- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Once Gay Rights Are Fully Recognized...What Is The Next Civil Rights Frontier?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:54 am to lsutothetop
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:54 am to lsutothetop
quote:
son you are eaten up with the gay
Has zero to do with homosexuality. stay on topic...
0
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:54 am to BOSCEAUX
quote:
They are all sick rapist fricks.
Technically yes, those who act on it and take advantage of children are. What I meant was, some are just in it for the rape whereas some pedophiles are genuinely attracted solely to underage individuals due to some error of biology.
Given that our age of consent is completely arbitrary, I will be interested in the discussions that try and justify gay and straight marriage but keep the stigma attached to being attracted to children. If all are equally strong biological urges, that is.
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 1:55 am
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:56 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
But under that supposition, how is it any more "sick" than someone attracted to someone of the same sex, or animals, or anything else? It's a biological error.
Careful.... now you are suggesting that gay people are a mistake by the human body. epigenetics and all...
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 1:58 am
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:56 am to DeltaDoc
Non-violent drug offenders, as it should be.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:13 am to darkhorse
I'm not suggesting anything other than, biologically speaking, being gay or a pedophile is not advantageous and therefore is not the "default" setting.
My question is, if we give full marriage rights to one (and we should), what ACTUAL reason is there for denying the other?
These are not easy questions.
My question is, if we give full marriage rights to one (and we should), what ACTUAL reason is there for denying the other?
These are not easy questions.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:28 am to SundayFunday
quote:Many will think this absurd but this will become an issue in the future. The more nihilistic/atheistic our culture becomes, the worse things will get.
Equal rights to people who want to marry animals.
Oh...you can add the right to have sex with young boys to that list as well.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:29 am to JazzyJeff
Perhaps so, when animals and young children possess the faculties to give consent.
Because grown men and women can consent to sex, marriage, and trade, among other things. Children, and likewise animals, are not afforded this ability.
It's not a question of whether or not homosexuality is innate, natural, etc., but whether or not two (perhaps more) self-owning adults are allowed to enter into a contract with one another.
quote:
My question is, if we give full marriage rights to one (and we should), what ACTUAL reason is there for denying the other?
Because grown men and women can consent to sex, marriage, and trade, among other things. Children, and likewise animals, are not afforded this ability.
It's not a question of whether or not homosexuality is innate, natural, etc., but whether or not two (perhaps more) self-owning adults are allowed to enter into a contract with one another.
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 2:32 am
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:35 am to HempHead
quote:
Because grown men and women can consent to sex, marriage, and trade, among other things. Children, and likewise animals, are not afforded this ability.
Animals yes, but what makes a 14 year old less able to consent than an 18 year old? Our ages of consent are arbitrary and most humans in history were just fine with adults having sex with what we would call children.
Moreover, are we asking people genuinely attracted to "children" to remain celibate their entire lives? If so, are we not being hypocritical after using that same argument against those who would prevent gay marriage?
To blow this off as an easy "they are sick fricks" issue is intellectually dishonest.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:42 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Animals yes, but what makes a 14 year old less able to consent than an 18 year old? Our ages of consent are arbitrary and most humans in history were just fine with adults having sex with what we would call children.
The age of consent is a tough one. Obviously, some people are more emotionally/intellectually mature than others at the same age. I find this a difficult standard to determine or to impose. However, if you ask me, being attracted to a pubescent teen is not anywhere near being attracted to an actual child. I think there is a different terminology for it, something like ephebophile I think.
quote:
Moreover, are we asking people genuinely attracted to "children" to remain celibate their entire lives? If so, are we not being hypocritical after using that same argument against those who would prevent gay marriage?
It depends on the argument you are making. If it is on the basis of 'well, they can't help it, why not let them do it?', then yes it may be hypocritical. If it is viewed from the lens of self-ownership and consent, then it becomes obvious why pedophilia is not workable. Maybe, in the future, we can create software/hardware to sate the desires of pedophiles (or maybe even 'fix' them).
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:48 am to SammyTiger
quote:Well that depends. Is same sex attraction considered a disorder of any kind?
Personality disorders are recognized
Answer: No. (Despite the fact it obviously is)
And you're only kidding yourself if you think legally having sex with young boys is not on the LGBT radar.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:54 am to HempHead
quote:You're delusional if you think that matters. It doesn't.
Because grown men and women can consent to sex, marriage, and trade, among other things. Children, and likewise animals, are not afforded this ability.
When sex is involved, anything goes. That's why it's legal to kill unborn humans, for homosexuals to openly flaunt their perversion while society gives them a high five.
It's only a matter of time before any and all restraints concerning sex are dusted away.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:07 am to JazzyJeff
quote:
You're delusional if you think that matters. It doesn't.
When sex is involved, anything goes.
Great argument, I'm convinced.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:10 am to HempHead
quote:Look around. Use your brain. It's easy to see.
Great argument, I'm convinced.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:16 am to JazzyJeff
You are being circuitous. You tell me that you are right, because you are right, without any substantial argumentation or reasoning to provide the conclusion that you are correct.
While I do agree that homsexuality, and especially other things such as transgender and the like, are mental disorders (though not completely crippling or a general nuisance), that still does not mean that individuals wishing to engage in acts to themselves or with other adults should be prohibited from doing so. Where there is no victim, there is no crime.
While I do agree that homsexuality, and especially other things such as transgender and the like, are mental disorders (though not completely crippling or a general nuisance), that still does not mean that individuals wishing to engage in acts to themselves or with other adults should be prohibited from doing so. Where there is no victim, there is no crime.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:17 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Given that our age of consent is completely arbitrary,
To a point, if you throw out the high and the low outliers then 16 or 17 is probably a fair age but no body can convince me on any level that the average 11 or 12 year old would have any idea what they are getting themselves into.
quote:
If all are equally strong biological urges
Could care less if it is or isn't, consenting adults are one thing and the other is rape.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:18 am to HempHead
quote:Damn dude. You take this message board stuff waaaay too serious. Get a life loser!
You are being circuitous. You tell me that you are right, because you are right, without any substantial argumentation or reasoning to provide the conclusion that you are correct.
While I do agree that homsexuality, and especially other things such as transgender and the like, are mental disorders (though not completely crippling or a general nuisance), that still does not mean that individuals wishing to engage in acts to themselves or with other adults should be prohibited from doing so. Where there is no victim, there is no crime.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:21 am to JazzyJeff
You have hurt my feelings, man. Why must you be so cruel? 
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:21 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
what ACTUAL reason is there for denying the other?
stopping fricking predators from taking advantge of people not totally mentally developed to make such decisions, same way we do with mentally challenged individuals.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:26 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
what makes a 14 year old less able to consent than an 18 year old
some life experience after puberty!!!
quote:
most humans in history were just fine with adults having sex with what we would call children.
They were fine with slavery, executions with no trial, and taking a bath once a month also.
quote:
are we asking people genuinely attracted to "children" to remain celibate their entire lives
too bad so sad, beat off to the Disney channel.
quote:
To blow this off as an easy "they are sick fricks" issue is intellectually dishonest
Nope, it really is that easy. People that would even think about doing shite to an underage child need to be put down.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 6:53 am to BOSCEAUX
quote:
some life experience after puberty!!!
Lol
quote:
People that would even think about doing shite to an underage child need to be put down.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News