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.

Alma wrote:
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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#103 Aug 22 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 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
*****
13,369 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#108 Aug 22 2012 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.....
#110 Aug 22 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 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
*****
12,278 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
******
30,646 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 ***-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 ****. 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
*****
14,567 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
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#118 Aug 23 2012 at 1:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,373 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.
#119 Aug 23 2012 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 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
****
6,471 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?
#121 Aug 23 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 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
****
4,042 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
*****
12,278 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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!
*****
16,884 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 83 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (83)