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.
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?
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 sex 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 gay man. You turned that into an argument for same sex 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.