re: Same sex marriages

quote:

---

I disagree, for many reasons.

---

I'd love to hear them.

quote:

---

LBGTQ is a political movement based on hedonism., being gay isnt necessarily.

---

While true, the activists are definitely winning that fight.

quote:

---

stability damages the innate hedonism of the LBGTQ movement.

---

Yeah, not necessarily.

quote:

---

I think most of the Right is fighting the wrong war.

---

Well, those with Christian morals want to affirm/normalize neither hedonism nor more tame or monogamous manifestations of homosexual sex.

If you're talking about that group, you're creating a false choice. It's not either/or for that group. It's both.

quote:

---

Well, those with Christian morals want to affirm/normalize neither hedonism nor more tame or monogamous manifestations of homosexual sex.

---

A view I dont really understand. Its not "our world."

My job is to fix me, not the other guy.

What do you consider better for society - individuals sleeping around with numerous people regularly or couples committed to each other?

I assume you would find a heterosexual married couple "better" for society than two separate single individuals, even if that married couple could not or would not have children.

quote:

---

Based upon that, you de facto accused him of being NAMBLA. Seriously?

---

No, I was not serious at all, I was speaking entirely tongue in cheek to point out that he is contradicting himself.

quote:

---

Stinger specifically said "I'm not advocating for the age limits to be any different than they are today."

---

Great, based on what? How does he arrive at the conclusion that the laws are calibrated correctly on that issue? His own personal morality?

Note that when you say something like, "Yes, that's all anybody bases that stuff on," you are in trouble logically on two fronts:

1. If it's just based on personal morality, why is his personal morality (based on nothing) sufficient to make such determinations, but those of us who have a different opinion and a different basis for arriving at that conclusion, why are our personal morals insufficient to determine what should and should not be codified when it comes to things like when women should be allowed to marry or whether gays should be allowed to marry at all? That's the contradiction that no matter how long this conversation goes on, he refuses to see.

2. Also, if it's nothing more than personal opinion, why act scandalized if someone suggests your opinion is that children should be allowed to get married, as both of you did? It's just an opinion, after all. Why are y'all outraged over the assumption? What would be wrong with it if that really were your opinion?

2B. The poster in question has gone on record as stating that the criteria that he uses is "history" and "what works." Well, 12 year olds getting married worked for most of human history.

So again, what's the problem? Why are y'all outraged?

I can see saying, "No, you must have missed where I posted earlier that my own personal opinion is that the ages are about right. I wouldn't change them. I know this contradicts what I said earlier about what works throughout history being the criteria, but I guess no one is perfectly consistent."

Nah. He called me an a-hole and told me to frick myself twice.

If you don't see the contradictions in all of that, I don't have anything else to add.

No such thing as same sex “marriages”….only same sex “sinfulness”…it’s an abomination.

quote:

---

How do you label them?

---

Scissors and grinders
Scissors and grinders
anal plugs anal plugs

quote:

---

A view I dont really understand.

---

Well, the normalization of this sort of thing leads to men playing in women's sports, men being allowed into women's locker rooms and bathrooms, children being groomed to undergo life-altering cosmetic surgery and hormone treatments, and a few other tangible consequences.

Again, that was the whole debate at the time, remember?

Those who didn't see the harm in "living and letting live" vs those who saw the slippery slope.

I'd say history so far has vindicated the second group.

quote:

---

Well, the normalization of this sort of thing leads to men playing in women's sports, men being allowed into women's locker rooms and bathrooms, children being groomed to undergo life-altering cosmetic surgery and hormone treatments, and a few other tangible consequences.

---

Progressives are going to push the envelope regardless.

quote:

---

Pedophilia is one of those things.

---

But again, Hank, why not?

Neither of you can answer that question (obviously...which is why I keep asking it and you both keep avoiding it).

If morals are nothing more than what anyone says they are—if they aren't based on any higher authority—then why is an accusation of pedophilia a fighting word?

Even if you say, "Well, research shows that adult-child sex is likely damaging to the child," o.k., so what?

First of all, I guarantee you that there's some academic in some psychology department somewhere in America right now working on a study that says that's not true. And there will be more, the more we abandon traditional sexual values for "queer" values. ("Queer" doesn't mean gay...it means the rejection of traditional sexual/gendervalues and the embracing of all non-traditional values).

Secondly, let's say that's not the case. Again, so what? Giving children junk food and soda is harming them, yet people do it every day and no one blinks. And it doesn't just harm them a little...child obesity and related conditions like diabetes are epidemic at this point. We're literally talking about shortening their lives.

You might not feed a child junk food and soda, but if someone assumed you did, I doubt you would bristle and tell them that such an accusation was not fit for polite society.

So exactly why is the pedophilia accusation not fit for polite society? You need to explain why, and the Little Johnny explanation won't work here.

(In case you don't know what that is, The teachers asks Little Johnny what the capital of Alaska is. Little Johnny says, "You're the teacher, if you don't know the answer to that, I'M certainly not going to be the one to tell you!"

I KNOW why pedophilia is repugnant. That's not the problem. The problem is that the viewpoint that you both subscribe to is inadequate to justify that claim. I can explain why I think it is. Y'all cannot.