- 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 8:25 am to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 2/5/14 at 8:25 am to TbirdSpur2010
Here is another potential "civil right" I could see pushed in the future:
The right not to work, but to receive government assistance.
Right now, even though more people are receiving assistance from the government than ever before, there is still a stigma associated with being a welfare recipient or food stamp recipient or Medicaid recipient, etc.
I could see a movement, especially from the left, to make this a life style choice and allow it to be perfectly permissible and protected.
We have already seen efforts to drug test welfare recipient or to limit the types of foods that food stamps are valid for shot down as being discriminatory, both legislatively and in the courts.
Truth be told, there should probably also be very strict diet restrictions placed on medicare/Medicaid recipients as well.
Hell, it is even considered discrimination to make someone show their ID (which is given to them freely) to vote.
The right not to work, but to receive government assistance.
Right now, even though more people are receiving assistance from the government than ever before, there is still a stigma associated with being a welfare recipient or food stamp recipient or Medicaid recipient, etc.
I could see a movement, especially from the left, to make this a life style choice and allow it to be perfectly permissible and protected.
We have already seen efforts to drug test welfare recipient or to limit the types of foods that food stamps are valid for shot down as being discriminatory, both legislatively and in the courts.
Truth be told, there should probably also be very strict diet restrictions placed on medicare/Medicaid recipients as well.
Hell, it is even considered discrimination to make someone show their ID (which is given to them freely) to vote.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 8:40 am to HempHead
quote:
HempHead
Need to wake up!
quote:
Children, and likewise animals, are not afforded this ability.
According to the very doctors who decide if it is a sexual orientation, yes they can.
To word it another way, doctors disagree with you and say it is a positive experience for them in most cases.
Sick isn't it....
Posted on 2/5/14 at 8:50 am to HempHead
quote:
HempHead
You want a clear argument against a grown man having sex with a kid? Seriously? You need a scientific reason to see how that's wrong?
What about just simple logic.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 8:54 am to darkhorse
Please go look up b4u-act and find out who it's founder is. How many times he was in jail for this very thing they are pushing for.
I did not realize how many people would step out and defend the act of sex with a child. WOW!! some of you need help!
I did not realize how many people would step out and defend the act of sex with a child. WOW!! some of you need help!
Posted on 2/5/14 at 8:56 am to darkhorse
quote:
You want a clear argument against a grown man having sex with a kid? Seriously? You need a scientific reason to see how that's wrong?
I have already asserted that pedophilia is invalid because children lack the ability to consent.
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/5/14 at 9:30 am to DeltaDoc
Criminals. Criminal behavior will be viewed on a biological/pathological basis. There will be a move toward rehabilitation as opposed to imprisonment.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 9:39 am to Upperaltiger06
quote:
Criminal behavior will be viewed on a biological/pathological basis
I could see this as well. Although, politicians supporting criminals is very politically risky.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:06 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The issue is, how long before people realize that the majority of folks in human history were perfectly ok with a 10 year old marrying a 40 year old?
Where do you get that the majority of people in human history were fine with a 10 year old marrying a 40 year old?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:14 am to JakeTheDog
quote:
Where do you get that the majority of people in human history were fine with a 10 year old marrying a 40 year old?
For most of human history, people were considered "adults" by age 13 or earlier. The vast majority of cultures married of their children, especially their daughters, at very young ages. Literature clearly bears this out for people who don't like history. Even the Mary of the bible is believed to have been about 13.
This idea of 18 being the legal age is a very recent, very western concept. Even today, the majority of human beings alive would laugh at the idea of waiting until 18 to be a legal adult.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:17 am to DeltaDoc
Polygamysts' rights
Pedophile's rights
Transvesttite children rights
Cross breeders' rights (man/animal)
Pedophile's rights
Transvesttite children rights
Cross breeders' rights (man/animal)
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:21 am to Upperaltiger06
quote:
Criminals. Criminal behavior will be viewed on a biological/pathological basis. There will be a move toward rehabilitation as opposed to imprisonment.
If you're related to a criminal, both your sentence and the relative (if living) will be shortened?
Maybe we could have a max of like a 100 years/bloodline?
You know, keep things on an equal footing
John Suburbanwhiteboy gets 25 years max sentencing for mansluaghter while drunk driving because no one in his family has ever been convicted;
Tyrone gets 6 months probation for manslaughter because his family's just about maxed out?
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 10:23 am
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:30 am to ManBearTiger
Polygamy
If you take the "marriage is a right" instead of a "marriage is a societal sanction" route; I cannot see a reason against it.
Historically (and still today in some cases) plural marriages included wives below the age of consent. Those prohibitions will still stand.
If you take the "marriage is a right" instead of a "marriage is a societal sanction" route; I cannot see a reason against it.
Historically (and still today in some cases) plural marriages included wives below the age of consent. Those prohibitions will still stand.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:36 am to HempHead
quote:
I have already asserted that pedophilia is invalid because children lack the ability to consent.
And the same doctors pushing for it is telling you your argument is not valid. Now what?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:37 am to darkhorse
quote:
Now what?
I vehemently disagree with them.
What doctors suggest that children possess the ability to consent to sex?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:39 am to HempHead
quote:
What doctors suggest that children possess the ability to consent to sex?
the members of b4u-act.
Not to mention the others in the links provided.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:40 am to darkhorse
I very much doubt that society at large will become accepting of their prepubescent children having sex with adults simply because a small group of doctors assert that the children can give consent.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:53 am to HempHead
quote:
I very much doubt that society at large will become accepting of their prepubescent children having sex with adults simply because a small group of doctors assert that the children can give consent.
Small group of doctors? Since when is it a small group? I gave you an organization, I gave you a link to Harvard, I linked you to a presentation to Parliament, I linked you to the head at Johns Hopkins.
This is by far more than a few doctors Hemp. Maybe more research on it? What about the book used in 3,700 schools that has a chapter in it on man boy love?
Tell me why it's being used in 3,700 schools nation wide?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:55 am to darkhorse
quote:
I gave you a link to Harvard, I linked you to a presentation to Parliament, I linked you to the head at Johns Hopkins.
I didn't see those, I had not read the entire thread before posting. I will take a look.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News