Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#102 Aug 22 2012 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
Here are the questions I can conceivably pull from post #30 in this thread, that you directed at me:

Alma, responding to the multiple reasons I listed why the group in the OP is labeled a hate group wrote:

As I said before, pro homosexual supporters always use the civil rights and women's movements as their foundation for their arguments, but when people use the SAME EXACT rationale for other forms of sexuality, it becomes a "slippery slope". It's either a valid rationale or it's not.


It's a valid rational if the forms of sexuality using said rational are between two consenting adults of legal age.

Alma wrote:
What defines a child?

Society, usually at the State level.

Alma wrote:
Are you defining by maturity or by age?

Society does so by age.

Quote:
How is it that two 15 year old high school students can be in a relationship, be in love, plan to marry, want to run away together, be sexually active and that be legal, but add a 47 year old, then it's "wrong"? What's the difference? The said teen is already participating in the very same things. What is difference? How is it ok with another 15 year old, but not with a 47 year old?

I can't answer this question without knowing which state this hypothetical situation happens in. In some states, it's wrong because they've made laws against it in response to older men taking advantage of children. In other states, the 15 year old can marry the 47 year old if their parents sign off on it.

Alma wrote:
If you want to look at it in the long run, who is she better off with? The 15 year old boy who has no job, house and understanding of life. Or Mr. Johnson, the 35 year old social economics teacher with a job, house and life experience?


My personal opinion, she's probably better off with the 15 year old than the 35 year old. The 15 year olds both probably still live at home, don't need jobs, have more in common, & are still in the process of learning about life in general. The 35 year old teacher is probably a weirdo if he wants to bone, what I assume, is his 15 year old student.

Alma wrote:
As a society, we just decided to say that's "icky" and prevented it from happening. That is no different than what some people are doing towards homosexuals.


Society didn't make it illegal to **** children because it's icky, they did so to prevent children from being harmed by sexual predators. Making the same kind of laws against homosexual is wrong because two consenting homosexuals of legal age aren't hurting anyone. Maybe they creep you out, but that's really your problem now isn't it?

Alma wrote:
Being a ****
Would you prefer douchebag?

Alma wrote:
My point is that you can say things like "I think furries are creepy" and not be labeled a bigot who want furries dead. You realize that it is perfectly plausible to totally disagree with their lifestyle and not hate them as a person. That same treatment isn't equal towards homosexuals. If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK. So, who's using hate speech now?


You are, literally.

Alma wrote:
This is exactly my point. Hate speech. Say anything contrary to the homosexual life style and you're secretly a homosexual or a homophobe. How come people can't say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and not be a homophobic bigot like you are towards furries?


Saying, " If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK" is hate speech. I said it's ok for you to not support homosexuality, but it's the answer to why you don't support homosexuality that would make you a bigot or not. It is my hypothesis that you are a bigot, because you jump through hoops to never actually say why you don't support homosexuality because doing so would reveal to us all that you really are a bigot. The onus, as ever, remains on you to prove me wrong.

[quote=Alma]Besides leaving unfinished work, I'm trying not to completely bore the other posters by regurgitating the same argument for the umptenth time just because you some how missed it the last million times in the past.


You're still a coward, got it.

If you grow a pair, start off your post with, "I, Alma, personally don't approve of homosexuals because..." Until then, remain a coward.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#103 Aug 22 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Alma, we get it! You hate women because they won't have **** with you. Smiley: deadhorse
Probably why he hates the gays too.
More than a man than he'll ever be and more of a woman then he'll ever get.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104Almalieque, Posted: Aug 22 2012 at 4:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) PLEASE bestow upon me the error of my ways. "
#105 Aug 22 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Working as intended!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Aug 22 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
"Sub-default"? Really..who cares about that? I got sub-defaulted for saying "Merry Christmas" in a Christmas thread, so if you believe for a second that the rating scheme isn't broken, then you're fooling yourself.


Duh.

It's "Happy Holidays" you religious freak. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#107 Aug 22 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Omega V wrote:
It's a valid rational if the forms of sexuality using said rational are between two consenting adults of legal age.


You're overlooking the point of the said rationale as the basis or foundation for the argument. It is NOT used as the argument, as every unlike scenario is different. What you presented does not address my point.

The rationale is the ability to reference some egregious moment in our past and say that we gave rights/gains to group "A" because of reason "X", so we should be able to give the said rights/gains to group B because of reason "Y" (which may or may not include reason "X"). The intent is to have people to mimic their feelings of group A to group B by creating a connection between the two.

My point is that it is socially acceptable when group "A" is ethnic minorities or women while group "B" is homosexuals; however, when group "A" is homosexuals and group "B" is some other sexual group, i.e. bestiality, etc., then the same concept becomes a "slippery slope". The argument in favor states that group "B" is totally different and therefore must fight their on battles and just because group A was able to become successful with reason "X", those are two completely different cases that stand on their own merit. All of this while at the same time doing exactly that.

Omega V wrote:

Society, usually at the State level.

I'm actually asking you for your answer. I'm sure the "State" doesn't think for you.

Omega V wrote:
Society does so by age.
.......

I can't answer this question without knowing which state this hypothetical situation happens in. In some states, it's wrong because they've made laws against it in response to older men taking advantage of children. In other states, the 15 year old can marry the 47 year old if their parents sign off on it.


Society varies the age group even within the same country. So how can you make an objective definite argument that adults shouldn't marry children if there is no constant age or definition of what a child is? Whether or not the 38 year old can marry the 15 year old is either right or wrong. It shouldn't vary on what society you live in. The fact that it does, impairs your argument that it's wrong for them to marry.

Omega V wrote:
My personal opinion, she's probably better off with the 15 year old than the 35 year old. The 15 year olds both probably still live at home, don't need jobs, have more in common, & are still in the process of learning about life in general. The 35 year old teacher is probably a weirdo if he wants to bone, what I assume, is his 15 year old student.


I'm not going to argue against your opinion; however, I will say that the fact that you think the 35 year old is a weirdo is a testimony to the said prejudice you're fighting. He's a man, what's the difference? The 15 year old is probably thinking the same thing. In both cases, the child is equally exposed, so why is one frowned upon?

Omega V wrote:
Society didn't make it illegal to @#%^ children because it's icky, they did so to prevent children from being harmed by sexual predators.


............... Have you been reading at all? Or have you just not been consuming the information correctly? There is no solid definition on a child, so you can't say it's wrong to date someone of a certain age if that age isn't even universally accepted as a child or able to marry. There is absolutely no difference from the two 15 year olds banging each other every day vs the 15 year old and the 35 year old except that the latter creeps you out. THAT'S ALL. You can pretend that there's a difference, but there isn't. The 15 year old will lie, cheat and steal to get her in bed just like the 35 year old will. They will both experience "love", make life plans, etc., except in one scenario, you label the guy a sexual predator.

That 15 year old can be just as a "sexual predator" as the 35 year old or worse.

Omega V wrote:
Saying, " If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK" is hate speech. I said it's ok for you to not support homosexuality, but it's the answer to why you don't support homosexuality that would make you a bigot or not. It is my hypothesis that you are a bigot, because you jump through hoops to never actually say why you don't support homosexuality because doing so would reveal to us all that you really are a bigot. The onus, as ever, remains on you to prove me wrong.


The onus is on you to stop being lazy and look at the several homosexual threads before this one where we spent over 20 pages per thread discussing it. One thread was actually over 50 pages. Your laziness does not translate into my cowardliness. If you must know now, just search "proposition 8". I'm sure it's in one of those discussions.

As I said, I have no problem going over my personal belief, but not before we FINISH this discussion here. The only thing that will happen is a derail to my beliefs with accusations that I CHANGED the subject.

The simple fact that you automatically assume that it's the "wrong" reason to not support homosexuality means that you are no different than the "hate speech" that you quoted above. If you can't fathom a logical reason to not support homosexuality without bigotry, then you probably believe that most, if not all, people who do not support homosexuality is a bigot. Hence why you think I'm a bigot. It has nothing to do with me, but your prejudice. I'm sure someone else would get the same exact treatment.

Quote:


You're still a coward, got it.

If you grow a pair, start off your post with, "I, Alma, personally don't approve of homosexuals because..." Until then, remain a coward.


Read above. Quit being lazy and read it yourself if you can't wait till the end of this discussion. It's already on Alla several times and I'm just going to say the same stuff that I said several times before. So, your accusation of me being a coward is null, but hey, if it makes you feel better.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#108 Aug 22 2012 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
10 Reasons to Oppose Marriage Equality - 
 
01. Being **** is not natural. Real Americans always  
reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and  
air conditioning. 
 
02. **** marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same  
way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 
 
03. Legalizing **** marriage will open the door to all kinds of  
crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets  
because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage  
contract. 
 
04. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't  
changed at all like many of the principles on which this great  
country was founded; Women are still property, blacks still  
can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 
 
05. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if **** marriage  
were allowed; The sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears'  
would be destroyed. 
 
06. The only valid marriages are those which produce children,  
and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our  
orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 
 
07. Obviously **** parents will raise **** children, since  
straight parents only raise straight children. 
 
08. **** marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy  
like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the  
entire country. That's why we have only one religion in  
America. 
 
09. Children can never succeed without both a male and a female  
role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid  
single parents to raise children. 
 
10. **** marriage will change the foundation of society; We  
could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't  
adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Aug 22 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
"Sub-default"? Really..who cares about that? I got sub-defaulted for saying "Merry Christmas" in a Christmas thread, so if you believe for a second that the rating scheme isn't broken, then you're fooling yourself.


Duh.

It's "Happy Holidays" you religious freak. Smiley: disappointed


Well if it were a "Happy Holiday" thread, then you would have a point. Contrary to popular belief, Christmas is still a holiday.

I know you're just being facetious.


LolGaxe wrote:
10 Reasons to Oppose Marriage Equality -


Nice list, however we're talking about reasons to believe homosexuality is wrong, not oppose SSM. It is quite possible to not oppose SSM and think homosexuality is wrong. Just like I think it's wrong for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman, but I wouldn't make any effort to oppose the legality of the marriage.

LolGaxe wrote:
04. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't
changed at all like many of the principles on which this great
country was founded; Women are still property, blacks still
can't marry whites
, and divorce is still illegal.


I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#110 Aug 22 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Why would it be wrong for a 50 year old to marry an 18 year old?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#111 Aug 22 2012 at 9:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
Samira wrote:
Why would it be wrong for a 50 year old to marry an 18 year old?


Hospitals would fill up with broken hip injuries.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2012 11:20pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#112 Aug 22 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....

Given that miscegenation laws were intended to prevent the white pool from being "tainted" with black blood (as opposed to blacks being tainted with white blood, i.e. the "one drop" rule), the obvious target of the discrimination was blacks. Overcoming those ideas part of the civil rights movements for minorities and referring to it as "Blacks can't marry whites" is more accurate in tone than the opposite.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Aug 22 2012 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....

Given that miscegenation laws were intended to prevent the white pool from being "tainted" with black blood (as opposed to blacks being tainted with white blood, i.e. the "one drop" rule), the obvious target of the discrimination was blacks. Overcoming those ideas part of the civil rights movements for minorities and referring to it as "Blacks can't marry whites" is more accurate in tone than the opposite.


I was just gonna say, "Back in the day, they did think it was a privilege to marry someone white, so that's why it's phrased that way," but what you said works, too, gbaji.
#114 Aug 22 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I am writing this letter rather reluctantly. I do not wish to begin an incendiary debate about the miscegenation law's teachings. However, the miscegenation law has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. What follows is a set of observations I have made about drossy perverts. The miscegenation law will stop at nothing to crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, the miscegenation law has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep its flock loyal to it. Its principal myth is that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. The truth is that the miscegenation law always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to it. Nothing else matters—except maybe to advocate fatalistic acceptance of a twisted, antihumanist new world order. I tell you this because you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with covinous windbags?" Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that we ought to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. That'll make the miscegenation law think once—I would have said "twice", but I don't see any indication that it has previously given any thought to the matter—before crushing people to the earth and then claiming the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate.

For a variety of reasons, some strategic, some ideological, some attitudinal, and all of them wrong, pouty prevaricators beat plowshares into swords. The miscegenation law has managed to mollify its more trusting critics simply by promising not to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is but as it wants you to see it. We shall see how long that lasts. In the meantime, we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must spread awareness of the snarky nature of the miscegenation law's memoranda. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that the miscegenation law often remarks that it can pass off all sorts of narrow-minded and obviously sex-crazed stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience" and get away with it. That's one of those neat little subreptions that its morally crippled toadies employ to deceive themselves. The truth is that the miscegenation law's bunco games are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying".

The miscegenation law has secretly been making its scare tactics a key dynamic in modern jujuism by viscerally defining "protocatechualdehyde" through the experience of inhumane Leninism. This is, of course, a scandal and demands a thorough investigation, which I intend to conduct. I expect to find that the miscegenation law seems to assume that hoodlumism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves. This is an assumption of the worst kind because an understanding of the damage that may be caused by its temulent, doctrinaire orations isn't something I expect everyone to develop the first time they hear about it. That's why I write over and over again and from so many different angles about how the miscegenation law presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors revolting distasteful-types. And here we have the ultimate irony because if you ever ask it to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.

For some odd reason, the miscegenation law believes that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Its unasinous torchbearers, who believe likewise, also fail to see that the miscegenation law's thesis is that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. That's thoroughly benighted, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that one could truthfully say that the miscegenation law lives and breathes phallocentrism. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about its monographs. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must free people from the spell of gangsterism that it has cast over them.

I have no idea why the miscegenation law believes that it is an organization of peace. Perhaps the thought popped into its head during omphaloskepsis. In any case, I wonder what would happen if the miscegenation law really did bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled. There's a spooky thought. The miscegenation law's ignorance is encyclopedic. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that the world is full of people who jawbone aimlessly. We don't need any more people like that. What we need are people who are willing to refute the miscegenation law's arguments line-by-line and claim-by-claim. We need people who understand that the miscegenation law keeps insisting that it is the arbiter of all things. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that the spectrum of views between cronyism and Titoism is not a line but a circle at which fatuous, hate-filled opportunists and hidebound, stroppy spivs meet. To properly place the miscegenation law somewhere in that spectrum one needs to realize that I can't possibly believe the miscegenation law's claim that vandalism forms the core of any utopian society. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because far too many people tolerate the miscegenation law's remarks as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that the miscegenation law motivates people to join its Lysenkoism movement by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What the miscegenation law really wants to do is unfurl the flag of pauperism. That's why deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself—in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity—is so much the rule and the law among the miscegenation law's surly, lewd acolytes that I can draw but one conclusion. As you can probably guess, my conclusion is that it always cavils at my attempts to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. That's probably because what we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with the miscegenation law stating that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. That prevarication incited its pals to hold annual private conferences in which empty-headed recidivists are invited to present their "research". Uninformed enemies of the people reacted, in turn, by treating people like the most insensitive exponents of nihilism I've ever seen. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in exclusionism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, that have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to the miscegenation law's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that the miscegenation law spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is Pyrrhonism, which says to me that I want to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. That may seem simple enough, but the miscegenation law claims that it's dissolute to comment on its ideologies. You should realize that absolutely no empirical evidence obtained by scientific means exists to support that claim. Alas, that doesn't stop the miscegenation law from engaging in the trafficking of human beings. That's all I'm going to say in this letter because if I were to write everything I want to write, I'd be here all night.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Aug 22 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Samira wrote:
Why would it be wrong for a 50 year old to marry an 18 year old?


The youngest you're allowed to go is half your age plus seven.

(50 / 2) + 7 = 32

32 > 18

QED
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#116 Aug 22 2012 at 10:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shit, I don't even know what I'd talk to a 26 year old about. What are they into these days? Tiger Beat and Barbies?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Aug 23 2012 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
You're overlooking the point of the said rationale as the basis or foundation for the argument. It is NOT used as the argument, as every unlike scenario is different. What you presented does not address my point.

The rationale is the ability to reference some egregious moment in our past and say that we gave rights/gains to group "A" because of reason "X", so we should be able to give the said rights/gains to group B because of reason "Y" (which may or may not include reason "X"). The intent is to have people to mimic their feelings of group A to group B by creating a connection between the two.

My point is that it is socially acceptable when group "A" is ethnic minorities or women while group "B" is homosexuals; however, when group "A" is homosexuals and group "B" is some other sexual group, i.e. bestiality, etc., then the same concept becomes a "slippery slope". The argument in favor states that group "B" is totally different and therefore must fight their on battles and just because group A was able to become successful with reason "X", those are two completely different cases that stand on their own merit. All of this while at the same time doing exactly that.


I wasn't making the argument that "in the past we gave rights to ethnic minorities because of discrimination, we should do the same for homosexuals.", I was stating that this particular argument is only apt if the parties involved are two consenting adults of legal age. You can't use the argument that "if we "legalize" (give equal right to) homosexuals then we also have to legalize child love/bestiality" because neither child love/bestiality are between consenting adults of legal age. My furry analogy is apt, provided said furries are consenting adults of legal age. Get it?

Alma wrote:
I'm actually asking you for your answer. I'm sure the "State" doesn't think for you.
Society varies the age group even within the same country. So how can you make an objective definite argument that adults shouldn't marry children if there is no constant age or definition of what a child is? Whether or not the 38 year old can marry the 15 year old is either right or wrong. It shouldn't vary on what society you live in. The fact that it does, impairs your argument that it's wrong for them to marry.

I'm not going to argue against your opinion; however, I will say that the fact that you think the 35 year old is a weirdo is a testimony to the said prejudice you're fighting. He's a man, what's the difference? The 15 year old is probably thinking the same thing. In both cases, the child is equally exposed, so why is one frowned upon?


We live in a representative Democracy, & while I certainly disagree with many different things my local reps have voted for/made into law, it is my responsibility to vote candidates in whom best represent me. I can tell you right now, every candidate I've ever voted for hasn't made legalized child love part of their platform, & I'm very much happy with the current laws on the books in regards to underage **** in Mass. Anyway, associating homosexual rights with child lover rights is a false equivalent, since 15 year olds are under the age of consent- which I agree with.

You have been told by myself & others why it is frowned upon for a 35 year old to **** a 15 year old. If you disagree with that, by all means create a thread advocating legalizing child love. I will no longer entertain the possibility that rights of child lovers are somehow equivalent to homosexual rights because, as mentioned in this post & previous ones, two consenting adult homosexuals of legal age boning harms NO ONE while child lovers HARM children.

Alma wrote:
............... Have you been reading at all? Or have you just not been consuming the information correctly? There is no solid definition on a child,


Yes there is. Just because it varies from State to State doesn't mean there isn't a solid definition of a child, it just means that the definition fluctuates by about 4 years from State to State.

Quote:
so you can't say it's wrong to date someone of a certain age if that age isn't even universally accepted as a child or able to marry.

Using that logic, I could say it's wrong for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA because in NH you have to be 16 to get your learner's permit. I would be wrong though, as it is PERFECTLY legal for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA. I could disagree & say that I think 15 is too young for a learners permit, but that doesn't make me right it just means I have an opinion on the subject.

Alma wrote:
There is absolutely no difference from the two 15 year olds banging each other every day vs the 15 year old and the 35 year old except that the latter creeps you out.


If it makes you feel better, Imagining two 15 year olds banging every day would also creep me out as I am not a child lover. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying it's creepy to Imagine.

Alma wrote:

You can pretend that there's a difference, but there isn't. The 15 year old will lie, cheat and steal to get her in bed just like the 35 year old will. They will both experience "love", make life plans, etc., except in one scenario, you label the guy a sexual predator.
That 15 year old can be just as a "sexual predator" as the 35 year old or worse.


Both a 15 year old man & a 35 year old man can be sexual predators, sure, but I'm unwilling to want to change current age of consent laws as I believe that doing so would probably increase the number of adult sexual assaults on children.
Alma wrote:

The simple fact that you automatically assume that it's the "wrong" reason to not support homosexuality means that you are no different than the "hate speech" that you quoted above. If you can't fathom a logical reason to not support homosexuality without bigotry, then you probably believe that most, if not all, people who do not support homosexuality is a bigot. Hence why you think I'm a bigot. It has nothing to do with me, but your prejudice. I'm sure someone else would get the same exact treatment.


Prove me wrong. I've stated my hypothesis, answered every one of your questions, & you're still too cowardly to tell me why you think homosexuality is wrong outside of in the past saying "it would creep you out" to have to shower with a **** man. You turned that into an argument for same **** showers, which is yet another false equivalent.

I believe it's possible that you're not a bigot & still think homosexuality is wrong, I just find it unlikely given your use of bigoted arguments against homosexuals (Equating them to child lovers & bestiality practitioners, for instance.).
Alma wrote:

Read above. Quit being lazy and read it yourself if you can't wait till the end of this discussion. It's already on Alla several times and I'm just going to say the same stuff that I said several times before. So, your accusation of me being a coward is null, but hey, if it makes you feel better.


I do understand that you think being homosexual is wrong. I do not understand why you think homosexuality is wrong. If you could provide a link as to why you think being homosexual is "wrong", please do so. If you can't, you can remain a coward. I remain open to the possibility that it is possible to think being homosexual is wrong & not be a bigot, but in your case I find it unlikely.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#118 Aug 23 2012 at 1:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,346 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shit, I don't even know what I'd talk to a 26 year old about. What are they into these days? Tiger Beat and Barbies?
If the ~26 year olds whose posts I see on Facebook are any indication, it's booze and Christianity.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#119 Aug 23 2012 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Shit, I don't even know what I'd talk to a 26 year old about. What are they into these days? Tiger Beat and Barbies?
If the ~26 year olds whose posts I see on Facebook are any indication, it's booze and Christianity.



Well, repression and binges go together so well.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#120 Aug 23 2012 at 6:35 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Samira wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Shit, I don't even know what I'd talk to a 26 year old about. What are they into these days? Tiger Beat and Barbies?
If the ~26 year olds whose posts I see on Facebook are any indication, it's booze and Christianity.



Well, repression and binges go together so well.


In that they both often precede a purge?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#121 Aug 23 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
But man, I’ll tell you, all that purging just makes her body look fantastic. I mean, that’s what the supermodels do, and so many of them just look so great.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 Aug 23 2012 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shit, I don't even know what I'd talk to a 26 year old about. What are they into these days? Tiger Beat and Barbies?


GFY, we like Twilight and Justin Biber. Smiley: mad
#123 Aug 23 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
Guenny wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Shit, I don't even know what I'd talk to a 26 year old about. What are they into these days? Tiger Beat and Barbies?


GFY, we like Twilight and Justin Biber. Smiley: mad


He said Barbie didn't he?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#124 Aug 23 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Samira wrote:
Why would it be wrong for a 50 year old to marry an 18 year old?

That's just my personal opinion. I don't see any maturity adulthood difference between 18 and 17. I know that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, where the difference between the two ages are marginal/negligible, but I think that there is much more maturity in the mid 20's.

Furthermore, I find it very likely that any relationship with such a large age group was founded on "traditional" principle. It may end up with "love", but I don't see it starting out that way. That is, unless they don't look or act their ages.



Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....

Given that miscegenation laws were intended to prevent the white pool from being "tainted" with black blood (as opposed to blacks being tainted with white blood, i.e. the "one drop" rule), the obvious target of the discrimination was blacks. Overcoming those ideas part of the civil rights movements for minorities and referring to it as "Blacks can't marry whites" is more accurate in tone than the opposite.


Belkira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....

Given that miscegenation laws were intended to prevent the white pool from being "tainted" with black blood (as opposed to blacks being tainted with white blood, i.e. the "one drop" rule), the obvious target of the discrimination was blacks. Overcoming those ideas part of the civil rights movements for minorities and referring to it as "Blacks can't marry whites" is more accurate in tone than the opposite.


I was just gonna say, "Back in the day, they did think it was a privilege to marry someone white, so that's why it's phrased that way," but what you said works, too, gbaji.


I see your points, but the reason why a law was created (or your belief on why the law was created) is not relevant in a discussion simply about the effects of the law. The effects of this law EQUALLY prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other. The law may not be equal for other racial combinations, but it is EQUAL in reference with blacks and whites. So, to frame this effect as if it were disproportionally more disadvantageous towards blacks than whites creates a racist undertone that suggests that it is a privilege for a black person to marry a white person, but not likewise the other way around.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#125 Aug 23 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're welcome to think so, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Aug 23 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,740 posts
If you pretend that's not why they made the laws, you are being willfully ignorant. Looking back at them now and saying "Well, if we ignore the reasons why they did it, the law itself isn't that bad!" doesn't make much sense.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#127 Aug 23 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Holy **** did you guys go off on a tangent! IMO, the issue of calling the FRC a hate group is absurd. Holding positions you don't agree with does not make you a hate group, and labeling a group as such for those reasons is really an attempt to quiet them (suppress their speech if you will). We live in a democracy, and the reality is that in every single state that has ever actually allowed the people to vote on the issues that the FRC champions, they've sided with them.

We normally assign the label of "hate group" to those who participate in "hate speech". And that is generally defined as speech designed to incite violent action against some other group. What's interesting in this case (and seemingly missed in the whole discussion) is that the Southern Poverty Law Center matches that definition much more than the FRC does at this point. This guy was clearly acting in response to their own statements about the FRC. Hell. The Chick-Fil-A food demonstrates this clearly. It was the SPLC which made the argument that CFA was anti-gay because they contributed to the FRC, and the FRC was a hate group.

So their speech inspired a direct act of violence against another group. Isn't that hate speech? And doesn't that make them a hate group?

Oh. And since I can't completely avoid a tangent:

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how everyone on this forum always say that "Blacks can't marry Whites" as opposed to "Whites can't marry Blacks" or "ban on interracial marriage" as if it's a "privilege" to marry someone white, but not vice-versa.....

Given that miscegenation laws were intended to prevent the white pool from being "tainted" with black blood (as opposed to blacks being tainted with white blood, i.e. the "one drop" rule), the obvious target of the discrimination was blacks. Overcoming those ideas part of the civil rights movements for minorities and referring to it as "Blacks can't marry whites" is more accurate in tone than the opposite.


While the clear objective was to keep white folks "pure", the actual laws were more correctly about whites not being able to marry blacks, or native americans, or pacific islanders, or asians, or any ethnic group which wasn't considered "white". Those other groups could intermarry freely. Yes. Pedantic point to be sure, but from a legal point of view, the restriction most limited white options for marrying from a cross-ethnic point of view.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Aug 23 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I disagree but I don't give enough of a fuck about it to go round in circles. So, sure.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Aug 23 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Writing this extremely tired.. so caution.. more grammatical errors than normal..

Omega V wrote:
I wasn't making the argument that "in the past we gave rights to ethnic minorities because of discrimination, we should do the same for homosexuals.", I was stating that this particular argument is only apt if the parties involved are two consenting adults of legal age. You can't use the argument that "if we "legalize" (give equal right to) homosexuals then we also have to legalize child love/bestiality" because neither child love/bestiality are between consenting adults of legal age. My furry analogy is apt, provided said furries are consenting adults of legal age. Get it?


You are not understanding....Let me try this again.

The "rationale" is in reference to using oppressed group A as a basis for change for oppressed group B. The question is if that's ok to do or does each group defend their own progression? The common trend has been that it's ok when comparing to ethnic minorities and women, but a "slippery slope" when compared to homosexual gains.

The second you say "two consenting adults", you are transitioning the reference basis to an argument. You are making an invalid differentiation between your argument from other arguments based on homosexual gains. When the ban on interracial marriage ended, society said "ok, ok, ok people of different races can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults of the opposite sex.". Homosexual supporters say "Ok,ok,ok.. people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults", REMOVING "of the opposite sex". So, now supporters of polygamy say, "ok,ok,ok... people can marry each other as long as they are consenting adults". Child lover supporters say that "ok,ok, ok... people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting people."

Each group takes the basis from the previous group and slightly alter it in order to include their group. So, your restriction of "two consenting adults" is no different than what homosexual supporters are doing for interracial marriages.

Omega V wrote:
We live in a representative Democracy, & while I certainly disagree with many different things my local reps have voted for/made into law, it is my responsibility to vote candidates in whom best represent me. I can tell you right now, every candidate I've ever voted for hasn't made legalized child love part of their platform, & I'm very much happy with the current laws on the books in regards to underage **** in Mass. Anyway, associating homosexual rights with child lover rights is a false equivalent, since 15 year olds are under the age of consent- which I agree with.


Another popular contradiction among homosexual supporters. They hide behind current laws saying "it's the law, it's the law", all while trying to CHANGE the law to accept SSM. The point is that there is no objective and/or universal definition of a child, so therefore, it would be hypocritical to morally object a couple in one place, but morally accept the SAME couple in another place. You either think it's right or wrong. If your opinion changes based on the legality of the land, then you have no moral opinion.

Omega V wrote:
You have been told by myself & others why it is frowned upon for a 35 year old to @#%^ a 15 year old. If you disagree with that, by all means create a thread advocating legalizing child love. I will no longer entertain the possibility that rights of child lovers are somehow equivalent to homosexual rights because, as mentioned in this post & previous ones, two consenting adult homosexuals of legal age boning harms NO ONE while child lovers HARM children.


That's because you're not understanding what is being presented to you. I'm not comparing homosexuality with child lovers. I'm comparing your bigotry towards child lovers with the bigotry towards homosexuality. You have not proven any reason why it's ok for a 15 year to be in a sexual relationship with another 15 year old, but not a 35 year old. You have not provided any logical argument to support how a 35 year old is any more "dangerous" for a 15 year old than another 15 year old. Matter of fact, I can list more advantageous reasons for the 35 year old over the 15 year old

The bottom line is that it freaks you out. You think it's disgusting, so you support the ban without any supporting data for your claims. That reason of thinking is NO DIFFERENT than some of the thinking toward homosexuality. You accept it in one sense, but reject it in another sense.

Omega V wrote:
Yes there is. Just because it varies from State to State doesn't mean there isn't a solid definition of a child, it just means that the definition fluctuates by about 4 years from State to State.

Did you read what you just said? IF and only if there were an evaluation for each person within that gap would that be a "solid definition". Not only does it vary among ages in the states, it also varies within countries.

Omega V wrote:
Using that logic, I could say it's wrong for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA because in NH you have to be 16 to get your learner's permit. I would be wrong though, as it is PERFECTLY legal for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA. I could disagree & say that I think 15 is too young for a learners permit, but that doesn't make me right it just means I have an opinion on the subject.


Except no one is making a conceptual argument on when a person is allowed to drive. People just accept whatever random age the local law says. They may not like it, but there is no fundamental belief that a child is being denied their rights to drive. That's not to say that there aren't people who follow that thought, but that's the overall difference.

If you are a parent and you fundamentally believe that children shouldn't drive until they are 15, then regardless of the law, you will prevent your child from driving until s/he is 15. If you preach that, but then allow your child to drive at 14 because the law at your new state allows 14 year olds to drive, then you have gone down the lane of hypocrisy.

It's not about what you like about the law. It's about YOUR fundamental belief and action on the concept.

Omega V wrote:

If it makes you feel better, Imagining two 15 year olds banging every day would also creep me out as I am not a child lover. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying it's creepy to Imagine.


I didn't say anything about imagining that. I'm pointing out the difference that there are no differences in those two situations except people think one is "icky".

Omega V wrote:
Both a 15 year old man & a 35 year old man can be sexual predators, sure, but I'm unwilling to want to change current age of consent laws as I believe that doing so would probably increase the number of adult sexual assaults on children.


So you approve of making laws that might unfairly target one group in support of preventing future atrocities?

Omega V wrote:
Prove me wrong. I've stated my hypothesis, answered every one of your questions, & you're still too cowardly to tell me why you think homosexuality is wrong outside of in the past saying "it would creep you out" to have to shower with a **** man. You turned that into an argument for same **** showers, which is yet another false equivalent.

I believe it's possible that you're not a bigot & still think homosexuality is wrong, I just find it unlikely given your use of bigoted arguments against homosexuals (Equating them to child lovers & bestiality practitioners, for instance.).


Wait, wait, wait.. so you're somehow able to remember false quotes that I never made, but you can't remember the answer to your question that has been stated several times before? How convenient.

You answering the questions isn't the same as closing a concept prior to moving to another one. You have yet understood this concept, there is absolutely no benefit in moving into another one. You will only ditch this to focus on that and then accuse me of derailing the argument.

Omega V wrote:
I do understand that you think being homosexual is wrong. I do not understand why you think homosexuality is wrong. If you could provide a link as to why you think being homosexual is "wrong", please do so. If you can't, you can remain a coward. I remain open to the possibility that it is possible to think being homosexual is wrong & not be a bigot, but in your case I find it unlikely.


I've already said that your "coward" attacks are null as I already pointed you to where I have answered your questions. I'm not going to look for it, you can. If you're too lazy to look for it, then you obviously don't want to know that badly and can wait. There are 2 prop. 8 threads and 2 DADT threads. Out of those 4 threads, I know I specified it at least twice.




Edited, Aug 24th 2012 3:21am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#130 Aug 23 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
I'm still waiting to read why a marriage with a wide age disparity is wrong. All I've seen so far is that you don't like the idea. Your opinion doesn't define right and wrong.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#131 Aug 23 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:

The second you say "two consenting adults", you are transitioning the reference basis to an argument. You are making an invalid differentiation between your argument from other arguments based on homosexual gains. When the ban on interracial marriage ended, society said "ok, ok, ok people of different races can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults of the opposite sex.". Homosexual supporters say "Ok,ok,ok.. people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults", REMOVING "of the opposite sex". So, now supporters of polygamy say, "ok,ok,ok... people can marry each other as long as they are consenting adults". Child lover supporters say that "ok,ok, ok... people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting people."

Each group takes the basis from the previous group and slightly alter it in order to include their group. So, your restriction of "two consenting adults" is no different than what homosexual supporters are doing for interracial marriages.


If we lived in fantasy land where it wasn't already explicitly illegal for children to marry or explicitly illegal to practice polygamy, you'd have a point. Just like you would have had a point with your various showers arguments if showers weren't already separated by gender. My point is, we don't actually live in that fantasy land so you aren't actually making any point at all. Giving equal rights to homosexuals will not lead to legalizing polygamy or child loving, as there are already laws against them. Equating homosexuals with those groups is offensive & distracts from the issue at hand.

Homosexuals are people just like you or me. Some of them are jerks, just like some heterosexuals are, the only real difference is that for some reason (nature, nurture, or more likely a combination of both) they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. There is no harm in this, provided they are consenting adults. Any current laws against homosexuality are wrong, because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. This is a fact that society is slowly coming around too. Your opinion, it seems, is that it is wrong to be homosexual.

I disagree, but I know you have a reason for having the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. What I've never been unable to get out of you is what that reason is. What happened last time, is we went round in round. I asked the question, you said you already said it, I asked where, you said where, I responded to that post, you said I didn't understand it, I asked you to explain it, you said you already did, I asked you to fill out a madlib since I was "too stupid" to understand your "explanations", you wouldn't, I called you a coward, & here we are again.

Already, in this thread, you said if I answered your questions you'd answer mine. I've gone out of my way to answer every single question asked of me & you've now said this:

Alma wrote:

You answering the questions isn't the same as closing a concept prior to moving to another one. You have yet understood this concept, there is absolutely no benefit in moving into another one. You will only ditch this to focus on that and then accuse me of derailing the argument.


You've moved the goal posts. You're derailing. You're avoiding the question. You're a **** coward on an internet message board.

And you're supposed to be a soldier IRL? WTF?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#132 Aug 24 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
And you're supposed to be a soldier IRL? WTF?
In the same sense as the Geek Squad from BestBuy being hackers. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Aug 24 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
Samira wrote:
I'm still waiting to read why a marriage with a wide age disparity is wrong. All I've seen so far is that you don't like the idea. Your opinion doesn't define right and wrong.

shhhh, his whole argument about **** acceptance is based on his opinion of right and wrong.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#134 Aug 24 2012 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Writing this extremely tired.. so caution.. more grammatical errors than normal..

Omega V wrote:
I wasn't making the argument that "in the past we gave rights to ethnic minorities because of discrimination, we should do the same for homosexuals.", I was stating that this particular argument is only apt if the parties involved are two consenting adults of legal age. You can't use the argument that "if we "legalize" (give equal right to) homosexuals then we also have to legalize child love/bestiality" because neither child love/bestiality are between consenting adults of legal age. My furry analogy is apt, provided said furries are consenting adults of legal age. Get it?


You are not understanding....Let me try this again.

The "rationale" is in reference to using oppressed group A as a basis for change for oppressed group B. The question is if that's ok to do or does each group defend their own progression? The common trend has been that it's ok when comparing to ethnic minorities and women, but a "slippery slope" when compared to homosexual gains.

The second you say "two consenting adults", you are transitioning the reference basis to an argument. You are making an invalid differentiation between your argument from other arguments based on homosexual gains. When the ban on interracial marriage ended, society said "ok, ok, ok people of different races can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults of the opposite sex.". Homosexual supporters say "Ok,ok,ok.. people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting adults", REMOVING "of the opposite sex". So, now supporters of polygamy say, "ok,ok,ok... people can marry each other as long as they are consenting adults". Child lover supporters say that "ok,ok, ok... people can marry each other as long as they are two consenting people."

Each group takes the basis from the previous group and slightly alter it in order to include their group. So, your restriction of "two consenting adults" is no different than what homosexual supporters are doing for interracial marriages.

Omega V wrote:
We live in a representative Democracy, & while I certainly disagree with many different things my local reps have voted for/made into law, it is my responsibility to vote candidates in whom best represent me. I can tell you right now, every candidate I've ever voted for hasn't made legalized child love part of their platform, & I'm very much happy with the current laws on the books in regards to underage **** in Mass. Anyway, associating homosexual rights with child lover rights is a false equivalent, since 15 year olds are under the age of consent- which I agree with.


Another popular contradiction among homosexual supporters. They hide behind current laws saying "it's the law, it's the law", all while trying to CHANGE the law to accept SSM. The point is that there is no objective and/or universal definition of a child, so therefore, it would be hypocritical to morally object a couple in one place, but morally accept the SAME couple in another place. You either think it's right or wrong. If your opinion changes based on the legality of the land, then you have no moral opinion.

Omega V wrote:
You have been told by myself & others why it is frowned upon for a 35 year old to @#%^ a 15 year old. If you disagree with that, by all means create a thread advocating legalizing child love. I will no longer entertain the possibility that rights of child lovers are somehow equivalent to homosexual rights because, as mentioned in this post & previous ones, two consenting adult homosexuals of legal age boning harms NO ONE while child lovers HARM children.


That's because you're not understanding what is being presented to you. I'm not comparing homosexuality with child lovers. I'm comparing your bigotry towards child lovers with the bigotry towards homosexuality. You have not proven any reason why it's ok for a 15 year to be in a sexual relationship with another 15 year old, but not a 35 year old. You have not provided any logical argument to support how a 35 year old is any more "dangerous" for a 15 year old than another 15 year old. Matter of fact, I can list more advantageous reasons for the 35 year old over the 15 year old

The bottom line is that it freaks you out. You think it's disgusting, so you support the ban without any supporting data for your claims. That reason of thinking is NO DIFFERENT than some of the thinking toward homosexuality. You accept it in one sense, but reject it in another sense.

Omega V wrote:
Yes there is. Just because it varies from State to State doesn't mean there isn't a solid definition of a child, it just means that the definition fluctuates by about 4 years from State to State.

Did you read what you just said? IF and only if there were an evaluation for each person within that gap would that be a "solid definition". Not only does it vary among ages in the states, it also varies within countries.

Omega V wrote:
Using that logic, I could say it's wrong for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA because in NH you have to be 16 to get your learner's permit. I would be wrong though, as it is PERFECTLY legal for a 15 year old to get their learner's permit in MA. I could disagree & say that I think 15 is too young for a learners permit, but that doesn't make me right it just means I have an opinion on the subject.


Except no one is making a conceptual argument on when a person is allowed to drive. People just accept whatever random age the local law says. They may not like it, but there is no fundamental belief that a child is being denied their rights to drive. That's not to say that there aren't people who follow that thought, but that's the overall difference.

If you are a parent and you fundamentally believe that children shouldn't drive until they are 15, then regardless of the law, you will prevent your child from driving until s/he is 15. If you preach that, but then allow your child to drive at 14 because the law at your new state allows 14 year olds to drive, then you have gone down the lane of hypocrisy.

It's not about what you like about the law. It's about YOUR fundamental belief and action on the concept.

Omega V wrote:

If it makes you feel better, Imagining two 15 year olds banging every day would also creep me out as I am not a child lover. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying it's creepy to Imagine.


I didn't say anything about imagining that. I'm pointing out the difference that there are no differences in those two situations except people think one is "icky".

Omega V wrote:
Both a 15 year old man & a 35 year old man can be sexual predators, sure, but I'm unwilling to want to change current age of consent laws as I believe that doing so would probably increase the number of adult sexual assaults on children.


So you approve of making laws that might unfairly target one group in support of preventing future atrocities?

Omega V wrote:
Prove me wrong. I've stated my hypothesis, answered every one of your questions, & you're still too cowardly to tell me why you think homosexuality is wrong outside of in the past saying "it would creep you out" to have to shower with a **** man. You turned that into an argument for same **** showers, which is yet another false equivalent.

I believe it's possible that you're not a bigot & still think homosexuality is wrong, I just find it unlikely given your use of bigoted arguments against homosexuals (Equating them to child lovers & bestiality practitioners, for instance.).


Wait, wait, wait.. so you're somehow able to remember false quotes that I never made, but you can't remember the answer to your question that has been stated several times before? How convenient.

You answering the questions isn't the same as closing a concept prior to moving to another one. You have yet understood this concept, there is absolutely no benefit in moving into another one. You will only ditch this to focus on that and then accuse me of derailing the argument.

Omega V wrote:
I do understand that you think being homosexual is wrong. I do not understand why you think homosexuality is wrong. If you could provide a link as to why you think being homosexual is "wrong", please do so. If you can't, you can remain a coward. I remain open to the possibility that it is possible to think being homosexual is wrong & not be a bigot, but in your case I find it unlikely.


I've already said that your "coward" attacks are null as I already pointed you to where I have answered your questions. I'm not going to look for it, you can. If you're too lazy to look for it, then you obviously don't want to know that badly and can wait. There are 2 prop. 8 threads and 2 DADT threads. Out of those 4 threads, I know I specified it at least twice.




Edited, Aug 24th 2012 3:21am by Almalieque


There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim. No one is ever going to say to you "Wow, Alma, you sure opened my mind and now things make more sense!". Not here. I promise you. You'd be more successful chasing p*ssy.
#135 Aug 24 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Wow, talk about offering false hope.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#136 Aug 24 2012 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'm encouraging him to seek outside interests. It's for the good of us all.
#137 Aug 24 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Guenny wrote:
There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim.


To be fair, by quoting his entire post you're at least implying that you too are skimming it.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#138 Aug 24 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Guenny wrote:
There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim.


To be fair, by quoting his entire post you're at least implying that you too are skimming it.


To be fair, to imply that by scrolling down I am skimming a post, means that everyone skims absolutely every post in every thread they scroll through.
#139 Aug 24 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're welcome to think so, I guess.

Yes, I tend to support reality. The law equally prevents both races from marrying each other, so there is no reason to think that one race is more disadvantaged than another unless you think one is inherently better than the other, which makes you a racist.

TirithRR wrote:
If you pretend that's not why they made the laws, you are being willfully ignorant. Looking back at them now and saying "Well, if we ignore the reasons why they did it, the law itself isn't that bad!" doesn't make much sense.


Except that wasn't what I was implying or saying. The reason why a law is created is only valid in discussions about why the law is created or the success or failure of that law. This discussion was over the EFFECTS of the law. WHY you created the law is irrelevant on the EFFECTS of the law.

You may have good intentions on creating a rule, but the end result may cause more harm than good. Would you say "well my intentions were good, so therefore law is good!"? Or would you say, "Well my intentions were good, but I see the negative effects outweigh the positive effects"?

Samira wrote:
I'm still waiting to read why a marriage with a wide age disparity is wrong. All I've seen so far is that you don't like the idea. Your opinion doesn't define right and wrong.


I told you why. My reasoning is no different than the current laws. I disagree with a 35 year old marrying an 18 year old for the same reasons why people disagree with a 35 year old marrying an 17 year old. I don't see that 18 year old any more mature than the 17 year old.

As the couple gets older, the age difference means less due to maturity reasons; however, the likelihood of a couple with a large age difference starting off as a facade increases dramatically as the age difference grows. To believe otherwise is naive, delusional and/or in denial. That is why I'm against it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#140 Aug 24 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
That may explain why it's inadvisable. It does not explain why it's wrong.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#141 Aug 24 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
Subtle nuances are lost on Alma?! Color me shocked.

Also, I think calling someone a racist might be terrorism.
#142 Aug 24 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
To be fair, to imply that by scrolling down I am skimming a post, means that everyone skims absolutely every post in every thread they scroll through.


I didn't imply that by scrolling down you were skimming, i said that by quoting his entire post it implies you at least skimmed it. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#143 Aug 24 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Listen, I'm not saying that I've never read an Alma post, but clicking the "quote" checkbox and highlighting the text and putting spoiler tags on it is hardly "skimming". Regardless, you seem pretty butthurt about being the only sucker to fall into his tarp this time, and I'm not going to commiserate with you.
#144 Aug 24 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Guenny wrote:
Listen, I'm not saying that I've never read an Alma post, but clicking the "quote" checkbox and highlighting the text and putting spoiler tags on it is hardly "skimming". Regardless, you seem pretty butthurt about being the only sucker to fall into his tarp this time, and I'm not going to commiserate with you.


Too late, your quoting implies otherwise.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#145 Aug 24 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
You got me. I skimmed it. He lamented about how blue his balls were, and how as he ages his chance of tasting sweet young 18 year old p*ssy for free fades away with each passing year. Thanks for trolling him into that revelation, Omega. We couldn't have done it without you.
#146 Aug 24 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,284 posts
Belkira wrote:
Subtle nuances are lost on Alma?! Color me shocked.

Also, I think calling someone a racist might be terrorism.

You're right. Alma is a terrorist.
#147 Aug 24 2012 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,219 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Guenny wrote:
There are some serious issues when you're so tired that you admit that you can't form a coherent argument, yet you still stay up typing something that only Omega is going to skim.


To be fair, by quoting his entire post you're at least implying that you too are skimming it.
You could all take a lesson from her book. At least she put his **** post in spoiler tags so those of us who have Alma on ignore don't have to scroll past it.
____________________________
Banh
#148 Aug 24 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Guenny wrote:
You got me. I skimmed it. He lamented about how blue his balls were, and how as he ages his chance of tasting sweet young 18 year old p*ssy for free fades away with each passing year. Thanks for trolling him into that revelation, Omega. We couldn't have done it without you.


You're welcome. I'm here to help.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#149 Aug 25 2012 at 6:32 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Omega V wrote:
If we lived in fantasy land where it wasn't already explicitly illegal for children to marry or explicitly illegal to practice polygamy, you'd have a point. Just like you would have had a point with your various showers arguments if showers weren't already separated by gender. My point is, we don't actually live in that fantasy land so you aren't actually making any point at all.


Fantasy world? So, now you're using "tradition" as an argument? I thought we all agreed that tradition was not a good enough reason to solely argue for or against something. If that's so, isn't marriage traditionally between a man and a woman? Aren't there already existing laws explicitly against SSM?

Do you know anything about our history and the advancement of rights from "explicitly illegal" to "current laws"? I have relatives that lived through Jim Crow laws and they had relatives that lived through legal slavery times. I'm not a historian, but I'm sure the only people who "explicitly" had rights from the start were rich white men in this nation.

Now here you are, saying that we need to change marriage laws to include SSM, but every other law is already explicitly written and CAN NOT be changed! Who's the coward now? You're simply hiding behind laws.

You're so hypocritical, that you're losing track of all of your offenses. Besides the fact that changing the showers would only consist of changing signs, kind of like the "colored only" and "whites only" signs, (not some overly complicated and expensive task), you admit that there is logic to the shower arguments. Those arguments weren't made to persuade a change. I don't want a unisex shower. I was pointing out that the reasons why we segregate shows by **** are no different than the reasons against open homosexuality in the showers.

Omega V wrote:
Giving equal rights to homosexuals will not lead to legalizing polygamy or child loving, as there are already laws against them.


I didn't say that it would. What I have been saying is that your prejudice against those groups are no different than the same prejudice against homosexuality. Furthermore, you shouldn't get offended when people reference homosexuality as a basis or foundation for their argument as that's the same exact thing homosexual supporters do with women and ethnic minorities.

What I have said is that a poorly constructed argument, i.e. unintentional inclusive argument, will indeed pave the way for those changes. That's kind of how laws work. Do you think Black Americans were fighting for Somalians? Of course, not, they were fighting for themselves, but the result affected all people of all races. (Another example of how the reason why a law is created is irrelevant in discussing the effects of the law.)

Omega V wrote:
Homosexuals are people just like you or me. Some of them are jerks, just like some heterosexuals are, the only real difference is that for some reason (nature, nurture, or more likely a combination of both) they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. There is no harm in this, provided they are consenting adults. Any current laws against homosexuality are wrong, because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. This is a fact that society is slowly coming around too. Your opinion, it seems, is that it is wrong to be homosexual.


This is an example of a poorly constructed argument. Are you saying child lovers aren't people with the only real difference is for some reason (nature, nurture or more likely a combination of both) they are sexually attracted to younger people?

You have yet provided any reason on why it's any more wrong for a 15 year old to be in a relationship with a 35 year old as opposed to another 15 year old. The only thing that you have said was "Child lovers HURT them!". How do they hurt them any more or less than another 15 year old? How are 15 year olds in any more danger than another 35 year old? The second you engage in a relationship, you put yourself at risk of some form of harm and the age of the people does not change that.

Omega V wrote:
Already, in this thread, you said if I answered your questions you'd answer mine. I've gone out of my way to answer every single question asked of me & you've now said this: ........

You've moved the goal posts. You're derailing. You're avoiding the question. You're a @#%^ing coward on an internet message board.


Almalieque on post #85 wrote:
Nice try, but I'm sure that I asked you a series of questions. I've answered that question several times before. I have no problem going down that tangent, but not before closing up these other tangents. This is exactly what happens. People branch off unto other topics, then blame me for not "staying on topic". However, not answering is me "avoiding" the questions.

Answer my questions first, then we can talk.


Nice try again. Note the underline and bold, I said after closing up these other tangents. You may not know this, but you have to answer questions in order to be able to close up a tangent. Just because you answered questions, doesn't mean that we are at a mutual agreement.

You still haven't given any legitimate reason on why it's any more wrong for a 15 year old to be in a "serious" relationship with a 35 year old than a 15 year old.

You're continually hiding behind laws as an excuse against other sexualities while at the same time fighting to change the law to allow SSM.

You are still making comments as if I'm saying SSM will lead to other forms of marriage.

You have yet made the connection that I'm referencing the similarity in prejudice between homosexuals and child lovers, not the groups themselves.

These are just the things that immediately come to mind without me having to look anything up. You are a complete mess right now and you want to transition into another irrelevant topic?

Omega V wrote:
You're a @#%^ing coward on an internet message board.


You asked a question. I told you where to find it. It is already written. It hasn't left or gone anywhere. If you're too lazy to look it up, then so be it. You keep calling me a coward wont change anything. It will only give you this same response written ever so slightly differently.

I mean, aren't you a premium member? There's absolutely no reason for you not to be able find it.

Omega V wrote:
And you're supposed to be a soldier IRL? WTF?


I'm not sure why you civilians always bring up the military as if you know what you're talking about. Unless you're currently serving, recently ETS'd or a high speed dependent, i.e. FRG leader, then you probably have no clue on the daily life of a Soldier. The media only shows basic training and war. They don't show the numerous formations. Showing up 10 mins early that results in "hurry up and wait". Safety briefs, Motorstable Mondays, Sergeant's Time, Family Time, Fun Runs, article 15's, DUI's, Training meetings, maintenance meetings, Command and Staff, OPORDs, the numerous follow on FRAGOs, etc.

Dealing with that **** on a daily basis is what MAKES you a SOLDIER.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#150 Aug 25 2012 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Do you know anything about our history and the advancement of rights from "explicitly illegal" to "current laws"? I have relatives that lived through Jim Crow laws and they had relatives that lived through legal slavery times. I'm not a historian, but I'm sure the only people who "explicitly" had rights from the start were rich white men in this nation.

Unless you have exceptionally long loved relatives, I'm pretty sure you skipped a generation (or two, or three) in there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Aug 25 2012 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
I've told you why I don't think homosexuality is wrong, you're unwilling or unable to communicate why you think it is.

So you're still a coward, Alma, nothings changed. Until you're willing to grow a pair I'm unwilling to do this dance again.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CDT
Kastigir, Anonymous Guests (38)