonetheless, the essence of your question is, in the abstract, fair. Again, I point to issues of consent. As such, there still exists questions about the propriety of attaining sexual gratification without consent or through deception.

• Therefore, should these people be rejected by society& penalized by our hypocritical law's? If they commit a crime, such as having sex with a child or a dog, then they ought to be penalized. In the case of incest, if they reproduce, they ought to be penalized for any damage the incestuous union might cause to the child. (As an example, one of the most horrific executions in the history of mankind was of a retarded man who killed his parents because, while they raised him to a strict and even ridiculous Christian standard, they were, in fact, incestuous. When the man found out his mom and dad were brother and sister, he acted on the lessons he'd learned in religion, and killed the offenders. As a side note, the state botched his execution, and after 37 minutes of shocking the shit out of him, he still wasn't dead. While I cannot condone murder, we see that the effects of the incestuous union have harmed another person, and I think incestuous sex should be held accountable before the law if it results in birth defects.

• I ask you, What gives society the right to look down upon certain deviant sexual behaviors and condone others? The issue of consent is a big one, especially in light of the issues you continue to raise.

• Who gives law maker's the right to punish people for not desiring what society has deemed acceptable? Depends on who you ask. George Bush thinks it's God. The electoral system says that the society so chooses. Among adults, their continued existence inside the political borders and their continued participation in society inherently signifies their consent to the law.

• If the introductory statment holds true......law maker's and society have no choice but to accept and respect the natural sexual impulses created in every human being. If we restrict the issue only to the individual and God, you might have a point. But we cannot make such a restriction, for it fails to consider the other entity involved. Thus: Joe the homosexual comes before his consenting lover, and they have union. To the other, Jim the molester comes before a child, and must steal the child, restrain the child, and violate the child. Jack the bestial beast comes before a dog or a horse or a goat or whatever, and cannot ask consent; he must merely stimulate the animal and hope for a favorable response, which is a strategy a man can employ with a woman forcibly strapped to a table or bound in the basement.

The big issue is consent. The political fight between certain Christians and their homosexual targets has spent at least ten years on this idea in the Pacific Northwest. The same comparisons of homosexuality and bestialism and pedophilia were floated by the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, a Christian-derived PAC. For at least ten years, people have been pointing out issues of consent, and wondering why they're not important to the persecutors.

I can only hope that our present discussion might help you distinguish between consent and a lack thereof. In addition to how God views the individual, there is a more functionally important issue of how the other party involved in the sexual act involves that individual.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Come to think of it, Lady.....

didn't I give you a number of links to show that incest was NOT the result of genetics and what it actually was a result of??

 

Yes, you've won the annual Sciforums "Beat me, I am a masochist" award. Your personalized hair shirts will be arriving in the mail any day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What does consent have to do with creation?

 

* If your daughter wants to get it on with the rockweller down the street- SO BE IT.

* If grandpa wants to fonddle the kiddies- SO BE IT.

*IF the family reunion turns to an orgy- SO BE IT.

 

Lady

So God created deviant sexual behavior,right?

Lets forget for a moment the argument presented by our learned friend, goofyfish. So far, gods have not been proven to exist or not exist. Therefore, if we presume gods did exist, your statement would be correct since gods created all things, right ?

Despite Scientific Proof, this is what many people are led to believe.

Most, if not all, rational people would only be led to believe your statement if gods were proven to exist however, the fact that gods have not been proven to exist is reason enough to discount belief in your statement. btw, who are these people you refer ?

What does consent have to do with creation?
* If your daughter wants to get it on with the rockweller down the street- SO BE IT.

* If grandpa wants to fonddle the kiddies- SO BE IT.

*IF the family reunion turns to an orgy- SO BE IT.

You've answered your own question. If gods existed, they would have created these urges. Our societies would therefore not create laws to defer those urges into actions. So, if gods exist, SO BE IT.

However, by your logic, you've presented evidence which shows gods do not exist, making goofyfish's argument ironclad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"What does consent have to do with creation?"

Right about now I suggest you leave for a while and learn about "logic".

Law has nothing to do with god and creation. Law has to do with what will benefit or be detrimental to societies.

 

Let's not confuse "sin" with "wrongdoing". Wrongdoing hurts others, and laws are created to protect those who would be injured by wrongdoing. Deeming something a "sin" is an hysterical reaction to religious puffery, something deemed as evil with no better explanation than "god forbids it!"

"Deviant sexual behavior" is something that hurts people. Imposing oneself on another sexually is wrong. Molesting children is an example of this. Sex with animals is potentially physically harmful to both parties, and really gross. All of these things, physically or emotionally or psychologically (usually all three), hurt people, directly or indirectly.

As far as I'm concerned, if two consenting adults want to have sex, regardless of their gender, let them. I think you're failing to make the clear distinction between "deviant sexual behavior" and adults having sex.

By the way, I hardly think that bribing an individual or using some other form of persuasion can be considered gaining their consent. you are gaining compromise. If the term "consent" is so troublesome, then let's dispose of it. I assert that sex between two parties is legitimate if both parties desire it. Clearly, children, who can neither understand nor benefit from sex, will never "desire" sexual contact like an adult does. Persuasion is still a form of imposing oneself on others sexually.

As for future laws against homosexuality, I'm just thankful that we live in a country where not every lunatic that wants to pass legislation against people they don't like or understand gets their petty little way.

And Lady: there's no apostrophe in "lawmakers", unless it's posessive.

 

Q,

* Why is it that no one brings up the existence or non- existence of God when Homosexuals claim God created them GAY?

 

What the law consider's a benefit or hinderence to society has nothing to do with the creation claim.

 

I agree with you that these behavior's aren't good for society however homosexuals claim to be created gay why can't pedafilian's, those who practice bestalism, and incest? This is a creation issue not what the law consider's harmful to a society.

 

You sent something on Pedafilian I believe.

 

Lady ....

Given that I have in fact, attempted to civilly address each of the points you presented in the topic post, I'm wondering why your subsequent posts seem to ignore those points? Such as the following:

Issues of consent? Anyone? Anyone?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

* Perhaps law's are made against such behavior's due to non- belief in the creation theory rather than the existence or non- existence of God.

 

Re: Lady ....

This has nothing to do with consent but rather the claims of creation.

 

Lady

Why is it that no one brings up the existence or non- existence of God when Homosexuals claim God created them GAY?

Claims which purport gods are unfounded. Anyone can claim gods created them this way or that, or gods told them to do this or do that. Should we therefore question a serial killers claim that gods told him to kill or should we instead question his motives for making the claim?

I suspect you are beginning to question your faith. There appears an inherent desire in your comments to find a truth. You seem torn between that which your faith has prescribed, and your common sense; your rationale. If so, ask yourself whether your faith is based on your belief that gods exist, even though they have not been proven to exist, or whether your faith is based on the motives to believe that gods exist. You may find contradiction in your beliefs as well as your motives.