NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel the same way, though, I must admit, I might be a little shocked the first time I saw a same-sex couple kissing. I would not disapprove or anything, I just haven't really been exposed to it much. I hold one exception to this rule though, which is incest. I guess paedophilia could join those ranks, but what's really bad is incest. And nature freaking hates incest too.

Personally, anything that's between consenting adults that isn't an abusive relationship goes. I'm much more likely to turn a blind eye to an incestual relationship between cousins or even siblings than to paedophilia, because a child cannot give consent. I may have a reaction along the lines of "ewww, gross" in face of (adult and consenting) incest, but I'm willing to live and let live. Even though it's icky, if nobody gets hurt there's no reason to get involved.

I would think kissing, to a certain extent, is perfect fine as well. As long as it doesn't get too sexual, then I think that anyone who opposes public displays of affection is just weird or does not have someone they care about in that way.
As well as thinking that people who have a need to show public affection are inconsiderate and so unsure of their relationship they find the need to seek outside approval.

All I have to say is this, Homosexuality is a fine thing. Who is to say that we can control who we love. Homophobic people aren't just homophobic, they are ignorant, and idiotic. it is fine by me, gay people are the best! I am tired of all of these idiots who say they are christian and then go and mutilate jesus' teachings in order to get rid of what they want. "Hey, we don't like this, hey, because we don't, neither does Jesus, lets ban it and kill all who follow it!" Jesus taught love, compassion, tolerance, and acceptance towards everyone!! whether you agree with them or not. christianity started out good, then along came the church.... please, keep your "homo bashing" to yourself, it is as bad if not worse that rascism lets all get along! :fluffle: (see those two kissing, they are men, so deal with it! :fluffle:

As well as thinking that people who have a need to show public affection are inconsiderate and so unsure of their relationship they find the need to seek outside approval.

So you think my parents are seeking outside approval when they hold hands, or that they're unsure about their relationship after a couple of decades of marriage?

They certainly never heard anyone complaining they were inconsiderate to kiss each other goodbye before going to work or leaving at the airport.

All I have to say is this, Homosexuality is a fine thing. Who is to say that we can control who we love. Homophobic people aren't just homophobic, they are ignorant, and idiotic. it is fine by me, gay people are the best! I am tired of all of these idiots who say they are christian and then go and mutilate jesus' teachings in order to get rid of what they want. "Hey, we don't like this, hey, because we don't, neither does Jesus, lets ban it and kill all who follow it!" Jesus taught love, compassion, tolerance, and acceptance towards everyone!! whether you agree with them or not. christianity started out good, then along came the church.... please, keep your "homo bashing" to yourself, it is as bad if not worse that rascism lets all get along! :fluffle: (see those two kissing, they are men, so deal with it! :fluffle:

Thank you for reminding me that there still are Christians out there who are... Christians. If only there were more of you...

Thank you for reminding me that there still are Christians out there who are... Christians. If only there were more of you...
sorry, not christian, I am devoutly Buddhist, but I appriciate Christ's teachings for what they were, not what "Christians" have turned them into. I hate no christian nor anyone of opposite religion, I just do not like the fact that the church has warped christianity into a skewed ideal

:fluffle: <Men! it is ok! don't be afraid, they are just different!

I'm much more likely to turn a blind eye to an incestual relationship between cousins or even siblings than to paedophilia, because a child cannot give consent. I may have a reaction along the lines of "ewww, gross" in face of (adult and consenting) incest, but I'm willing to live and let live. Even though it's icky, if nobody gets hurt there's no reason to get involved.
Actually, just so you know, it's "incestuous". And, though it depends on the age and individual, a child may be able to give consent, even if there is a lack of understanding. I see where you're coming from, but I can think of no other sexual practice more disgusting than incest, excluding certain types of sexual abuse. It completely violates nature. Nature prefers diversity, and incest directly goes against this.

sorry, not christian, I am devoutly Buddhist, but I appriciate Christ's teachings for what they were, not what "Christians" have turned them into. I hate no christian nor anyone of opposite religion, I just do not like the fact that the church has warped christianity into a skewed ideal

:fluffle: <Men! it is ok! don't be afraid, they are just different!

Damn. Why do only agnostics(me) and Buddhists(you) actually read the bible and get what the J man wanted to be his main message?

All most Christians do is learn specific passages in the Ancient testament as they're told by their clergy. Disenheartening.

Actually, just so you know, it's "incestuous".

Consider me made a fool of.


At least I can hide behind the fact that English is my second language. I'm actually a french Canadian. But I feel the shame all the same.


Oh, grammar, why do you hate me so?

No, this must stop!!!! Next thing you know is, the teach you tolerance towards trolls at school! And then troll sex! Think of the kids!
MM... :rolleyes: Funny...

Damn. Why do only agnostics(me) and Buddhists(you) actually read the bible and get what the J man wanted to be his main message?

All most Christians do is learn specific passages in the Ancient testament as they're told by their clergy. Disenheartening.

YES OH YEs thank you, you are my new best friend, oh I love you ( not in that way, just sort of the point of the forum... anyway..) You have been saying what I have wanted to say forever. Yes, I have read the bible and the J man, he had a lot to say, but nobody listened... so sad... ( I do not love you homosexually, but I have no problem w/ it.)

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
I think this thread should actually be titled: "Why you are a f*cking moron." Shut up and go back to your bible beating, you gay bashing Republican.

And, though it depends on the age and individual, a child may be able to give consent, even if there is a lack of understanding. I see where you're coming from, but I can think of no other sexual practice more disgusting than incest, excluding certain types of sexual abuse. It completely violates nature. Nature prefers diversity, and incest directly goes against this.

As for this, well even though I can understand your argument from an evolutionary standpoint... Well, we can't be bothered to restrict freedom on the basis of evolution. If we did, it would be illogical to ban incest, but still allow human beings with genetic defects, such as debilitating and/or hereditary illnesses, to procreate.

But that of course supposes the incestual relationship is mainly about having children. Which I suppose(hope?) is not often the case.

Well, at any rate the only real reason I think legislation should be passed on sexual activity is to prevent abuse. And I think nobody can argue that a relationship between an adult and a child can only be an abuse of power by the adult.

*snip*I do not love you homosexually *snip*

You had no need to emphasize that part, I sorta got the idea :D

Consider your platonic love shared and reciprocated.

I think this thread should actually be titled: "Why you are a f*cking moron." Shut up and go back to your bible beating, you gay bashing Republican.

Hmmm, let's not fall to name calling, shall we? If you want to show you're more tolerant and acceptant than they are, you have to set the right example.

As for this, well even though I can understand your argument from an evolutionary standpoint... Well, we can't be bothered to restrict freedom on the basis of evolution. If we did, it would be illogical to ban incest, but still allow human beings with genetic defects, such as debilitating and/or hereditary illnesses, to procreate.

But that of course supposes the incestual relationship is mainly about having children. Which I suppose(hope?) is not often the case.

Well, at any rate the only real reason I think legislation should be passed on sexual activity is to prevent abuse. And I think nobody can argue that a relationship between an adult and a child can only be an abuse of power by the adult.


very good points, yet ist is difficult to decide whether or not to allow children such as these to be born, because if they are they will be defected for the rest of their lives, but issuing abortions would be just as bad as, oh, say banning gay marriage, because in both cases it is excluding those who are different. ( not trying to compare homosexuality with genetic defects, just saying that in both cases you are at a disadvantage, a loses lose situation, letting the child be or not.) it is like debating abortions, difficult to decide based on my morales.....

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!


holy shit, its Jerry Falwell!! Run fo your lives!!!

Hmmm, let's not fall to name calling, shall we? If you want to show you're more tolerant and acceptant than they are, you have to set the right example.
*bows apologetically* You're right, and I apologize for my response; I just get fired up whenever I hear anyone bashing gays.

YES OH YEs thank you, you are my new best friend, oh I love you ( not in that way, just sort of the point of the forum... anyway..) You have been saying what I have wanted to say forever. Yes, I have read the bible and the J man, he had a lot to say, but nobody listened... so sad... ( I do not love you homosexually, but I have no problem w/ it.)

Let's stop the Christian-bashing: I'm a Catholic from Massachusetts (GO MA!) who has worked to promote the acceptance of gay marriage my state. I celebrated with my friends who got married as a result of this landmark decision, and it was a Good Thing (tm).

There are plenty of tolerant Christians out there, and some of us are even accepting, because we recognize we are humble in the eyes of God, and God is in all of us, gay or straight. We also recognize that everyone needs to have the same rights if we are going to realize the work our Founding Fathers started. They did start this mess called America, and I'm all good with finishing it!

What I didn't like about the two men kissing had nothing to do with them being gay: I'd want to know how they were kissing. I wouldn't neck with my husband in fromt of a crowd of kids, and I'd expect any couple of any configuration to be respectful of the children's age. If they were kissing in a way that was acceptable in general, I don't care about their gender. I would tell my children if they asked why two men were kissing that they cared for each other, and kissing is a good thing.

Men in other countries sometimes kiss each other as a form of greeting, even Iran does that. It's the USA that's particularly weird about sex and affection in general, not just between members of the same gender. We replace these kinds of affection with violence, which is also a very poor lesson for children to learn. I'd rather my son kiss a man than hit him. I kissed a girl when I was a child as a form of experiment, and I've been happily married for ten years, so I know my experiment did very little to change my sexuality. The only thing it did was made me more accepting of people whose sexuality turned out differently.

I am proud of Massachusetts for fighting for equal rights for gay people, I am proud of my Supreme Court for its wisdom, and I am ashamed of my fellow Catholics who keep fighting what should have happened years ago. I hope children in my state learn fromthis experience to accept everyone as much as possible, and I in particular hope the children of the Catholics who've been such buttheads about this process learn it well and become more accepting than their bigoted parents.

Ge-Ren

very good points, yet ist is difficult to decide whether or not to allow children such as these to be born, because if they are they will be defected for the rest of their lives, but issuing abortions would be just as bad as, oh, say banning gay marriage, because in both cases it is excluding those who are different. ( not trying to compare homosexuality with genetic defects, just saying that in both cass you are at a disadvantage, a loses lose situation, letting the child be or not.) it is like debating abortions, difficult to decide based on my morales.....

Yes. In my opinion, a possibility of deformities of genetic anomaly at birth isn't ground enough to stop two persons from having children, whatever the circumstances. I hope nobody gets me wrong, I'm not trying to encourage incest or anything. I'm just saying if there's no abuse, we don't have much solid ground to ban it.

And we all know that advocating to ban something we find it icky and disgusting would be kind of a bad move, what with us saying that gay marriage can't be banned on the sole ground that some poeple find it icky, now can we?

If there's no victim, then live and let live.

Hmmm, let's not fall to name calling, shall we? If you want to show you're more tolerant and acceptant than they are, you have to set the right example.
well, you know what they say
[blatant Austin Powers rip off started] Theres two things I cant stand: those who cant repect each others differences and opinions, and REPUBLICANS [blatant austin Powers ripoff ended]

*bows apologetically* You're right, and I apologize for my response; I just get fired up whenever I hear anyone bashing gays.

No offense taken, I just said that because I'm adamant on not falling as low as those de denounce.

*He who fights monsters must be careful not to become a monster himself*

(approximate quote from someone whom I cannot quite remember the name. But you get the idea)

So you think my parents are seeking outside approval when they hold hands, or that they're unsure about their relationship after a couple of decades of marriage?

They certainly never heard anyone complaining they were inconsiderate to kiss each other goodbye before going to work or leaving at the airport.
To me, pecks on the lips or cheek are fine. So is holding hands. But as mentioned before, if even one other person finds it offensive it's dirty. And how exactly do you know no one has taken offense to such behavior you mentioned. Do you take a poll after? Could it be that other people are just not as rude as to publicly display their disgust? Maybe you should take a quick scan next time and see if anyone whispers their disgust.

well, you know what they say
[blatant Austin Powers rip off started] Theres two things I cant stand: those who cant repect each others differences and opinions, and REPUBLICANS [blatant austin Powers ripoff ended]

Gotta love our favorite secret agent. Yeah baby, yeah! :D

I think this thread should actually be titled: "Why you are a f*cking moron." Shut up and go back to your bible beating, you gay bashing Republican.

HEY WHATS WRONG WITH BEING REPUBLICAN! :mad: !
AND ANYWAYS "IF IT LOOKS LIKE AN ASS AND ACTS LIKE AN ASS..."








(if your too stupid too figure that out the answer is ITS A DEMOCRAT)

No offense taken, I just said that because I'm adamant on not falling as low as those de denounce.

*He who fights monsters must be careful not to become a monster himself*

(approximate quote from someone whom I cannot quite remember the name. But you get the idea)
Yes, I do.
And to the person who insulted me for my original post and failed to read my apology...I pity you, for failing to see the reality of how things are.

well, you know what they say
[blatant Austin Powers rip off started] Theres two things I cant stand: those who cant repect each others differences and opinions, and REPUBLICANS [blatant austin Powers ripoff ended]

WHY THE F*** DO YOU ALL HATE REPUBLICANS OR MOST OF YOU, GOD DAMMIT!

To me, pecks on the lips or cheek are fine. So is holding hands. But as mentioned before, if even one other person finds it offensive it's dirty. And how exactly do you know no one has taken offense to such behavior you mentioned. Do you take a poll after? Could it be that other people are just not as rude as to publicly display their disgust? Maybe you should take a quick scan next time and see if anyone whispers their disgust.

So, if there's even one reactionnary, overly prudish person in the room that MIGHT get offended, then it's dirty?

I'll quote a poster from these forums: "Nobody has a right NOT to be offended"

There were no polls involved, I just assume that anybody taking offense enough would have the normal reaction to share that outrage. To be quite frank, I've never seen anybody even look twice at it, even less whisper their disgust. But then again, I live in Canada, and contrary to popular belief we have cultural and behavioral differences. Here affection is actually seen as a good thing, not something wrong or rude that should be hidden.

Spread the love, fellow Canadians! Spread the love!

HEY WHATS WRONG WITH BEING REPUBLICAN! :mad: !
AND ANYWAYS "IF IT LOOKS LIKE AN ASS AND ACTS LIKE AN ASS..."








(if your too stupid too figure that out the answer is ITS A DEMOCRAT)
woa, no political debates here, just mellow down, he was just saying that republicans ten to be, weeeelllll..... :rolleyes: a little intolerant, not all of them, just most of them, and you know its true. ( oh, and if you are gong to go and bash someone for their political ideals using foul language and idiotic insults, then you have no right to even have an opinion on the issue, it just proves you an idiot like all the rest....)

HEY WHATS WRONG WITH BEING REPUBLICAN! :mad: !
AND ANYWAYS "IF IT LOOKS LIKE AN ASS AND ACTS LIKE AN ASS..."








(if your too stupid too figure that out the answer is ITS A DEMOCRAT)
!: there's nothing wrong with being a republican, there's just a few things that seem to be common amongst reoublicans that we liberals find rather...hateful...by which I mean

1: every eminent republican figure that had the age at the time fought vigorously againt the civil rights movement

2 The sometimes seem not too happy with those of non-christian religions ( fans of Jerry Falwell, those who watch the 700 club, Anne Coulter readers)

3: some repulicans have a tendency of agreeing with pat Buchanan. which is just not cool

and then theres the whole blatant hateful discrimination against people for no ther reason that they love someone.

If people like me weren't around, America would be called "France".

Sorry to say, but it is because of ignorant, narrowminded people like yourself that America would be considered "corrupt".

Grow up and learn to except life instead of denying it.

I think you will find that as far as the art etc is concenred your talking about left handers! Now if you want a minority group that has to put up with a world designed for others look no further!

What about us bothys?

Guys(or girls), if he's yelling and being offensive, the best course of action is to ignore him until he calms down enough to discuss seriously, not feeding his anger by anwering him.

I should know, I got warned by Myrth for that reason. "Feeding the trolls", or something like that. Just ignore him until(if?) he calms down.

!: there's nothing wrong with being a republican, there's just a few things that seem to be common amongst reoublicans that we liberals find rather...hateful...by which I mean

1: every eminent republican figure that had the age at the time fought vigorously againt the civil rights movement

2 The sometimes seem not too happy with those of non-christian religions ( fans of Jerry Falwell, those who watch the 700 club, Anne Coulter readers)

3: some repulicans have a tendency of agreeing with pat Buchanan. which is just not cool

and then theres the whole blatant hateful discrimination against people for no ther reason that they love someone.
a respecteable stance on the issue...

HEY WHATS WRONG WITH BEING REPUBLICAN! :mad: !
AND ANYWAYS "IF IT LOOKS LIKE AN ASS AND ACTS LIKE AN ASS..."








(if your too stupid too figure that out the answer is ITS A DEMOCRAT)

Hmm, we have a very convincing point here!
Oh wait, never mind, I was hallucinating.

Your caps lock key is on the far left of your keyboard. (which is probably why you refuse to hit it! ;)) It's to the left of 'A', under 'Tab', and above 'shift'. Hit it now. A little green light on your keyboard should turn off, and everybody should be blissfully, blissfully happy.

There is nothing wrong with being Republican, but there *is* something wrong with forbidding homosexuals basic human rights. I could care less what party you belong to, as long as you allow all humans equal rights, and that's something that the Republican Party, in general, seems not to do.

Indeed; we should let him be silence himself rather than feed him. After all, if one is a troll and cannot speak a lick of intelligent thought, why respond to him?

a respecteable stance on the issue...
thank you. What I was trying to say is that normal people who are republican are rarely those at whom any anger is directed. Its just that the most notorious republicans tend to be the worst. and, because theyre the most notorious, theyre the ones that get elected most often

If one person finds it offensive, it shouldn't be done?
Is that what you are trying to get across?
Or have I misread?
If that one person is within eye contact, yes. That is being inconsiderate.

I am tired of all of these idiots who say they are christian and then go and mutilate jesus' teachings in order to get rid of what they want. "Hey, we don't like this, hey, because we don't, neither does Jesus, lets ban it and kill all who follow it!" Jesus taught love, compassion, tolerance, and acceptance towards everyone!! whether you agree with them or not. christianity started out good, then along came the church
Well if you check in the bible (which is part of the church that is oh so bad {/sarcasm}) You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city. So I don't think it is just the church that has a problem with it, I think they have the big fellow backing them on this one.

woa, no political debates here, just mellow down, he was just saying that republicans ten to be, weeeelllll..... :rolleyes: a little intolerant, not all of them, just most of them, and you know its true. ( oh, and if you are gong to go and bash someone for their political ideals using foul language and idiotic insults, then you have no right to even have an opinion on the issue, it just proves you an idiot like all the rest....)

so you would have rather just left Al-queda and the rest of them to terrorize America, and Saddam to torture and kill his people, we had to do something!
and are we that intolerant? i just felt kinda offended by that remark he had said about republicans but were not all intolerant and i admit i got a little on the angry side. Oh and i am atheist and very tolerant of other religons.

Yep. Because we all know that the first homosexuals were created via spontaneous generation from a pile of tasteful curtains.... yep.

Memo to H22a - heterosexual pairings can produce homosexual offspring. Also, Dawinism offers various useful purposes (evolution-wise) for an over-populated species like us to have a proportion of homosexuals individuals.

I do LOVE to watch Shaed in action... she's like spikey pointy poetry (of death) in motion.

Go, Shaed! :)

Well if you check in the bible (which is part of the church that is oh so bad {/sarcasm}) You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city. So I don't think it is just the church that has a problem with it, I think they have the big fellow backing them on this one.
and youre saying...we should care more because of this??

If that one person is within eye contact, yes. That is being inconsiderate.

...


You're going to have to learn that you can't always please everyone around you. If you try not to offend anyone, you'll end up in some sort of siliness such as the debate on wheter or not saying Happy Holidays to avoid offending non-Christians is actually offending Christians who would like to say Merry Christmas,

Being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct can fall down into sheer stupidity and loss of time. And not offending anyone is something that cannot be done. Someday, you have to learn to live with it and be who you are. That's what freedom is all about. If there's a gothic chick on the bus and an elderly person is offended by the way she's dressed, it's tough luck for the elderly person, not the gothic girl's fault for not being considerate enough. The same applies to public displays of affection.

Well if you check in the bible (which is part of the church that is oh so bad {/sarcasm}) You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city. So I don't think it is just the church that has a problem with it, I think they have the big fellow backing them on this one.
Did it actually ever explicitly state that there was homosexuality in Sodom? No? Thought so.

Exactly; Gnostikos is correct. Plus, any bible story must be taken with a grain of salt anyway.

...


You're going to have to learn that you can't always please everyone around you. If you try not to offend anyone, you'll end up in some sort of siliness such as the debate on wheter or not saying Happy Holidays to avoid offending non-Christians is actually offending Christians who would like to say Merry Christmas,

Being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct can fall down into sheer stupidity and loss of time. And not offending anyone is something that cannot be done. Someday, you have to learn to live with it and be who you are. That's what freedom is all about. If there's a gothic chick on the bus and an elderly person is offended by the way she's dressed, it's tough luck for the elderly person, not the gothic girl's fault for not being considerate enough. The same applies to public displays of affection.

*golf claps* very nice...Ima give you an 8

You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city.

No. If you actually bothered to open your Bible and read that passage, you'd learn he destroyed those cities because their inhabitants tried to rape angels he sent there. It just so happened those rapists were male and so were the angels.

I personnally tend to want to punish rapists, too. Wheter gay or straight. Funny how one can forget the other occurences when evil men are struck down by divine fire for raping women. How convenient.

He was punishing for the attempted rape, not the sexual orientation.

Man, whoever started this thread was immature. I feel sorry that you had parents who raised you that way. What a disgrace...

Well if you check in the bible (which is part of the church that is oh so bad {/sarcasm}) You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city. So I don't think it is just the church that has a problem with it, I think they have the big fellow backing them on this one.
hah, you friggin idiot, The church has some scars in its past, like a little of the crusades, oh, just some mass murdering, and lets not forget the holocaust, remember, Hitler was a devout Christian ;) oh, by the way, where is god now to destroy every city in america for its homosexual acts, hmmm....? it never happened, and the bible is not historically correct at all! so don't bring that up. You are the type of "Christian" I was talking about (If you are christian that is...) Jesus taught something else, and you are just wrapping his delicate teachings in a silk cloth then bashing them with a meat tenderizer you idiot, now shut up, go home, or just listen to your priests flood your mindds with homophobic and fearful ideals! (I told you all not to turn this into a debate, look what happens! another idiot crushed! :cool:

so you would have rather just left Al-queda and the rest of them to terrorize America, and Saddam to torture and kill his people, we had to do something!
and are we that intolerant? i just felt kinda offended by that remark he had said about republicans but were not all intolerant and i admit i got a little on the angry side. Oh and i am atheist and very tolerant of other religons.

Good, no hard feelings then, but let's just try not to strand too far from the issue at hand and the point of the trend. Political debates about democrats and republicans or Al-Quaeda and Saddam have their own threads already.

Man, whoever started this thread was immature. I feel sorry that you had parents who raised you that way. What a disgrace...
I blame it on Pat Buchanan/Hitler!

No. If you actually bothered to open your Bible and read that passage, you'd learn he destroyed those cities because their inhabitants tried to rape angels he sent there. It just so happened those rapists were male and so were the angels.

I personnally tend to want to punish rapists, too. Wheter gay or straight. Funny how one can forget the other occurences when evil men are struck down by divine fire for raping women. How convenient.

He was punishing for the attempted rape, not the sexual orientation.
heh, thanks for helping me put this idiot where he belongs...

hah, you friggin idiot, The church has some scars in its past, like a little of the crusades, oh, just some mass murdering, and lets not forget the holocaust, remember, Hitler was a devout Christian ;) oh, by the way, where is god now to destroy every city in america for its homosexual acts, hmmm....? it never happened, and the bible is not historically correct at all! so don't bring that up. You are the type of "Christian" I was talking about (If you are christian that is...) Jesus taught something else, and you are just wrapping his delicate teachings in a silk cloth then bashing them with a meat tenderizer you idiot, now shut up, go home, or just listen to your priests flood your mindds with homophobic and fearful ideals! (I told you all not to turn this into a debate, look what happens! another idiot crushed! :cool:
reminds me of something...ah yes, I beleive I should bring this up, just because its slightly linked to a few points in this issue, and because Its hilarious.
http://www.jesusishitler.com/index.htm

heh, thanks for helping me put this idiot where he belongs...
You haven't run into many stubborn people before, have you? He or she is just going to respond saying that it was the homosexuality that was punishment, and that the rape was secondary, or some such nonsense. It is very rare that anyones' views are ever changed here...

Personally, anything that's between consenting adults that isn't an abusive relationship goes. I'm much more likely to turn a blind eye to an incestual relationship between cousins or even siblings than to paedophilia, because a child cannot give consent. I may have a reaction along the lines of "ewww, gross" in face of (adult and consenting) incest, but I'm willing to live and let live. Even though it's icky, if nobody gets hurt there's no reason to get involved.

I'm with you.

I don't care if it's man or woman with man or woman... I don't care what their relationship is to each other.

So long as they are consenting adults, do as you will.

But, if it's going to get an R-Rating, get a room first.

Paedophilia is never okay. A child cannot give consent, so paedophilia is ALWAYS rape, and rape is not on the Good List (tm).

so you would have rather just left Al-queda and the rest of them to terrorize America, and Saddam to torture and kill his people, we had to do something!
and are we that intolerant? i just felt kinda offended by that remark he had said about republicans but were not all intolerant and i admit i got a little on the angry side. Oh and i am atheist and very tolerant of other religons.
well excuse me, mr athiest, makes you better, does it? no. all religions are equal like you said, but I said that MOST republicans are intolerant whether it be of race or religion, or sexual affinity (What this whole fin debate is about) most of the republicans aren't tolerant, not to say that you are one of them.

reminds me of something...ah yes, I beleive I should bring this up, just because its slightly linked to a few points in this issue, and because Its hilarious.
http://www.jesusishitler.com/index.htm
not wat i wa trying to compare, i was saying that the church did and taught this crap, not jesus... I also find this article to be very offensive, even tough i am buddhist, don't bring this up please.... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Actually, just so you know, it's "incestuous". And, though it depends on the age and individual, a child may be able to give consent, even if there is a lack of understanding. I see where you're coming from, but I can think of no other sexual practice more disgusting than incest, excluding certain types of sexual abuse. It completely violates nature. Nature prefers diversity, and incest directly goes against this.

No - Gnostikos... a child can NEVER give consent... REGARDLESS of the 'age' or the 'individual'.

Common sense (such a misnomer) should tell you that... but, if not, I'd advise you to read up on law... children CANNOT give consent.

oh, by the way, where is god now to destroy every city in america for its homosexual acts, hmmm....?

A question worth asking.

Might I even add, what about Canada where we defied His Holy will by allowing gay marriage in 7 out of our 10 provinces as of yet? Gays have been marrying for... what, two years now here? And we have yet to feel His Divine wrath and be struck down by holy thunder from heaven. I guess that must mean since those gays are not trying to rape anyone but instead loving each other and committing to each other for life it makes a difference in His eyes, don,t you all think?

P.S. Sotha Syl, didn't we say no name calling earlier?You're better than that, I know it.

A question worth asking.

Might I even add, what about Canada where we defied His Holy will by allowing gay marriage in 7 out of our 10 provinces as of yet? Gays have been marrying for... what, two years now here? And we have yet to feel His Divine wrath and be struck down by holy thunder from heaven. I guess that must mean since those gays are not trying to rape anyone but instead loving each other and committing to each other for life it makes a difference in His eyes, don,t you all think?

P.S. Sotha Syl, didn't we say no name calling earlier?You're better than that, I know it.
I disn't say that, but I am sorry, very sorry, idiots just sometimes piss me off (woops, thee i go again) :D srry ;)

not wat i wa trying to compare, i was saying that the church did and taught this crap, not jesus... I also find this article to be very offensive, even tough i am buddhist, don't bring this up please.... :eek: :eek: :eek:
oh, come on, its hilarious. You know you laughed :p

As a homosexual, I can say I did NOT copy somoene to become this way. Actually, it is an attempt on my behalf to find happiness in this world. The problem is not kissing, rather the world trying to hide an abvoius truth from everyone. Kids from an early age learn that its okay for men to kiss women. But are never told that some men kiss men. Of course the child is going to ask why they did that. Society has been trying to had something, something that cant remain hidden. Eventually children will see a man kiss another man in public and go "okay, but i like girls."
Homosexuality is not spread like a disease, illness, or bacteria. Rather its something that a person goes through, whether by choice or not, its something an individual experiences on their own.
Schools will never teach homosexuality, and they do not now. In Texas, where I live, they dont even teach sexuality whatsoever. In states that teach heterosexuality, they will stay that way. The point of those classes are to show how babies are made and born and the possible diseases spread through sex. There would need to be no different lessons, because a homosexual would learn anyways, and apply it to thier life. So never fear, you thread-maker, they will never teach it in school.
I personally feel very sorry for you, person who made this thread. You have been taught not to accept differences. This will be a great problem for you in life, especially because the rest of the world is learning to accept. Please, reconsider this, and realize that homosexuals are just people who find love in different ways than you. Thats it.

Texas? I live in Texas! Shooooot...hook me up with your digits...::wink wink::

hahaha..

No - Gnostikos... a child can NEVER give consent... REGARDLESS of the 'age' or the 'individual'.

Common sense (such a misnomer) should tell you that... but, if not, I'd advise you to read up on law... children CANNOT give consent.
I do not judge my personal beliefs off of U.S. law. Do you seriously believe that a 15 year old can not give consent to have sex? Yet 15 is still underage. Puberty should really be the judge of when a human can willingly give consent to sexual acts. Both examples of age and individuality.

No - Gnostikos... a child can NEVER give consent... REGARDLESS of the 'age' or the 'individual'.

Common sense (such a misnomer) should tell you that... but, if not, I'd advise you to read up on law... children CANNOT give consent.

There's a lot of grey around the edges when the minors are teenagers, though. I understand in the US, the age of consent is 18. That can be a can of trouble, as I definately believe a teenager of 17 years old is mature and old enough to understand the concept of consent and be able to freely give consent. I personally wouldn't define a 19 yo having intercourse with a 16 yo a pedophile, but I believe under US law it's considered that way. Are my informations incorrect?

If that one person is within eye contact, yes. That is being inconsiderate.

Hmm, I shouldn't do something that someone else nearby might find offensive. So, I guess that means I should't be allowed to walk within eyesight of a guy in a wheelchair since he might be offended at the fact that I can walk and he can't.

Seriously, there should be limits on what you do in public but it is simply not possible (or at least not practical) to avoid offending *everyone*.

A ten year old could give consent and understand it; I think what you mean is that it would still be illegal.
Yes, Skalador; it's called Statutory Rape.

hah, you friggin idiot, The church has some scars in its past, like a little of the crusades, oh, just some mass murdering, and lets not forget the holocaust, remember, Hitler was a devout Christian ;) oh, by the way, where is god now to destroy every city in america for its homosexual acts, hmmm....? it never happened, and the bible is not historically correct at all! so don't bring that up. You are the type of "Christian" I was talking about (If you are christian that is...) Jesus taught something else, and you are just wrapping his delicate teachings in a silk cloth then bashing them with a meat tenderizer you idiot, now shut up, go home, or just listen to your priests flood your mindds with homophobic and fearful ideals! (I told you all not to turn this into a debate, look what happens! another idiot crushed! :cool:

actually hitler was at best a nominal christian.he was generally a secular person with some interest in pagan(germanic/norse) mythology and maybe a little in spiritism and the supernatural(that was more hess, its hard to tell exactly how intro it hitler was). germany was a fairly secular society at that point in time, and the nazis reflected that. they used more of the trappings of paganism than christianity in their nationalist rituals(nazis loved pagentry and ritual), but most probably saw them as strictly or mainly symbolic not actually mystical.

certainly some nazis were devote christians but if you want to make a connection between fascism and christianity you need to look south. the italian fascists were more religious than the germans and generally had a good relationship with the papacy. franco is spain was very religious, he say catholisism as a counter weight to the atheism of the communists and used it vigorously. i'm not sure about salazar in portugal but i suspect he followed franco's general path.

There's a lot of grey around the edges when the minors are teenagers, though. I understand in the US, the age of consent is 18. That can be a can of trouble, as I definately believe a teenager of 17 years old is mature and old enough to understand the concept of consent and be able to freely give consent. I personally wouldn't define a 19 yo having intercourse with a 16 yo a pedophile, but I believe under US law it's considered that way. Are my informations incorrect?
yes, you are.
I as well, dont define my opinions by any type of law. but since definitions of law have served me so well in trhe past, Ill stick to it.

Well if you check in the bible (which is part of the church that is oh so bad {/sarcasm}) You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city. So I don't think it is just the church that has a problem with it, I think they have the big fellow backing them on this one.

No.. sorry. Check your bible again.

It explicitly states what the 'sins' of Sodom were, and homosexuality wasn't on the list...

I do not judge my personal beliefs off of U.S. law. Do you seriously believe that a 15 year old can not give consent to have sex? Yet 15 is still underage. Puberty should really be the judge of when a human can willingly give consent to sexual acts. Both examples of age and individuality.

But even at puberty, there is still room for abuse or domination if the other person is a grown adult. I guess that's the trickiest part of determining what's right and wrong: when is a minor old enough to give consent even though he's a minor, and is it the same thing for that minor to experiment on sex with another minor his age and consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult in a possible position of power/authority? (because we know teenagers don't immediately stop seeing adults as persons of authority the minute puberty begins).

There's a lot of grey around the edges when the minors are teenagers, though. I understand in the US, the age of consent is 18. That can be a can of trouble, as I definately believe a teenager of 17 years old is mature and old enough to understand the concept of consent and be able to freely give consent. I personally wouldn't define a 19 yo having intercourse with a 16 yo a pedophile, but I believe under US law it's considered that way. Are my informations incorrect?
I am not sure, I think above the age of 16 you can do it w/ people above 18, because 16 is the legal age to consent, and yes, it is grey around the edges, what if WHAT IF there is a small child who can consent and does want to what then? I am in no way endoresing pedophelia or anything of the sort, so don't you dare get on my back, but WHAT IF and you know there has to be at least one case like this... but hey, it could and probably has happened

There's a lot of grey around the edges when the minors are teenagers, though. I understand in the US, the age of consent is 18. That can be a can of trouble, as I definately believe a teenager of 17 years old is mature and old enough to understand the concept of consent and be able to freely give consent. I personally wouldn't define a 19 yo having intercourse with a 16 yo a pedophile, but I believe under US law it's considered that way. Are my informations incorrect?
i believe there generally is a four or year window of age and over 16 there are rarely prosecutions unless the parent or child presses charges or there are aggrevating circumstances like the adult provided drugs or alcohol or was in a position of trust like a teacher or coach.

Hmm, I shouldn't do something that someone else nearby might find offensive. So, I guess that means I should't be allowed to walk within eyesight of a guy in a wheelchair since he might be offended at the fact that I can walk and he can't.

Seriously, there should be limits on what you do in public but it is simply not possible (or at least not practical) to avoid offending *everyone*.
lol great point! I should've saidd something along those lines...

No. If you actually bothered to open your Bible and read that passage, you'd learn he destroyed those cities because their inhabitants tried to rape angels he sent there. It just so happened those rapists were male and so were the angels.

I personnally tend to want to punish rapists, too. Wheter gay or straight. Funny how one can forget the other occurences when evil men are struck down by divine fire for raping women. How convenient.

He was punishing for the attempted rape, not the sexual orientation.

I really would love to agree with you, since you are much closer to the truth than the previous poster was... but you are still missing one point...

Earlier in scripture there is a list of 'sins' of Sodom... in response to those sins, God sent the angels to destroy Sodom and Gomorah... what happened to the angels was AFTER THE FACT... god was already going to destroy the cities.

But you are almost right... the sin with the angels was not about homosexuality, it was about consorting with angels - which happened before the flood, and lead to the generations of evil, which the flood was sent to destroy.

actually hitler was at best a nominal christian.he was generally a secular person with some interest in pagan(germanic/norse) mythology and maybe a little in spiritism and the supernatural(that was more hess, its hard to tell exactly how intro it hitler was). germany was a fairly secular society at that point in time, and the nazis reflected that. they used more of the trappings of paganism than christianity in their nationalist rituals(nazis loved pagentry and ritual), but most probably saw them as strictly or mainly symbolic not actually mystical.

certainly some nazis were devote christians but if you want to make a connection between fascism and christianity you need to look south. the italian fascists were more religious than the germans and generally had a good relationship with the papacy. franco is spain was very religious, he say catholisism as a counter weight to the atheism of the communists and used it vigorously. i'm not sure about salazar in portugal but i suspect he followed franco's general path.


I am not sure if what you say is true, but I do thank you for the corrections. I was wrong however, Hitler was Catholic, I am sure of this, and so is the history channel, but thnx anyway,

lol great point! I should've saidd something along those lines...

Yeah, I like to frequently point out stuff like this to people who go out of their way to avoid "offending" people. Kind of like what I say to co-workers when they get a customer complaint lodged against them - if nobody ever complains about you, you're not doing your job.

...
You're going to have to learn that you can't always please everyone around you. If you try not to offend anyone, you'll end up in some sort of siliness such as the debate on wheter or not saying Happy Holidays to avoid offending non-Christians is actually offending Christians who would like to say Merry Christmas,

Being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct can fall down into sheer stupidity and loss of time. And not offending anyone is something that cannot be done. Someday, you have to learn to live with it and be who you are. That's what freedom is all about. If there's a gothic chick on the bus and an elderly person is offended by the way she's dressed, it's tough luck for the elderly person, not the gothic girl's fault for not being considerate enough. The same applies to public displays of affection.
You forgot the post I made to you that I can care less about any perception you have of me which pretty much means, caring what other people think around me is a lesson learned looooooong ago. While I do restrain myself, like when you brought the example with your parents. I could have said something like, "Yea they are inconsiderate bastards who seem to have a need to constantly find outside approval for their age old marriage, the glory hounds!!!". But I did not because it may have offended you. But I guess it would have been tough titty for you because I don't have to care what other people think. And Goth was a good example because most of the goth kids I know do what they do to offend other people "fight the norm". They do it to get a rise out of other people's discomfort. Sad when you think about it.

But even at puberty, there is still room for abuse or domination if the other person is a grown adult.
Yes, that is true. But does that mean that pubescent child is incapable of consent? There is room for abuse and domination in any realtionship.

I really would love to agree with you, since you are much closer to the truth than the previous poster was... but you are still missing one point...

Earlier in scripture there is a list of 'sins' of Sodom... in response to those sins, God sent the angels to destroy Sodom and Gomorah... what happened to the angels was AFTER THE FACT... god was already going to destroy the cities.

But you are almost right... the sin with the angels was not about homosexuality, it was about consorting with angels - which happened before the flood, and lead to the generations of evil, which the flood was sent to destroy.

I stand corrected. I'll be the first to admit I don't know my bible by heart.... and I wouldn't need to, what with being agnostic and all. I seem to recall something like what you say, and that the angels were sent to save Lot and his family who were, incidentally, the only halfway decent poeple around.

Which is kind of ironic, because If my memory's not too fuzzy I think Lot's daughters ended up getting their father drunk and having sex with them. I guess that settles the case about God's thoughts on adult incest :roll:

Just pointing out that some of you are off track onto more rape and pedophilia but hey, it matters not ( *yawn*, it is like 12:15 am here in the rocky mountains, but I still got a lot to say!)

Yes, that is true. But does that mean that pubescent child is incapable of consent? There is room for abuse and domination in any realtionship.
true, yis yis, very true!

I do not judge my personal beliefs off of U.S. law. Do you seriously believe that a 15 year old can not give consent to have sex? Yet 15 is still underage. Puberty should really be the judge of when a human can willingly give consent to sexual acts. Both examples of age and individuality.

You really think a child has sufficient conception of reality... enough experience, enough maturity... to be able to give a REASONED response to a sexual proposition?

Personally, I think the age of majority should be INCREASED to 21, since most people lack maturity to make such decisions throughout their teens.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that puberty should be the cutoff point... a girl going through puberty at eleven years old is going to have enough crap going on in her life... you seriously believe that "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed' stuff?

I will discuss my beliefs on this forum. All I was saying was that I don't care what anyone thinks about them b/c I wont be swayed.

Which assumes that your beliefs are, of course, so utterly fascinating that we'd all cherish the opportunity to hear you pontificate upon them. But from what I've read, there's absolutely nothing to differentiate your particular brand of intolerance from any of the others being aired here.

Happy Festive Season, everybody-!

DT.

You forgot the post I made to you that I can care less about any perception you have of me which pretty much means, caring what other people think around me is a lesson learned looooooong ago. While I do restrain myself, like when you brought the example with your parents. I could have said something like, "Yea they are inconsiderate bastards who seem to have a need to constantly find outside approval for their age old marriage, the glory hounds!!!". But I did not because it may have offended you. But I guess it would have been tough titty for you because I don't have to care what other people think. And Goth was a good example because most of the goth kids I know do what they do to offend other people "fight the norm". They do it to get a rise out of other people's discomfort. Sad when you think about it.
sad, perhaps. but its their Idea of fun, and they're not hurting anybody (no, offending isnt hurting, unless its direct verbal assault) So who are you to try and stop 'em. i say, lets offend everyobody. come on, ist fun, I love doing it

hey, skalador, er watever, are you from canada? I was considereing moving there after the election, but it would've been a little pricey. do you have a nation on nationsates? if so tell me, me wants you to be me friend! :)

You forgot the post I made to you that I can care less about any perception you have of me which pretty much means, caring what other people think around me is a lesson learned looooooong ago. While I do restrain myself, like when you brought the example with your parents. I could have said something like, "Yea they are inconsiderate bastards who seem to have a need to constantly find outside approval for their age old marriage, the glory hounds!!!". But I did not because it may have offended you. But I guess it would have been tough titty for you because I don't have to care what other people think. And Goth was a good example because most of the goth kids I know do what they do to offend other people "fight the norm". They do it to get a rise out of other people's discomfort. Sad when you think about it.

Then I have to admit I don't get you. You say you don't give a damn what poeple think of you and/or what you think or do, but you get all flared up the moment somebody MIGHT be offended for no particular reason?

I'm baffled.

I miss the middle ages.

Just pointing out that some of you are off track onto more rape and pedophilia but hey, it matters not ( *yawn*, it is like 12:15 am here in the rocky mountains, but I still got a lot to say!)
Really? Are you in Colorado? If so, how close are you to Bailey?

I stand corrected. I'll be the first to admit I don't know my bible by heart.... and I wouldn't need to, what with being agnostic and all. I seem to recall something like what you say, and that the angels were sent to save Lot and his family who were, incidentally, the only halfway decent poeple around.

Which is kind of ironic, because If my memory's not too fuzzy I think Lot's daughters ended up getting their father drunk and having sex with them. I guess that settles the case about God's thoughts on adult incest :roll:

my 'expertise' with the bible is not a religious thing... I am an atheist (although I prefer the term "Godless Heathen") - although I came to my atheism through a better knowledge of scripture...

Yes, Lot ended up having 'relations' with his daughters... kind of ironic what the bible portrays as the action of a good person...

oh, and just fpr good measure, have a merry, merry politically correct non-offensive, non-denominational, universal, secular holiday not endorsed by any particular religious group! yay ! :D

Yes, that is true. But does that mean that pubescent child is incapable of consent? There is room for abuse and domination in any realtionship.

True. Which is why I rather agree with you, at least as far as the minors are pubescent. I guess a case by case approach can be taken. At any rate, the moment there is abuse and domination in ANY relationship (for example husbands who beat their wife), THAT is when we should get involved in poeple's intimacy.

Who here doesn't think it's more important to protect a woman from being beaten up than trying to make sure no two adult and consenting guys kiss and grope in their bedroom?

my 'expertise' with the bible is not a religious thing... I am an atheist (although I prefer the term "Godless Heathen") - although I came to my atheism through a better knowledge of scripture...

Yes, Lot ended up having 'relations' with his daughters... kind of ironic what the bible portrays as the action of a good person...

That's because the Bible also says that everyone (even the most "good" person) is imperfect and flawed...

hey, skalador, er watever, are you from canada? I was considereing moving there after the election, but it would've been a little pricey. do you have a nation on nationsates? if so tell me, me wants you to be me friend! :)
also, is it true that the liberal party up there in canada couldnt choose a good pm to save their life? I mean, i know Chretien was a dick, but hows Martin Doin?

Really? Are you in Colorado? If so, how close are you to Bailey?
not too close, me is on estes park! do you exist near here? if so, I sort of care, but not really, but feel free to tell me . watever floats your ummm.... aircraft carrier.... :D

also, is it true that the liberal party up there in canada couldnt choose a good pm to save their life? I mean, i know Chretien was a dick, but hows Martin Doin?
I still loves me a good nation with great healthcare...

not too close, me is on estes park! do you exist near here? if so, I sort of care, but not really, but feel free to tell me . watever floats your ummm.... aircraft carrier.... :D
Indeed; I live in Bailey. I was just wondering because I was hoping you were another student at Platte Canyon High School...

I still loves me a good nation with great healthcare...
yes, we all know, healthcare owns, etc, etc.
seriously though, ive heard Martin wasnt really elected, any truth to that?

You really think a child has sufficient conception of reality... enough experience, enough maturity... to be able to give a REASONED response to a sexual proposition?
Do you really think that many people give reasoned responses to sexual propositions. That is one reason why there is an AIDS pandemic right now. The other is drug use, but that's off-topic. I think that you "misunderestimate" pubescent children.

Personally, I think the age of majority should be INCREASED to 21, since most people lack maturity to make such decisions throughout their teens.
That is ridiculous. It needs to be lowered to at least 16. And do you seriously think that age of consent laws actually change anything? Many people are having sex from age 14 onward. And they actually still are making a life for themselves in school, with no VD's or pregnencies.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that puberty should be the cutoff point... a girl going through puberty at eleven years old is going to have enough crap going on in her life... you seriously believe that "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed' stuff?
I believe that, biologically speaking, that is entirely true. Same thing with males. It happens to be why it happens. But I believe that someone should be able to decide when to have sex all by themselves. They should have things such as sex ed to educate them on the matter, but I believe that copulation should be a personal decision not enforced by the government. Now, pre-pubescent children and statutory rape are a different matter. There should be restrictions on what middle-aged persons can do to very young ones, but that is an exception.

huh, where is that ignorant guy who made this thread? was he thouroughly owned within a few pages, er what?

I am not sure if what you say is true, but I do thank you for the corrections. I was wrong however, Hitler was Catholic, I am sure of this, and so is the history channel, but thnx anyway,
and the history channel is the hitler channel so you have a point, but i really think the nazi movement was fairly secular in nature, now many neo nazis are christian identity, and the american klan always had strong christian ties though both movements also have neopagan elements(the order of thule which came from the nazis and is an important neonazi current, and the klan's use of the trappings of scottish celtic mythology)




ooh 1000 posts hooray for me

Then I have to admit I don't get you. You say you don't give a damn what poeple think of you and/or what you think or do, but you get all flared up the moment somebody MIGHT be offended for no particular reason?

I'm baffled.
I think it's funny you think I get flared up. And people don't get offended for no particular reason. There may be many. Like the gay couple that gets offended cause the hetro couple is allowed to kiss in public. Maybe someone just lost a loved one. There can be many reasons, I'm just pointing out your inability to consider such an option or your inability to give a rat’s booty.

You really think a child has sufficient conception of reality... enough experience, enough maturity... to be able to give a REASONED response to a sexual proposition?

Personally, I think the age of majority should be INCREASED to 21, since most people lack maturity to make such decisions throughout their teens.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that puberty should be the cutoff point... a girl going through puberty at eleven years old is going to have enough crap going on in her life... you seriously believe that "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed' stuff?

Now that would certainly not help. Even though most teenagers might lack the maturity to experience sex, they're going to do it anyway. Such is the stupidity of youth. None of us can pretend not ever having done something stupid we regretted later.

However, what I think would hold FAR better results than plain stupid repression (which almost never works, especially with teenagers) would be better sexual education. I mean, what the hell?Even here, sex ed is going out of the schools! Sorry, but not all parents stop and have "the talk" with their children.

I'm certain teaching teenagers that sex is about love, caring and tenderness and trusting someone dear to you in your intimacy is going to make them wait for the right person more than just saying "you can't have sex because I said so". And on the plus side, it also lowers the chances of them getting into an abusive relationship without having a few alarm bells ringing.

(Just so everyone knows, I was a virgin until I was 19 and never regretted waiting for Mr. Right. But I can also understand that some feel the need to experiement before that)

hey, skalador, er watever, are you from canada? I was considereing moving there after the election, but it would've been a little pricey. do you have a nation on nationsates? if so tell me, me wants you to be me friend! :)

You're welcome to Canada anytime, as far as I'm concerned anyway. Skalador is my nation, and I reside in the region "Gay". Go figure why?

*yawn* this is my favorite thread ever, but I am so tired, and Half life 2 is done installing, so I guess I am off for the night, until a later time all of you accepting, tolerant, not homophobic, not rascist, not prejudice, good people. I like all of you, I think, and for anyone else, I sincerely hope you take a good look at your life and reconsider your ideals, or just keep the same w00t to all! peace in Iraq, and all of that and such and remember, if both of those smileys are men, it is perfectly acceptable (unless one is 6 an the other is 58)
:fluffle:

You're welcome to Canada anytime, as far as I'm concerned anyway. Skalador is my nation, and I reside in the region "Gay". Go figure why?
Canada is what the United States should be; if it weren't for the fact that I'm headed into politics to change the US, I'd move to Canada myself.
In any case, I think that gays should be able to do whatever they wish in the privacy of their home, just like everyone else.

also, is it true that the liberal party up there in canada couldnt choose a good pm to save their life? I mean, i know Chretien was a dick, but hows Martin Doin?

Martin is a moron, and a conservative hidden under the mantle of a liberal. He tries to suck up to your president against the will of most Canadians, who happen to hate the guy and HIS DAMNED ANTI MISSILE SHIELD. In short, I hate his guts.

I voted for gay-friendly, ecologist social democrat Jack Layton, from the NDP. Jack's da man!

That's because the Bible also says that everyone (even the most "good" person) is imperfect and flawed...

Not strictly true..

Example: First Kings 8:46 "...for there is no man that sinneth not...", but compare with First John 1:8-10 "...whosoever is born of god doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin..."

Also - see Noah (Genesis 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God"), Job (Job 1:1 "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil") and David (First Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life...").

The person who started this was Obviously a Troll. Which means Y'all are suckers.

Not strictly true..

Example: First Kings 8:46 "...for there is no man that sinneth not...", but compare with First John 1:8-10 "...whosoever is born of god doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin..."

Also - see Noah (Genesis 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God"), Job (Job 1:1 "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil") and David (First Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life...").

yeah its really the new testement that focuses on the unavoidable sinfulness of man. the old seemed to think adults could do their best to follow they law and not need "get out of sin free cards" like imcompetent children.

The person who started this was Obviously a Troll. Which means Y'all are suckers.
not me, i'm a troll too, so i'm allowed to ramble on for dozens of pages on another troll's thread, its professional courtesy.

yes, we all know, healthcare owns, etc, etc.
seriously though, ive heard Martin wasnt really elected, any truth to that?

No truth in that. He was elected, but our electoral process differs greatly from yours.

Here, you don't vote for a PM or Presidential candidate: you elect a representative for your county, and that representative belongs to a party. You then add up how many representatives you have for each party, and the leader of the party with the most seats is commonly named Prime Minister.

The problem with the last elections is that, even though Martin got elected in his county and is the leader of the party with the most seats, his party does not have the majority in our house of commons. So he has to tread carefully and find support among the other political parties to pass his laws and budgets. FYI, here there are 4 political parties with a substancial voting base and elected candidates: The conservative party(official opposition, about 60-65 seats), the Liberals(official governement, about 95 seats), The Bloc Québécois(separatist party, 54 seats), and the NDP(socialist party, about 25 seats).


How the hell did we get so sidetracked anyway?

Do you really think that many people give reasoned responses to sexual propositions. That is one reason why there is an AIDS pandemic right now. The other is drug use, but that's off-topic. I think that you "misunderestimate" pubescent children.

That is ridiculous. It needs to be lowered to at least 16. And do you seriously think that age of consent laws actually change anything? Many people are having sex from age 14 onward. And they actually still are making a life for themselves in school, with no VD's or pregnencies.

I believe that, biologically speaking, that is entirely true. Same thing with males. It happens to be why it happens. But I believe that someone should be able to decide when to have sex all by themselves. They should have things such as sex ed to educate them on the matter, but I believe that copulation should be a personal decision not enforced by the government. Now, pre-pubescent children and statutory rape are a different matter. There should be restrictions on what middle-aged persons can do to very young ones, but that is an exception.

Just because many adults make stupid decisions... I don't see how that justifies the assertion that children are mature enough to decide.... quite the reverse if anything.

From a biological point of view - you are still wrong... a pubsecent female may be 'biologically capable' of conceiving... but the pubsecent female body hasn't had time to build up sufficient resources and resilience to be a GOOD carrier.

From my point of view, however, biology is irrelevent here... what is more important is the psychological ramification of intercourse on an underdeveloped mind.

You are beginning to scare me with your continued insistence that people should be allowed to have sex with children...

Slightly different tack... should 15 year olds be voting? Should they be allowed to carry guns? What about fighting for their country?

*snip*means Y'all are suckers.

I don't know about the others, but I sure am. Although maybe not in the same meaning you intended to convey... :D

As much as I like this thread, I'll be going to sleep now as well. It is, after all, nearing 3 AM on the east coast. But hey, at least I'll be ready to stay awake tomorrow night.

Merry Christmas/Hannukah/Capitalist day/Generic Holiday/Insert whatever you like !

:)

Not strictly true..

Example: First Kings 8:46 "...for there is no man that sinneth not...", but compare with First John 1:8-10 "...whosoever is born of god doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin..."

Also - see Noah (Genesis 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God"), Job (Job 1:1 "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil") and David (First Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life...").

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Obviously Jesus is the one exception. 1 John 1:8-10 actually says the same thing (what translation do you have? I'm looking at NIV) - "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." It goes on to say God will forgive our sins and purify us - not saying we will never sin. As for the others (Noah, Job, David) that are described as "perfect", well can't say I really have an explanation for that except that "perfect" would be an inaccurate word to use, plus the fact that Noah and David are also specifically said to have sinned themselves (I admit I don't know a lot about Job). I like to think that it is really just saying that those people are much more godly than most, and words like "perfect" are just for emphasis - although I don't know how valid this criticism really is because I'm not familiar with the original text (obviously not English) so some other phrase could have easily been used and translators felt like "perfect" was a good description.

Honestly though, would you want a gay male teacher around your 4 year old son in a nursurey school?

Hi, Kreen, thanks for your very civil opinion. I dislike it with a vehemence that borders on emotional violence, but I DO support your right to not only have it, but to express it. Civilly. And because you have been so nice about saying what you believe, I'm not going to turn around and get rude with you.

*grin*

To answer your question... IF I would consider breeding and if I should hypothetically end up with a four year old son, I MIGHT send him to nursery school. Might. Though I find it highly unlikely that I would allow any offspring of mine into a public school of any kind considering how little regard I have for the level of properly supervised socialization, the poor methods employed to educate (and the amazingly poor curriculum) and the sheer filth-factor (grunge and disease) that American public schools typically have. Not to mention I find it quite unproductive to allow the school system to steep my hypothetical child's mind in the "societal koolaide" until he was old enough to know that he should have his own views and opinions of the world rather than whatever compost they're spreading on kids this year.

The sexual orientation of my hypothetical son's preschool teacher has NO bearing on my distrust of the institution's handling of my child. But then, I'm one of those people who would love my offspring regardless of his life choices.

To be brutally truthful, it is the smallmindedness of the people I have known within Christianity that drove me away from it. You would NEVER have guessed that as an adolescent, I was once SO passionate about God that I defied my family (who were adamantly anti-Church people) to embrace your faith. But this stubborn refusal to share divine love with people who are every bit as decent, loving and deserving of it as the rest of us but whom have a different sexual orientation over the years embittered and disgusted me. I still have respect for the enlightened stepson of a Jewish carpenter who was kind enough to honor a prostitute by allowing her to bathe his feet when his less decent cohorts whould have abused her and thrown her out in the streets. But I no longer belong to his modern fanclub.

I'd be more afraid of leaving my hypothetical child in the hands of an intolerant and bigoted Christian than I would of leaving him with a gay man. Most gay men don't bring their sexlives into the classroom. Most intolerant Christains DO bring their prejudices and bigotry into the classroom.

PLEASE note I do acknowledge that not all Christains are intolerant or bigoted. I really, deeply and fervently wish that there were more of the loving, honest and admirable variety out and about.

Just because many adults make stupid decisions... I don't see how that justifies the assertion that children are mature enough to decide.... quite the reverse if anything.
Apparently you're missing the point that many adults are not mature enough either to decide when to have sex. So pubescent children are no different.

From a biological point of view - you are still wrong... a pubsecent female may be 'biologically capable' of conceiving... but the pubsecent female body hasn't had time to build up sufficient resources and resilience to be a GOOD carrier.
But can't she pass on her genes? Though, I do admit, that it is typically healthier to wait until the post-pubescent years to actually have any children.

You are beginning to scare me with your continued insistence that people should be allowed to have sex with children...
I am mainly saying that pubescent children should be allowed to have sex with each other. The age of consent laws ban this as well, which I believe is just absurd. I think that a 15 year old should be allowed to copulate with a 25 year old, however, if there is mutual consent. It restricts people's rights too much and is way too authoritarian to tell them when they are mature enough to have sex, in my opinion.

Slightly different tack... should 15 year olds be voting? Should they be allowed to carry guns? What about fighting for their country?
I think we should give 15 year olds should have 1/8th of a vote, as per the Daily Show ;). But, seriously, some 15 year olds do carry guns. And I trust them with the guns than I do many other people. If they want to fight for their country, I say let them. You are of the vein of people that say that people are not wise enough to know how to take care of themselves, so the government has to step in and dictate civil and social rights, which is just awful in my opinion. Granted, there are some instances where I believe some governmental regulation is necessary, but not very much at all. The place where I differ here is in environmental concerns. I do not believe that many humans are educated enough to make educated and informed decisions about the environmental impact of their actions, and the repercussions of what they do does not only affect themselves, but the very fabric of the ecosystem. This is an extra-anthrpological matter to me, but that is an exception.

also a fair number of public school teachers have always been homosexual, its a profession that has traditionally offered an outlet to both gay men and lesbians(perhaps especially lesbians in earlier times do to the limited career options available to women who chose to live outside of traditional domestic roles in hetrosexual marriage.)

WOW!! BOOSLANDIA'S PEOPLE DON'T MAKE MUCH OF CHECKING THEIR OPINIUH.....I MEAN "FACTS" DO THEY!!

First of all we are not bred to a point of capacity in this earth it is only a case of bad space management by the leaders of nations ( maybe Booslandia )

Second of all (and this is a free 'didyaknow' ) the entire earth's population can be gathered into the glorious state of Texas ...........and enjoy quite a spacious living I might add.

WOW!! Booslandia's people DO conservatively use capitolization though. Flannelism's people have used so many capitol letters that they may face a shortage and need to import them soon.

The state of Texas is a nice, spacious place, but seriously, if you packed the entire world's population there, there wouldn't be standing room. Of course if you stacked them like cordwood....

I bet you're a product of public schooling, aren't you.

Yeah, since France is such a great country and all, since most their goverment is corrupt, they are completely fine if a foreign country should choose to come invade them, and they think they are too good to repay their debts to their allies.

Quit smacking the French around. Please. It might have been funny the first time around, but that was before I was born and I'm probably old enough to be your mom. Now it's just tired.

I miss the middle ages.

Yeah, I miss the good times like the black plague....

Slightly different tack... should 15 year olds be voting? Should they be allowed to carry guns? What about fighting for their country?

in this order
yes
depends on the person
yes

Well if you check in the bible (which is part of the church that is oh so bad {/sarcasm}) You will see that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah b/c of the homosexual acts in the city. So I don't think it is just the church that has a problem with it, I think they have the big fellow backing them on this one.

For the umpeenth millionth time, my dear fellow Christian and decidely unread companion:

SODOM AND GOMORRAH WERE DESTROYED FOR THE ***MULTITUDE*** OF SINS THEY COMMITTED. Homosexuality was the least of the issues surrounding that city, plus it's not clear at all in the oldest translations of the Bible that homosexuality was even on the list.

I'M so so tired of seeing this drivel spread. Please READ the Bible and STUDY it before quoting it.

BTW...King James was bisexual.

Ge-Ren

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Hee Hee that could have been me. There's nothing wrong with kissing in front of children, they'll get to know the facts of life, uch as how crap their prudish parents are sooner or later, why hold back, children are more capable that we give them credit.

And seriously kids see home makeover programmes and stuff like that on tv and you dont see them going around asking for 2 ply mdf or something. kids only copy what they like the idea of.

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
NO! Not *gasp* TEACHING our children about homosexuality! Soon they'll have to learn about rascism and sexism too!

Yes, that is true. But does that mean that pubescent child is incapable of consent? There is room for abuse and domination in any realtionship.
neurologically speaking, the regions of the human cortex that are active during what we consider adult moral reasoning are not fully developed until about 2 years after the onset of puberty. this means that a child who has just begun puberty is not physically capable of adult consent, just as a child who has not begun puberty is not physically capable of sexual reproduction. our laws should reflect the fact that children up until a certain age cannot consent in the way adults can, and non-consenting individuals should not be allowed to enter into contracts (like marriage or military service), be sexually exploited, or be held legally responsible in the same way as a consenting adult.

that said, the age of majority should probably be lowered to 16 or so, since adult reasoning is as likely to be present in a 16 year old as it is in an 18 year old or a 21 year old.

Well, I was going to get all pissed off and reply, but it seems that you all have it under control here. Nice work.

yeah its really the new testement that focuses on the unavoidable sinfulness of man. the old seemed to think adults could do their best to follow they law and not need "get out of sin free cards" like imcompetent children.

Yes - the Old Testament does have more of a skew to it in that respect, but First John is New Testament - so the same basic thought exists all the way through (I mean, that there can be 'perfect', or even 'good' people).

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Obviously Jesus is the one exception. 1 John 1:8-10 actually says the same thing (what translation do you have? I'm looking at NIV) - "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." It goes on to say God will forgive our sins and purify us - not saying we will never sin. As for the others (Noah, Job, David) that are described as "perfect", well can't say I really have an explanation for that except that "perfect" would be an inaccurate word to use, plus the fact that Noah and David are also specifically said to have sinned themselves (I admit I don't know a lot about Job). I like to think that it is really just saying that those people are much more godly than most, and words like "perfect" are just for emphasis - although I don't know how valid this criticism really is because I'm not familiar with the original text (obviously not English) so some other phrase could have easily been used and translators felt like "perfect" was a good description.

See, there's a problem... as you say, "All have sinned", and yet, Jesus is assumed not to have... so we have an immediate inconsistency... add to that the First John reference that there are non-sinner, and this is one of the classic biblical contradictions.

The Hebrew word used to describe Noah as "Perfect" in his generations is "Tamiym", basically meaning 'complete; whole; entire; entirely in accord with truth' - it is usually translated as "Without Blemish" or "Perfect".

The Hebrew used to describe David's heart, is "Shalem", basically meaning 'complete; safe; peaceful; perfect; or peace (of a covenant)' - it is usually translated as "Perfect" or "Whole".

The translation I use for, preference, is the KJV... but the version I actually 'read' is the Hebrew/Greek.

Apparently you're missing the point that many adults are not mature enough either to decide when to have sex. So pubescent children are no different.

But can't she pass on her genes? Though, I do admit, that it is typically healthier to wait until the post-pubescent years to actually have any children.

I am mainly saying that pubescent children should be allowed to have sex with each other. The age of consent laws ban this as well, which I believe is just absurd. I think that a 15 year old should be allowed to copulate with a 25 year old, however, if there is mutual consent. It restricts people's rights too much and is way too authoritarian to tell them when they are mature enough to have sex, in my opinion.

I think we should give 15 year olds should have 1/8th of a vote, as per the Daily Show ;). But, seriously, some 15 year olds do carry guns. And I trust them with the guns than I do many other people. If they want to fight for their country, I say let them. You are of the vein of people that say that people are not wise enough to know how to take care of themselves, so the government has to step in and dictate civil and social rights, which is just awful in my opinion. Granted, there are some instances where I believe some governmental regulation is necessary, but not very much at all. The place where I differ here is in environmental concerns. I do not believe that many humans are educated enough to make educated and informed decisions about the environmental impact of their actions, and the repercussions of what they do does not only affect themselves, but the very fabric of the ecosystem. This is an extra-anthrpological matter to me, but that is an exception.

Pubescent children ARE different, Gnostikos... not just from a legal viewpoint... you know the SCIENTIFIC reason behind ages of consent? Not the religious claptrap, because, let's face it, that had girls barefoot and pregnant the moment they start bleeding.

The scientific reason is that the juvenile mind is actually, physically different to the mature mind. It lacks some of the connections that enable a younger person to actually understand the ramifications of their actions, and some of the inhibitors on impulse behaviour. Go look it up, seriously.

That all adds up to the fact that children really do NOT have the capacity to deal with such loaded issues as sexual intercourse.

It really perturbs me that you think an adult being 'not allowed' to have sex with a child, is an 'infringement' of your rights... wait... before we go any further... how old are you?

There's a fine line between "cradle snatching" and poedophilia.

Peodophiles would argue that if a child consents to sex then anything goes, common sense tells us that children can seldom be relied on to know what they want , or are ready for and whilst making mistakes and learning from them is all part of growing up I dont believe that sex for the under sixteens should be a mistake they want to learn from.
I suspect that those advocating the lowering of the age of consent to 15 or even younger are closet poedophiles and are to be regarded as dangerous people to be allowed anywhere near children.

As Grave_n_idle said earlier there are scientific/medical reasons for the age being set where it is, it is as low as it will be safe to be.

I agree with Amall Madnar. :)

There's a fine line between "cradle snatching" and poedophilia.

Peodophiles would argue that if a child consents to sex then anything goes, common sense tells us that children can seldom be relied on to know what they want , or are ready for and whilst making mistakes and learning from them is all part of growing up I dont believe that sex for the under sixteens should be a mistake they want to learn from.
I suspect that those advocating the lowering of the age of consent to 15 or even younger are closet poedophiles and are to be regarded as dangerous people to be allowed anywhere near children.

As Grave_n_idle said earlier there are scientific/medical reasons for the age being set where it is, it is as low as it will be safe to be.

That's the thing that disturbs me.

If someone wants to lower the age at which you can carry a gun, it is probably because that person wants someone (maybe his/herself) to be allowed to carry a gun below the current age.

It, therefore, perturbs me when people say things like, they want to lower the age of consent, so that children can 'have sex'.

Can somebody quote a specific study that provides a scientific basis for the age of maturity? I'm interested, but it certainly isn't my job to investigate your opinions. And the claims that such people are closet pedophiles infuriate me to no end. I suppose that anybody who believes the government should provide education is the mental equivalent of a troglodyte. Fine with me.

Can somebody quote a specific study that provides a scientific basis for the age of maturity? I'm interested, but it certainly isn't my job to investigate your opinions. And the claims that such people are closet pedophiles infuriate me to no end. I suppose that anybody who believes the government should provide education is the mental equivalent of a troglodyte. Fine with me.

Interesting response... why would that upset you? Do YOU want the age of Majority moved downwards?

If so, why?

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!


This is about the dumbest thing I"ve ever heard. So you are uncomfortable with something so it should be banned? Why not ban all PDA whether gay or straight? I personally find people who eat meat disgusting and would not want my kids exposed to that--ban carivorous marriage!

And guess what--kids are going to do what they want to do. Gayness isn't something you learn, its something you are. You are gay or you are not. You obviously are not. What you obviously are is silly however.

Interesting response... why would that upset you? Do YOU want the age of Majority moved downwards?

If so, why?
I give the default to using the least regulation possible. I don't know where I stand on the issue because nobody has quoted a source. That's why I asked.

It upsets me because it's a baseless attempt to undermine somebody's credibility. People should know better.

I give the default to using the least regulation possible. I don't know where I stand on the issue because nobody has quoted a source. That's why I asked.

It upsets me because it's a baseless attempt to undermine somebody's credibility. People should know better.

I am trying to locate you a reference, even as I speak... but you didn't answer my question.

Regardless of the neurological evidence... why do YOU object to the age of consent at it's current level? Why do YOU want it moved downwards?

Perhaps you don't want a lower age of consent, maybe it just reads like that... but you asking for evidence that it is damaging makes it sound like you think something is being taken away... I'm just trying to get to the root of that.

It's nothing to do with undermining credibility. I really am disturbed that Gnostikos (who seems so reasonable in other threads) is campaigning for people to be allowed to copulate with CHILDREN, in this thread... and it makes me question his motives.... or his age.

i think the first post may be true in a sense, but i think he's a liar. I doubt he overheard one of the most stereotypical child moments to a father; however, i don't think gay marriges should be banned, because that won't stop them from kissing in public (unless the make a law that gays have to be married to kiss)

I give the default to using the least regulation possible. I don't know where I stand on the issue because nobody has quoted a source. That's why I asked.

It upsets me because it's a baseless attempt to undermine somebody's credibility. People should know better.

here we go... I knew I had a link somewhere...:

"We used to think that teens respond differently to the world because of hormones, or attitude, or because they simply need independence. But when adolescents' brains are studied through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we see that they actually work differently than adult brains.

At the McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., Deborah Yurgelun-Todd and a group of researchers have studied how adolescents perceive emotion as compared to adults. The scientists looked at the brains of 18 children between the ages of 10 and 18 and compared them to 16 adults using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Both groups were shown pictures of adult faces and asked to identify the emotion on the faces. Using fMRI, the researchers could trace what part of the brain responded as subjects were asked to identify the expression depicted in the picture.

The results surprised the researchers. The adults correctly identified the expression as fear. Yet the teens answered "shocked, surprised, angry." And the teens and adults used different parts of their brains to process what they were feeling. The teens mostly used the amygdala, a small almond shaped region that guides instinctual or "gut" reactions, while the adults relied on the frontal cortex, which governs reason and planning.

As the teens got older, the center of activity shifted more toward the frontal cortex and away from the cruder response of the amygdala."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html

No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......

Univeral truth: People love one another. Build a society on that. Oh wait, that could include gays. And seriously, gays aren't the majority of the population, so the human race is in no danger.

And there are evolutionary theories that support homoesxuality in a society--particularly overpopulated societies. Gay people provide goods and support for others, help in the rearing of children, etc., without providing more mouths to feed from their own offspring. We've seen this in nearly every mammalian species studied. Obviously, too much of a good thing is bad, but in the right amounts, having homosexual members of a population around is not a detriment.

I am trying to locate you a reference, even as I speak... but you didn't answer my question.

Regardless of the neurological evidence... why do YOU object to the age of consent at it's current level? Why do YOU want it moved downwards?

Perhaps you don't want a lower age of consent, maybe it just reads like that... but you asking for evidence that it is damaging makes it sound like you think something is being taken away... I'm just trying to get to the root of that.

It's nothing to do with undermining credibility. I really am disturbed that Gnostikos (who seems so reasonable in other threads) is campaigning for people to be allowed to copulate with CHILDREN, in this thread... and it makes me question his motives.... or his age.
My stance is that the age of consent should be as low as possible without causing unnecessary harm to the individual. I don't think that I should need to explain that, but I will if you ask.

I'll take a look at that source.

The average homosexual, the run-o'-the-mill homosexual you meet on the street, in malls etc., the homosexual I've always found in conversations with them is the following: Pleading for help! Confused, and tortured over the attractions they feel even though they wish they did'nt feel them. Let me tell you something ' Most homosexuals are straighter than any straight man' Because they feel an attraction to men does not in any way diminsh they're attraction to women any more than someone who is into animals is still into the opposite sex! Homosexuality is just another 'degree' of perversion,just as bestiality and pornography! Granted they are on different levels. I'll end with this, my last conversation with a homosexual man lead him to confess to me the following(with permission):"Every time I sleep with a man, I cry afterwards..for hours from shame, because I know it's so wrong"! The answer is not to hate or discriminate but to get the facts and deal with them.

I don't know what homosexuals you've met. Let me set you straight on what WE are like.

We are normal people. Every damned one of us. We have just as much variety and difference between us as straight people do. Often we do face severe depression and self-loathing--not because of some intrinsic factor within us that makes us so, but because our society tells us we are evil and wrong. However, there are many of us that refuse to accept that.

Many, many of us feel that we are people just like everyone else and society be damned for telling us we are abominations because of something we cannot choose. Gay people are thinking, feeling, loving human beings. We deserve equality and fair treatment. Some gay people are queens, some are butch, some you would never know. Are some gay people crying for help? You bet. However, I bet you never notice those of us who aren't.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html
O.K., I'll take that to demonstrate that the age of maturity is somewhere between 10 and the age of their "adult" group. However, I'd like to see a more extensive study to identify the age where responses are indistinguishable from "adults". (I'm not suggesting that you need to provide one; it probably doesn't exist)

My stance is that the age of consent should be as low as possible without causing unnecessary harm to the individual. I don't think that I should need to explain that, but I will if you ask.

I'll take a look at that source.

On the contrary, you should have to explain that.

My argument is that children (Gnostikos' word, not mine) are incapable of making a valid decision about whether they 'want' sexual intercourse.

I believe it has enormous potential for harm, in a purely individual sense, but also in a societal sense... since our 'civilisation' frowns on teen-pregnancy, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and abortion.

Basically, the argument is that the pregnant teen girl "decided to get pregnant, because otherwise she wouldn't have sex" - and, I'm arguing that the teen brain doesn't work like that (and the evidence bears me out).

So - to my view - Gnostikos is presenting a double threat... the individual damage to immature people, and the societal damage of unwanted pregnancy.

This is one of those issues on which I think there MUST be an absolute law, and I believe it MUST err far on the side of caution.

And, yes - I remember being a teen... and how much teens want to start having sex... and, yes, I might not have followed exactly what I'm preaching right now... but, now that I am a few years older, I KNOW I made some bad decisions.

Fortunately, I'm a man (so didn't get pregnant), and a careful man (so I didn't get anyone else pregnant) - and, again fortunately, I wasn't left raddled with disease.

neurologically speaking, the regions of the human cortex that are active during what we consider adult moral reasoning are not fully developed until about 2 years after the onset of puberty. this means that a child who has just begun puberty is not physically capable of adult consent, just as a child who has not begun puberty is not physically capable of sexual reproduction. our laws should reflect the fact that children up until a certain age cannot consent in the way adults can, and non-consenting individuals should not be allowed to enter into contracts (like marriage or military service), be sexually exploited, or be held legally responsible in the same way as a consenting adult.

that said, the age of majority should probably be lowered to 16 or so, since adult reasoning is as likely to be present in a 16 year old as it is in an 18 year old or a 21 year old.
Interesting. I was pretty sure that as soon as puberty was hit, that there was still some time until it was actually capable of reproduction, but I didn't really know.

It really perturbs me that you think an adult being 'not allowed' to have sex with a child, is an 'infringement' of your rights... wait... before we go any further... how old are you?
First of all, the main part behind my argument was that 16 year olds should certainly be allowed to copulate. Not to mention the fact that I know people who do. And that a 25 year old should probably also be allowed to with them. I am 15, but do not intend on having sex for quite a while. This is in the same vein as supporting gay marriage. And I think that I was indeed being a little extreme before...what I really needed was something like Bottle gave us. I was speaking in partial ignorance... I think a better way to do it would be that it is illegal to have sex under 15, but only if charges are pressed. I know people who had sex at 14, and are perfectly fine. If someone is taken advantage of by an older person, then they should be able to press charges, however. But if underage persons or an underage person and an older person are caught copulating, they shouldn't be arrested or anything.

I give the default to using the least regulation possible. I don't know where I stand on the issue because nobody has quoted a source. That's why I asked.

It upsets me because it's a baseless attempt to undermine somebody's credibility. People should know better.

The age of consent for sex has been determined by people who *do* know better than you or I.

I wonder what age you are, or if you have any children yourself?


I have two teenage kids and a nine year old daughter so I feel qualified to an extent to have an opinion on the age of consent.
Some kids who are sixteen are more than ready (emotionally as well as physically) to have a sexual relationship whilst others of the same age are not so a safe minimum age has to be set in a civilised society.
I really would have grave doubts on the reasons for a thirty year old to want sex with a fifteen year old, teenagers are notoriously vulnerable and easily manipulated by an older person so yes, I would tend to think that said thirty year old had poedophilic leanings in his desire to have sex with a child.

My argument is that children (Gnostikos' word, not mine) are incapable of making a valid decision about whether they 'want' sexual intercourse.
I have never claimed otherwise. I merely claim that the classification of 'children' is not necessarily where it should be. I don't suggest changing it without ample evidence, nor do I claim to have such evidence, but I remain open-minded.

"No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation......."

The quote above, and the argument that started this whole thread, that children would copy the adults they see behaving in a homosexual manner, are poor arguments at best and stupid at worst.

Sure, kids, do copy what they see: that's why they play cops and robbers, re-enact scenes they see in movies, play house, etc. It's part of the learning process. So is sexual acting out. Plenty of straight guys out there reading this right now have a few homosexual experiences in their past - it doesn't mean they're homosexual. It does mean they were curious and, more than likely, horny as hell. The overwhelming majority of those same men are actively heterosexual now, and quite happy.

What gets me most about these arguments is the oxymoronic logic that says homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting, and yet so incredibly alluring that all of humanity is in danger of turning gay and ceasing the act of procreation.

I know plenty of gays and lesbians who have parented children of their own, after they came out of the closet, because the desire to reproduce is too strong for many to resist. I also know plenty of heteros who have absolutely no desire to have kids at all, and shudder when you even mention it to them.

As a social services worker who works with kids, I can also tell you that I encounter children from families everyday whose parents are selfish and abusive and should never have been allowed to breed to begin with. Their children suffer for it, and society suffers for it in the long run because those patterns of abuse often continue on to the next generation.

The advantage to homosexuality and gay parenting is that gay and lesbian people very rarely ever have kids they don't want and aren't prepared to take care of.

This whole thread would be more interesting and thought provoking if it weren't prompted by simple bigotry disguised as religious or social concern.

Some kids who are sixteen are more than ready (emotionally as well as physically) to have a sexual relationship whilst others of the same age are not so a safe minimum age has to be set in a civilised society.
I agree. It's just that it seems oppressive for those who are ready at that age. Does anyone here really believe that the age of consent prevents willing adolescents from copulating? I do believe that there should be a limit on what older people can sexually do with minors, but it also applies to people of hte same age. But, then again, the same argument could be had that some people are mature enough to handle weapons at a certain age and others are not...

i dont think guys are that bad

sure they can be immature and all but give them time and they'll grow up to be men

you can't hold it against a guy that he is a bit of an asshole now and then just because he is young

an object lesson maybe but hardly a negative influence.

The age of consent for sex has been determined by people who *do* know better than you or I.
Sometimes I believe that. Sometimes I don't. After all, they're trying to ban gay marriage, and they started a war.

I wonder what age you are, or if you have any children yourself?
I'm 23. I do NOT have children.

I would tend to think that said thirty year old had poedophilic leanings in his desire to have sex with a child.
Did he actually say he wanted to have sex with a fifteen year-old? (I really don't know; I never read his post) That, I believe, would be significant cause for concern. Claiming that the age of consent is unjust is not. It may be ill-advised, depending on the facts, but it's not cause for suspicion of pedophilia. After all, somebody needs to stand up for young people, since they can't possibly have a voice in their government.

*rolls out standard boilerplate*

-The ability to have children is not a major, or even minor, indicator of human worth. Or are people who are infertle(due to age or otherwise) worthless too?
-How can homosexuality be "unnatural"(not happening in nature) if it has been shown to happen in nature?
-Just because YOUR religion says it's wrong doesn't make your view right. The Church said that interracial marriage was wrong for quite a while, too. does that make it right to disallow interracial marriage?
-There is NO sanctity left in marriage. "Who wants to marry a..." shows. Divorce. Abusive relationships. People being dissallowed from getting married.*COUGHCOUGH* Get those sorted out FIRST, THEN you can claim there is sanctity in marriage.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.
So?

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?
"Those men love each other, like Mommy and Daddy do. People who love each other kiss."

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Homosexuality isn't contagious.

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
Good. Then there will be more open-minded people, who will then outnumber bigots like you and make said bigots shut up or be shunned.

I agree. It's just that it seems oppressive for those who are ready at that age. Does anyone here really believe that the age of consent prevents willing adolescents from copulating? I do believe that there should be a limit on what older people can sexually do with minors, but it also applies to people of hte same age. But, then again, the same argument could be had that some people are mature enough to handle weapons at a certain age and others are not...

Read my earlier post... I remember being 15, and the hormonal hell it was. I remember being 18 and still being in hormonal hell, and STILL lacking proper perspective, and good judgement.

I don't believe that ANY child understands what sex entails, not really.

Even at 15. Yes, 15 year olds WANT sex... that doesn't mean they have the faculties to DEAL with the issues AROUND sex.

*rolls out standard boilerplate*

-The ability to have children is not a major, or even minor, indicator of human worth. Or are people who are infertle(due to age or otherwise) worthless too?
-How can homosexuality be "unnatural"(not happening in nature) if it has been shown to happen in nature?
-Just because YOUR religion says it's wrong doesn't make your view right. The Church said that interracial marriage was wrong for quite a while, too. does that make it right to disallow interracial marriage?
-There is NO sanctity left in marriage. "Who wants to marry a..." shows. Divorce. Abusive relationships. People being dissallowed from getting married.*COUGHCOUGH* Get those sorted out FIRST, THEN you can claim there is sanctity in marriage.


So?


"Those men love each other, like Mommy and Daddy do. People who love each other kiss."


Sorry, doesn't work that way. Homosexuality isn't contagious.


Good. Then there will be more open-minded people, who will then outnumber bigots like you and make said bigots shut up or be shunned.

I love your sig

We are normal people. Every damned one of us. ...I bet you never notice those of us who aren't.

I agree with you, but cut out the self-damnation if you wan't the zealots to resist the urge themselves. ;)

I am not gay, but I have a few friends whom over the years have come out. I also happen to live in MA, which is pretty far to the left on these issues. I have nothing against gays, but personally I would prefer not to have to explain any (hetero or homo) displays of public affection to my children. Afaic PUBLIC is the key word in this discussion. Holding hands in innocuous; kissing is first base. I firmly believe in the right of choice in any matter of civil liberties, but I do not want to have to explain these issues to my children until they are a bit older. If a child still believes in Santa, then they are not old enough to have to know the details and conundrums of sex and drugs or any other issues that they will confront in due time.

This thread also seemed quite skewed in its percentages of gay voices. Most studies have put the percentage of gays as high as 10% of the population, but if one were to read this forum; one would have to think that only 10% were hetero. I am not bothered by the gay people I know (or don't know), but I am bothered by all the gay rhetoric and homosexual bandstanding crammed into my family's view. My wife and I don't run around shouting hooray we're hetero (nor do any other heteros we know), but for whatever reason many gays today feel the need to shove their sexuality in our (and my kid's) faces. Reading this thread just seems to prove that point once again.

Gay pride is a great thing, but how about some gay modesty in appropriate situations as well?

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Oh, for Christ's sake, you don't raise your kids in a box!! If not there, they would see it somewhere else. You cannot "protect" your kids from life! And what, exactly, do you feel they need "protection" from?? You are such a hateful little bigot. I bet you let your kids watch HOURS of TV where two men try to KILL one another and don't blink an eye...but two men LOVING one another, and you go off the deep end!! Why the fuck don't you go live in Iran or somewhere like that if you want a fucking theocracy?

I have never claimed otherwise. I merely claim that the classification of 'children' is not necessarily where it should be. I don't suggest changing it without ample evidence, nor do I claim to have such evidence, but I remain open-minded.

Here is another 'evidence', this time from the Senate Commission for the Judiciary Committee; re: Juvenile Death Penalty:

"From a clinical developmental standpoint, our objection is rooted in the fact adolescent brains function in fundamentally different ways than the brains of adults. This fact is frequently recognized in law when minimum ages for the exercise of certain rights, responsibilities, and independent judgments are established. Examples often cited include the right to vote, drive, sit on a jury, purchase alcohol, marry, make independent medical decisions, or enter military service. Adolescence is a turbulent time of life when young people are growing rapidly and maturing on multiple levels, which are not always well-synchronized. For example, we have observed 14-year-old boys suddenly growing to over 6 feet tall. They may tower over their parents, however, their ability to reason or make logical decisions is far from developed. Another example is the 15‑year‑old girl who is physically mature, but has the emotional reactions and impulse control of a much younger child. There are bright and usually responsible 16- and 17-year-old adolescents who will not think twice about getting into a car with a friend who has been drinking.

I will explain what is happening from a neurodevelopmental perspective, which means what physically goes on inside the brain of a 15-, 16-, or 17-year-old. Research studies indicate adolescence is a very active time of growth and development at the physical level of the brain. This is new information since I was in medical school. I was taught the brain was more or less finished developing by the time a person reached 3 or 4 years old. Currently, the understanding is there is rapid increase of interconnections between the brain cells throughout adolescence. There is also growth of the gray matter of the brain, followed by refinement of the connections and pathways, which is the pruning, or cutting back, of these brain connections."

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/72nd/Minutes/Senate/JUD/Final/2767.html

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/72nd/Minutes/Senate/JUD/Final/2767.html
Point taken.

My wife and I don't run around shouting hooray we're hetero (nor do any other heteros we know),
(snip)

You're right...you don't...because you don't HAVE to!! Popular culture does it for you!! Hetero is celebrated and displayed EVERYWHERE...pop music, movies, TV shows, reality TV...you name it...it is all a blatant display of hetero-ism...everywhere you go, there is no escaping it....and it is portayed as a positive and healthy thing.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is often portrayed negatively, and with hurtful stereotypes in our pop culture.

You probably have a picture of your wife on your desk at work, and no fear anyone will think less of you, or that you will lose you job, for having that picture there. you can, without fear...discuss what you an your wife did over the weekend.

The gay co-worker you have cannot do these things. He cannot have a picture of his lover on his desk without fear of being looked upon negatively, or even losing his job. He cannot discuss what he and his boyfriend did over the weekend, even something as innocuous as going for a drive to see the fall foliage up in New England. He can't say, "My boyfriend and I went for a nice country drive on Sunday," without people raising their hands in horror.

Think about THAT before you make your putrid, vile, mean-spirited statements!!

You have no idea what it is to BE GLBT in this country, and let me tell you, no one in their right MIND would CHOOSE this! Not with the culture we have here.

So take your bigotry and hit the road, Jack!

Even at 15. Yes, 15 year olds WANT sex... that doesn't mean they have the faculties to DEAL with the issues AROUND sex.
Then how come there are people that do? I personally know some. There are some that can not, certainly, but there most certainly some that are. This is probably helped along immensly by proper sex education. Do you believe that the age of consent should also apply to two 15 year old?

(snip)

You're right...you don't...because you don't HAVE to!! Popular culture does it for you!! Hetero is celebrated and displayed EVERYWHERE...pop music, movies, TV shows, reality TV...you name it...it is all a blatant display of hetero-ism...everywhere you go, there is no escaping it....and it is portayed as a positive and healthy thing.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is often portrayed negatively, and with hurtful stereotypes in our pop culture.

You probably have a picture of your wife on your desk at work, and no fear anyone will think less of you, or that you will lose you job, for having that picture there. you can, without fear...discuss what you an your wife did over the weekend.

The gay co-worker you have cannot do these things. He cannot have a picture of his lover on his desk without fear of being looked upon negatively, or even losing his job. He cannot discuss what he and his boyfriend did over the weekend, even something as innocuous as going for a drive to see the fall foliage up in New England. He can't say, "My boyfriend and I went for a nice country drive on Sunday," without people raising their hands in horror.

Think about THAT before you make your putrid, vile, mean-spirited statements!!

You have no idea what it is to BE GLBT in this country, and let me tell you, no one in their right MIND would CHOOSE this! Not with the culture we have here.

So take your bigotry and hit the road, Jack!

Whoah..calm down, fruitcake, were on your side here. All He's saying is that he doesnt beleive you should flaunt your homosexuality like it was the biggest (or only) part of your personality ( which is done a lot where I live, I fear). I personally disagree with him, but he's still on our side, man, you should try and calm down

Then how come there are people that do? I personally know some. There are some that can not, certainly, but there most certainly some that are. This is probably helped along immensly by proper sex education. Do you believe that the age of consent should also apply to two 15 year old?

You are subjective... just because you think someone is capable of consent, doesn't mean that person IS capable of consent.

Neurology argues that a 15 year old doesn't have all the required mechanisms to truly make objective, balanced decisions - thus, a 15 year old... no matter how mature they seem... cannot express a VALID consent.

I am in favour of sex education, and absolutely against Saint Bush's Crusade of Abstinence, but I am also able to look at the OBJECTIVE situation (now that I am older) and analyse with a balance I lacked at 15.

I believe nobody should be 'legally' allowed to have sex at 15. I have my doubts about 17 year olds being able to make 'rational' decisions, due to the neurological evidence.

I realise that kids will continue experimenting with other kids... it's part of human nature... but I don't think there should be any form of recognition or approval for it... and I certainly don't want a situation where middle-aged men can predate progressively younger girls.

I believe nobody should be 'legally' allowed to have sex at 15. I have my doubts about 17 year olds being able to make 'rational' decisions, due to the neurological evidence.
But it has been states that it takes about 2 years after puberty hits for a human to be able to make the decisions in this area that they will have for the rest of their lives. Granted, the hormonal surges may influence this, but if you take away that endocrinological part, neurologically speaking, they actually can, apparently.

But it has been states that it takes about 2 years after puberty hits for a human to be able to make the decisions in this area that they will have for the rest of their lives. Granted, the hormonal surges may influence this, but if you take away that endocrinological part, neurologically speaking, they actually can, apparently.

I question your definitions here... maybe that is the problem.

You realise puberty seems to be hitting the average American citizen at about 11-12 years of age, yes?

You would argue, therefore, that a 13 year old seriously has the capacity to rationalise the ramifications of intercourse?

I also question what you mean by "make the decisions in this area that they will have for the rest of their lives"... since, at 25, I was making very different decisions about sex to the ones I made at 20, and the same is true between 20 and 15.

Is it just me, or has this thread kind of gotten sidetracked?

I question your definitions here... maybe that is the problem.

You realise puberty seems to be hitting the average American citizen at about 11-12 years of age, yes?

You would argue, therefore, that a 13 year old seriously has the capacity to rationalise the ramifications of intercourse?
If they are properly educated and not manipulated, then yes. I believe they should have the right to decide for themselves when to have sex.

I also question what you mean by "make the decisions in this area that they will have for the rest of their lives"... since, at 25, I was making very different decisions about sex to the ones I made at 20, and the same is true between 20 and 15.
Yes, but that is probably mostly endocrinological, not neurological, as I said earlier

If they are properly educated and not manipulated, then yes. I believe they should have the right to decide for themselves when to have sex.

Yes, but that is probably mostly endocrinological, not neurological, as I said earlier

I am afraid that your post makes me think you are a danger to children.

I'm sorry to have to say that, but if you cannot see logical and good reasons why you shouldn't have sex with a thirteen year old child - despite the evidence that suggests you would be doing harm, the law, and some kind of decency towards children - then I think you have issues you need to address.

part of the fundamental problem is that school is only part of your education... a child cannot really be properly 'educated' about sex at such a young age - thus ANY attempt to encounter such a child sexually would be manipulation.

What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?


you're no better than the douche bag who posted that first article. in fact, maybe you're a BIGGER idiot.

what part of "people like you make me ashamed to be american" do YOU not understand?

and americans wonder why much of the rest of the world thinks we're assholes.

What gets me most about these arguments is the oxymoronic logic that says homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting, and yet so incredibly alluring that all of humanity is in danger of turning gay and ceasing the act of procreation.


I always found this funny as well. The most bigoted and homophobic persons who advocate banning homosexuality outright are kind of saying: "It's evil, unnatural and an abomination, but it sounds so much fun that if we don't make it disappear or at least pretend it doesn't exist, all our kids will want to try it."

:D Homphobes are funny. In a sad, pathetic way.

I am afraid that your post makes me think you are a danger to children.
As I said earlier, I have never had sex and have no intent to do so for quite a while. Completely discarding the fact that I am, legally speaking, a child myself, a.k.a. a minor.

I'm sorry to have to say that, but if you cannot see logical and good reasons why you shouldn't have sex with a thirteen year old child - despite the evidence that suggests you would be doing harm, the law, and some kind of decency towards children - then I think you have issues you need to address.

part of the fundamental problem is that school is only part of your education... a child cannot really be properly 'educated' about sex at such a young age - thus ANY attempt to encounter such a child sexually would be manipulation.
Ok, I can see that. I can see the rationale behind that arguement, and you have convinced me. I hadn't actually thought about it much before this thread, it never seemed like an issue that needed much thought. But I still uphold that it should be legal for two minors to copulate. Again, I am a minor and have no sexual intent for quite a while, so this is not out of personal interest. I simply believe that it is a silly law because it's not going to stop minors from having sex at all.

Did you know that there are still laws about unmarried people having sex in some states? These so-called 'fornication laws' are far sillier than age-of-consent laws.

Did you know that there are still laws about unmarried people having sex in some states? These so-called 'fornication laws' are far sillier than age-of-consent laws.
Hell, oral sex is illegal in some places. My state included. Some laws require the missionary position. It's ridiculous, but those laws aren't really enforced. I'd call them vestigial. But, yes, I wholly agree that fornication laws are far, far sillier than age of consent laws.

*snip* but I am bothered by all the gay rhetoric and homosexual bandstanding crammed into my family's view. My wife and I don't run around shouting hooray we're hetero (nor do any other heteros we know), but for whatever reason many gays today feel the need to shove their sexuality in our (and my kid's) faces. Reading this thread just seems to prove that point once again.

Gay pride is a great thing, but how about some gay modesty in appropriate situations as well?

I'm sorry, but it's a question of self-esteem. WHy should we have to have some modesty and not stand up to bigoted and homophobic statements? I'm gay, and I,ve never shouted my sexual orientation on the street, nor shoved it in anyone's face. But I WILL stand up against homophobia. Just like I WILL stand up to racism, sexism, and any other form of discrimination (I once had a bus stopped to wait for the police because some moron in the back was spouting racist hatred at two black persons who didn't know whether to stand up for themselves or ignore him).

But modesty doesn't mean not holding hands because there are kids around. Personally, I stated this a few pages back: I don't condone double standards. Anything I would feel comfortable doing with a girl in public, I'll feel comfortable doing with a boy. Anything I would NOT do in public with a girl, I won't do with a boy. But I certainly won't spend my day worrying who might see me with my boyfriend at the mall because someone MIGHT be offended. Gays have had to hide and feel ashamed for centuries, you know. We're not kissing or holding hands to provoke poeple around us: we're doing it because we're in love and it's perfectly normal to have small gestures of affection for someone you love.

As for the number of gay voices on this thread... Certainly you'd realize that this sort of thread is bound to provoke a lot of reactions from the gay NS players.

As I said earlier, I have never had sex and have no intent to do so for quite a while. Completely discarding the fact that I am, legally speaking, a child myself, a.k.a. a minor.


Ok, I can see that. I can see the rationale behind that arguement, and you have convinced me. I hadn't actually thought about it much before this thread, it never seemed like an issue that needed much thought. But I still uphold that it should be legal for two minors to copulate. Again, I am a minor and have no sexual intent for quite a while, so this is not out of personal interest. I simply believe that it is a silly law because it's not going to stop minors from having sex at all.

Okay - we have a breakthrough...

I have a lot of respect for your posts on other threads... and that is part of the reason this is so troubling to me.

The thing is... we KNOW it won't stop kids from 'experimenting'. We also KNOW it won't actually stop scary old men jumping out on young teen girls in the park.

What it DOES do, is provide a framework... and set a boundary. Anything OUTSIDE that boundary is unlawful (which doesn't necessarily mean that a person would automatically be in 'big trouble' for doing it) and that framework gives a solid guideline to work with.

I am constantly sent back to a vision of Judge Pickles (in the UK, about a decade ago) acquiting a man of crimes against his four year old daughter, because, as the judge said "she was no angel"...

I'm willing to sacrifice a little liberty to prevent THAT kind of perversion of law and rationality.

Hell, oral sex is illegal in some places. My state included. Some laws require the missionary position. It's ridiculous, but those laws aren't really enforced. I'd call them vestigial. But, yes, I wholly agree that fornication laws are far, far sillier than age of consent laws.

Georgia is another state where oral sex is illegal.

I'm sorry, but it's a question of self-esteem. WHy should we have to have some modesty and not stand up to bigoted and homophobic statements? I'm gay, and I,ve never shouted my sexual orientation on the street, nor shoved it in anyone's face. But I WILL stand up against homophobia. Just like I WILL stand up to racism, sexism, and any other form of discrimination (I once had a bus stopped to wait for the police because some moron in the back was spouting racist hatred at two black persons who didn't know whether to stand up for themselves or ignore him).

But modesty doesn't mean not holding hands because there are kids around. Personally, I stated this a few pages back: I don't condone double standards. Anything I would feel comfortable doing with a girl in public, I'll feel comfortable doing with a boy. Anything I would NOT do in public with a girl, I won't do with a boy. But I certainly won't spend my day worrying who might see me with my boyfriend at the mall because someone MIGHT be offended. Gays have had to hide and feel ashamed for centuries, you know. We're not kissing or holding hands to provoke poeple around us: we're doing it because we're in love and it's perfectly normal to have small gestures of affection for someone you love.

As for the number of gay voices on this thread... Certainly you'd realize that this sort of thread is bound to provoke a lot of reactions from the gay NS players.

On the flip side, two lesbians decided to start making out right in front of a friend and me in an elevator a few weeks ago, after muttering something about 'freaking [us] out'. It didn't phase me one bit. Both of them were quite attractive, and appeared to be very much enamored with each other. Still, this behavior is a bit juvenile.

I think i can sum up the collectiveness of these homophobic bigots who think homosexuality is some sort of contagious disease:

"Ahhh noooo ah saw 2 men kssin in da mall and ah fink i is gai plz hlp me jrry sprnger"

As a gay man, these people just make me laugh. Ive known similar types who think they can catch aids by sitting on the toilet of a gay bar. Goodness me, they call it Sexually transmitted diease, not Bogseat transmitted disease. Homophobia is caused by ignorance. Get out of your sheltered lives and realise other people exist.

As for that episode described by the topic starter, the moral of that story is clear. Children are the most understanding people about. They ask questions, thats what children do. Get over it. If you feel uncomfortable about talking honestly to your children then thats because of bigoted problems that YOU bring to the table, and nobody else.

Its sickening that so many people feel they can put themselves higher than other people for no other reason than their personal fear.

Okay - we have a breakthrough...

I have a lot of respect for your posts on other threads... and that is part of the reason this is so troubling to me.

The thing is... we KNOW it won't stop kids from 'experimenting'. We also KNOW it won't actually stop scary old men jumping out on young teen girls in the park.

What it DOES do, is provide a framework... and set a boundary. Anything OUTSIDE that boundary is unlawful (which doesn't necessarily mean that a person would automatically be in 'big trouble' for doing it) and that framework gives a solid guideline to work with.

I am constantly sent back to a vision of Judge Pickles (in the UK, about a decade ago) acquiting a man of crimes against his four year old daughter, because, as the judge said "she was no angel"...

I'm willing to sacrifice a little liberty to prevent THAT kind of perversion of law and rationality.

Okay, guys, in an attempt to settle the argument:

In Canada(more specifically Québec), the age of consent between minors is 14. Which means, if you're under 18, but 14 or over, and having sex another teenager of that age group, you cannot be prosecuted. Which is good, because we all know it happens. And while we may(should?) do our best to discourage it, it's just pointless to prosecute a 15 or 16 years old boy or girl for having sex with his/her girl/boyfriend.

For sex between minors and adults, it's illegal unless there is a 5 years or less difference between the partners. Which means a 30 years old cannot go around predating on 15 year old girls, but that the law has enough common sense NOT to criminalize sexual intercourse between two teenagers with an age difference of a few years the moment one of them hits his eighteenth birthday.

While those laws might not be perfect, I'm generally satisfied with the soundness of them. Now as was said before, that whole thing has sidetracked the thread quite badly, so maybe we should move on to something else?

The thing is... we KNOW it won't stop kids from 'experimenting'. We also KNOW it won't actually stop scary old men jumping out on young teen girls in the park.

What it DOES do, is provide a framework... and set a boundary. Anything OUTSIDE that boundary is unlawful (which doesn't necessarily mean that a person would automatically be in 'big trouble' for doing it) and that framework gives a solid guideline to work with.

I am constantly sent back to a vision of Judge Pickles (in the UK, about a decade ago) acquiting a man of crimes against his four year old daughter, because, as the judge said "she was no angel"...

I'm willing to sacrifice a little liberty to prevent THAT kind of perversion of law and rationality.
Ahh, I see. I had somehow missed that from your earlier posts. If I see this correctly, then it is that the law should be used as a safeguard against abusive acts. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

On the flip side, two lesbians decided to start making out right in front of a friend and me in an elevator a few weeks ago, after muttering something about 'freaking [us] out'. It didn't phase me one bit. Both of them were quite attractive, and appeared to be very much enamored with each other. Still, this behavior is a bit juvenile.

Indeed, it is juvenile. Ant it falls in the category I would deem inappropriate, because that's something I'd find inappropriate if it was a boy and a girl doing the making out.

Just because we're gay doesn't mean we should give ourselves more latitude than heteros: that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm fighting against is the notion that we should have LESS latitude than heteros just because some poeple might be offended by it, uncomfortable explaining it or find it icky. Like I said, same standards for everyone, and no special treatments.

Ahh, I see. I had somehow missed that from your earlier posts. If I see this correctly, then it is that the law should be used as a safeguard against abusive acts. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Exactly... I think that is in there somewhere...

I would prefer a world where minors were not having sex. That is my preference. I base it on science, and on finding it horrible that there is a recognised 'market' for men to prey on young girls (someone, give me another reason why Britney's "Hit me Baby" (or whatever...) got such airplay...).

It is not entirely realistic - people ARE having sex.

I'd just like to protect the innocent, and limit the abuses.

Indeed, it is juvenile. Ant it falls in the category I would deem inappropriate, because that's something I'd find inappropriate if it was a boy and a girl doing the making out.

Just because we're gay doesn't mean we should give ourselves more latitude than heteros: that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm fighting against is the notion that we should have LESS latitude than heteros just because some poeple might be offended by it, uncomfortable explaining it or find it icky. Like I said, same standards for everyone, and no special treatments.

Although some elements of the Gay community have got SO SICK of being preached against, so sick of being marginalised, and deprived of equalities, that they are taking a more 'confrontational' posture.

It's kind of the opposite of a 'militant' action... because it is love not war, but the aim is to put reality in people's faces... to say "Look, we really are here, we really are people, and we really are gay... now get over it".

For that, I applaude it.

But, as I said earlier... if it would require an R-Rating, get a room.

Anyone who uses the Bible to try and say that homosexuality is wrong forgets that this "God" has not shown up in 2,000 years, and that the Bible was also used to justify slavery and to keep women from voting. :eek:

Although some elements of the Gay community have got SO SICK of being preached against, so sick of being marginalised, and deprived of equalities, that they are taking a more 'confrontational' posture.

It's kind of the opposite of a 'militant' action... because it is love not war, but the aim is to put reality in people's faces... to say "Look, we really are here, we really are people, and we really are gay... now get over it".

For that, I applaude it.

But, as I said earlier... if it would require an R-Rating, get a room.

True. But I find it much more effective if done with enough tact: it gives our opposition less ammo to fire at us. I personally will never make out in public, although I may, as you have stated, take a more confrontational posture if faced by homophobia. I just think it can be just as easily achived with hugs and pecks on the lips and holding hands.

True. But I find it much more effective if done with enough tact: it gives our opposition less ammo to fire at us. I personally will never make out in public, although I may, as you have stated, take a more confrontational posture if faced by homophobia. I just think it can be just as easily achived with hugs and pecks on the lips and holding hands.

Oh, I agree - there is a place for tact. The gay couple in the first story are not described as being ALL THAT personal with one another - and yet, still, some uptight individuals get all bent out of shape over it.

The two girls 'making out' may have been making no kind of political statement... maybe they just COULDN'T keep their hands of each other... although the comment said that they mentioned 'freaking people out', so maybe they were being defensive against perceived heterosexual advances...

Ultimately, for me - homosexual public conduct should follow the same rules as heterosexual conduct should... basically... nothing should get out of the items of clothing designed to hold it...

Ultimately, for me - homosexual public conduct should follow the same rules as heterosexual conduct should... basically... nothing should get out of the items of clothing designed to hold it...
Pockets?

Pockets?

Uh... er... you saw the deliberate fatal flaw in my comment... uh... huh huh...

oops.

I think you know what I mean, though... :)

" I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?" "

Because "daddy" was gay also?

Ba-dum ching.

Uh... er... you saw the deliberate fatal flaw in my comment... uh... huh huh...

oops.

I think you know what I mean, though... :)
Maybe I do. Maybe I don't.

It is fun to imagine people trying to do everything with their hands in their pockets, though. Driving.... Shopping.... Signing checks.... Ah, good times.

Okay, guys, in an attempt to settle the argument:

In Canada(more specifically Québec), the age of consent between minors is 14. Which means, if you're under 18, but 14 or over, and having sex another teenager of that age group, you cannot be prosecuted. Which is good, because we all know it happens. And while we may(should?) do our best to discourage it, it's just pointless to prosecute a 15 or 16 years old boy or girl for having sex with his/her girl/boyfriend.

For sex between minors and adults, it's illegal unless there is a 5 years or less difference between the partners. Which means a 30 years old cannot go around predating on 15 year old girls, but that the law has enough common sense NOT to criminalize sexual intercourse between two teenagers with an age difference of a few years the moment one of them hits his eighteenth birthday.

While those laws might not be perfect, I'm generally satisfied with the soundness of them. Now as was said before, that whole thing has sidetracked the thread quite badly, so maybe we should move on to something else?

A sensible solution, though I'd prefer to see the five-year difference reduced to four.

A sensible solution, though I'd prefer to see the five-year difference reduced to four.

Why would that extra year make any significant difference?

Maybe I do. Maybe I don't.

It is fun to imagine people trying to do everything with their hands in their pockets, though. Driving.... Shopping.... Signing checks.... Ah, good times.

I'd take advantage of their defenselessness and wrap everybody I could find in bubble wrap. And, of course, I'd do it with my hands in my pockets for the fun of it. Imagine that!

Maybe I do. Maybe I don't.

It is fun to imagine people trying to do everything with their hands in their pockets, though. Driving.... Shopping.... Signing checks.... Ah, good times.

Traffic cops, signalling drivers at busy intersections, then getting arrested for acts of public indecency...

I like the way you think...

:)

Hello, nobody is on topic here, what are we all talking about, hello, remember these men? :fluffle: this is what we were debating, but since no idiot is here to try and hate them for no good reason, we have nothing, and I would like to debate this original idiot but he got owned on the first reply and left.... sad, but.... :rolleyes: silly

*wraps Sotha Syl in bubble wrap*

the father would say, when two PEOPLE love each other very much, they hold hands and kiss.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

You really are silly, you know that?

If a man and a woman can kiss each other in front of children, so can a gay couple. Would you have been complaining if it was a man and a woman? I doubt it.

Oooh! Bubble wrap!
:D

*starts popping bubbles*
Ha. Bubble wrap is the ultimate way to put a stop to productivity in any environment. Unfortunately, if I brought it to work, they would know it was me.

(snip)Hetero is celebrated and displayed EVERYWHERE...pop music, movies, TV shows, reality TV...you name it...it is all a blatant display of hetero-ism...everywhere you go, there is no escaping it....and it is portayed as a positive and healthy thing.

Maybe because it is biologically (gamogenesis), historically, socially, and religiously, et cetera NORMAL. I don't dispute homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature besides the species homo sapiens, but it is not the norm. By the way, heterosexuality is positive (without us *breeders*-- as one of my gay friends like to label us-- you would not exist) and is in fact quite healthy (statistics show that monogamous couples have better health on average than singles).

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is often portrayed negatively, and with hurtful stereotypes in our pop culture.

You probably have a picture of your wife on your desk at work, and no fear anyone will think less of you, or that you will lose you job, for having that picture there. you can, without fear...discuss what you an your wife did over the weekend.

The gay co-worker you have cannot do these things. He cannot have a picture of his lover on his desk without fear of being looked upon negatively, or even losing his job. He cannot discuss what he and his boyfriend did over the weekend, even something as innocuous as going for a drive to see the fall foliage up in New England. He can't say, "My boyfriend and I went for a nice country drive on Sunday," without people raising their hands in horror.

I guess I don't see the negative stereotypes you mention. Sure some TV shows love to poke fun, but those that have gay characters also poke fun at hetero follies as well. There are plenty of examples of successful gays in the media nowadays as well. Perhaps your statement was true in the past century, but I certainly think things have changed. I would rather explain a gay pride T-shirt to my youngsters, than why two men (or a man and a woman) are swapping spit. The timing and place are inappropriate.

I might kiss in public if I were watching a romantic sunset, or movie or some place that warranted it. Standing beside a line of kids waiting to see Santa is not the place for people of any persuasion to be performing sexual acts, which whether you want to admit it or not, kissing is. Regarding the picture on the desk thing, it's a matter of where you work. I work for a very progressive company (Borders) and this thing is not uncommon at all.


Think about THAT before you make your putrid, vile, mean-spirited statements!!

You have no idea what it is to BE GLBT in this country, and let me tell you, no one in their right MIND would CHOOSE this! Not with the culture we have here.

So take your bigotry and hit the road, Jack!

Reread my posts. Nothing there was putrid, vile, or mean-spirited; nor was anything I said biggoted in any sense of the word. I offered my point of view to the subject of public sex acts and a child's question as presented by the thread originator. You may call me a prude, but I am hardly a biggot. You, by your post, show that you are the same type of narrow-minded biggot (albeit heterophobic rather than homophobic) that you rail against. Before you can expect openess from others, you must be willing to be open to others yourself. Nothing I said was a personal attack; yet you seemed to take it as such and now attack me. Please grow up.

the father would say, when two PEOPLE love each other very much, they hold hands and kiss.

Well, here is the problem with that. Straight people do not see homosexuality as being about being in love. They see it as about sex. For some reason they cannot comprehend, no matter how often they are told, that being gay doesn't just mean that you like to boink members of the same sex--it means that you find your emotional fulfillment, your completeness, love, happiness, joy, and your soulmate in a member of the same sex.

I think this is the biggest problem--many people cannot seem to get passed the physican relationship into the core of what it really is about.

Love.

Well, here is the problem with that. Straight people do not see homosexuality as being about being in love. They see it as about sex. For some reason they cannot comprehend, no matter how often they are told, that being gay doesn't just mean that you like to boink members of the same sex--it means that you find your emotional fulfillment, your completeness, love, happiness, joy, and your soulmate in a member of the same sex.

I think this is the biggest problem--many people cannot seem to get passed the physican relationship into the core of what it really is about.

Love.

It's not straight people who have that problem. It's homophobic people. Get it right.

It's not straight people who have that problem. It's homophobic people. Get it right.

You are right. Forgive my poor wording.

I'd like to make this comment even though I've only had the time to read page 1.

About homosexuality being an issue with "breeders breeding" has anyone noticed our surplus population? I'd say that it wouldn't hurt our population if someone decided they didn't like the opposite gender in a sexual way as they like their own, it might actually help.

Well, here is the problem with that. Straight people do not see homosexuality as being about being in love. They see it as about sex. For some reason they cannot comprehend, no matter how often they are told, that being gay doesn't just mean that you like to boink members of the same sex--it means that you find your emotional fulfillment, your completeness, love, happiness, joy, and your soulmate in a member of the same sex.

I think this is the biggest problem--many people cannot seem to get passed the physican relationship into the core of what it really is about.

Love.

See, this is where my pet theory comes into play. Most straight people have never experienced love - I'll explain why in a minute - and so, for them, homosexuality AND heterosexuality ARE all about the sex.

Okay - why do I say that people have never experienced love... especially straight people?

It is too easy.

See - being gay isn't an 'easy' option - every relationship is going to be difficult, because there is a stigma attached... the same is true for inter-racial relationships.

Being in a straight relationship, however, is not only smiled upon, but pretty much encouraged by our society - as a consequence of which, the average jo/joanna dates several, maybe dozens, maybe hundreds of people.

So - when you see someone who has really sacrificed (like giving up a good job, family, friends, etc - to move to a foreign country) you are looking at someone who knows the MEANING of love.

Unfortunately, for many people... it starts getting a bit tricky, they move on.

I say that ain't love... that's just about the sex.

Maybe because it is biologically (gamogenesis), historically, socially, and religiously, et cetera NORMAL. I don't dispute homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature besides the species homo sapiens, but it is not the norm. By the way, heterosexuality is positive (without us *breeders*-- as one of my gay friends like to label us-- you would not exist) and is in fact quite healthy (statistics show that monogamous couples have better health on average than singles).



What kind of logic do you callt that? without heterosexuals, gays would die out?

You do realise, of course, that homosexuals CAN actually reproduce with the opposite gender, yes?

Just as you could have sex with your own gender... you might not want to (although you do protest in a very loud voice, so who knows) - but you could... well, a homosexual might not want to have sex with the opposite gender, but they COULD.

By the way, you are right about one thing monogamy has positive health effects. What you missed of course, is that 'gay' monogamy has the same health effects as 'straight' monogamy.

Maybe because it is biologically (gamogenesis), historically, socially, and religiously, et cetera NORMAL. I don't dispute homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature besides the species homo sapiens, but it is not the norm. By the way, heterosexuality is positive (without us *breeders*-- as one of my gay friends like to label us-- you would not exist) and is in fact quite healthy (statistics show that monogamous couples have better health on average than singles).



I guess I don't see the negative stereotypes you mention. Sure some TV shows love to poke fun, but those that have gay characters also poke fun at hetero follies as well. There are plenty of examples of successful gays in the media nowadays as well. Perhaps your statement was true in the past century, but I certainly think things have changed. I would rather explain a gay pride T-shirt to my youngsters, than why two men (or a man and a woman) are swapping spit. The timing and place are inappropriate.

I might kiss in public if I were watching a romantic sunset, or movie or some place that warranted it. Standing beside a line of kids waiting to see Santa is not the place for people of any persuasion to be performing sexual acts, which whether you want to admit it or not, kissing is. Regarding the picture on the desk thing, it's a matter of where you work. I work for a very progressive company (Borders) and this thing is not uncommon at all.



Reread my posts. Nothing there was putrid, vile, or mean-spirited; nor was anything I said biggoted in any sense of the word. I offered my point of view to the subject of public sex acts and a child's question as presented by the thread originator. You may call me a prude, but I am hardly a biggot. You, by your post, show that you are the same type of narrow-minded biggot (albeit heterophobic rather than homophobic) that you rail against. Before you can expect openess from others, you must be willing to be open to others yourself. Nothing I said was a personal attack; yet you seemed to take it as such and now attack me. Please grow up.

I'll take these one point at a time.

First, YOU are the one who made such a God-awful stink about it to post here, and I doubt you would have had it been a hetero couple doing the same thing. Your original words belie what you say now. You truly, in my opinion, are homophobic. And I react violently to homophobia. I'm sick and fucking tired of just "putting up with it!"

Goddamn it, what is so hard for you to understand? We GLBT people have been crapped on by society since the dawn of time, and we are finally standing up and saying we are NOT going to take it anymore...and it is NOT okay.

Second...the fact that there is a "norm" means that some people fall outside that norm. And I say that those who fall outside the norm should not be punished, sanctioned, or otherwise harrassed for being outside that norm.

Third, I don't have a problem with heteros...I have a problem with homophobes. Homophobes piss me the fuck off, and I don't mind saying so! You homophobes talk about how we GLBT people are so "shoving it in your face" yet you won't accept the basic fact that hetero-ism is shoved in OUR faces every day!

Fourth, personally, me, I don't care whether it is hetero or homo...I don't really want to see public displays of affection beyond a quick kiss or holding hands. PG-rated in other words.

Fifth, even you admit some TV shows like to poke fun. Well, to US, it's not fun...it's HURTFUL!!

Sixth...the original poster made it exceedingly clear that his major objection was NOT the public display of affection...but rather the PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED in said public display. And that is what I reacted to.

I, for one, am sick and fucking tired of being treated like shit just because I am different. Homophobes need to get the hell over themselves!!

I swear to God, I had a guy friend once...who had no idea I was transgender (this was before I began my transition) and then, after I came out, and began my transition, this guy suddenly lived in fear that I like, wanted him for something.

I finally told him, look...I'm the same person I always was...the only difference is that now you know something about me that you didn't know before. And then I asked him since when he thought he was all that and a bag of chips that I would be interested in...and finished off by telling him that I quite frankly did not even find him attractive, and so he had nothing to worry about from me!

And the funniest thing was...he seemed more hurt by the fact that I did not find him attractive, than by anything else I'd said!!

I mean...you homophobes just need to get over yourselves...we GLBT people ARE NOT out there to gross you out, to "recruit" your children...or anyone else.

If we had all the same rights and priveleges the rest of you take for granted, you would not see Gay Pride or anything else like it. We'd just get on with our lives. BUT...we need to call attention, once in a while, to the fact that WE ARE NOT EQUAL, AND WE ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY!!

You want to stop all the Gay Pride stuff, etc...fine! Then work to change society that it no longer is necessary! Work to change society so that when someone says someone else is gay, the reaction is "Yeah?? So what??"

YOU are the ones who make a big issue out of it...and continue to make it necessary for US to make an issue out of it.

The first step to correcting wrongs and evils in our society is to point them out...and that is what we do with Gay Pride. We point out the injustice in society, and by that, seek to address it, and make it change, so that those who follow us do not have to go thru the bullshit we have had to!

See, this is where my pet theory comes into play. Most straight people have never experienced love - I'll explain why in a minute - and so, for them, homosexuality AND heterosexuality ARE all about the sex.

Okay - why do I say that people have never experienced love... especially straight people?

It is too easy.

See - being gay isn't an 'easy' option - every relationship is going to be difficult, because there is a stigma attached... the same is true for inter-racial relationships.

Being in a straight relationship, however, is not only smiled upon, but pretty much encouraged by our society - as a consequence of which, the average jo/joanna dates several, maybe dozens, maybe hundreds of people.

So - when you see someone who has really sacrificed (like giving up a good job, family, friends, etc - to move to a foreign country) you are looking at someone who knows the MEANING of love.

Unfortunately, for many people... it starts getting a bit tricky, they move on.

I say that ain't love... that's just about the sex.

Well said! And quite true today. Most hetero couples...as soon as the going gets tough...they get going...often in opposite directions from each other! That is why we have a 50% divorce rate in this country...because marriage is so sacred...puh-FUCKIN-leeeeze!!

/me jumps up and claps

Hooray, somebody's making sense!
Dammit, not enough medication.
:p


:)

Why, thank you!

Well said! And quite true today. Most hetero couples...as soon as the going gets tough...they get going...often in opposite directions from each other! That is why we have a 50% divorce rate in this country...because marriage is so sacred...puh-FUCKIN-leeeeze!!

Knowing a little of your history, I can understand that my belief might ring especially true to you.

(Merry christmas... I guess this can be a 'hard' time of year for quite a lot of people...)

Maybe because it is biologically (gamogenesis), historically, socially, and religiously, et cetera NORMAL. I don't dispute homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature besides the species homo sapiens, but it is not the norm. By the way, heterosexuality is positive (without us *breeders*-- as one of my gay friends like to label us-- you would not exist) and is in fact quite healthy (statistics show that monogamous couples have better health on average than singles).[\QUOTE]


A couple pf points:

There is a difference between "normal" and "dominant." Heterosexuality is a DOMINANT behavior, but that does not make other behaviors "abnormal." Homosexuality is likely ALSO normal behavior biologically, and it makes sense because in theory it could be a form of population control to have some of the species less interested in breeding. Not to say that all gays don't want children -- many do, but biologically it's still possible that is a reason. In less complex species where homosexual behavior exists, it is an effective population control, and it's reasonable to consider if homosexuality in the human race is a evolutionary consequence.

In short, you need to take a math class, then a sociology class, to understand what I just said. What you wrote indicates that you haven't or weren't listening those lectures.


[QUOTE] I guess I don't see the negative stereotypes you mention. Sure some TV shows love to poke fun, but those that have gay characters also poke fun at hetero follies as well.

I think that you aren't really able to see how negative some of those stereotypes are, and that's too bad. There are more negative stereotypes of gay people in the media, some of them extremely disturbing. A good example is the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals, where homosexual pedophilic episodes were emphasized to the point that some people were assuming being gay in the Catholic Church meant being a pedophile. About HALF the cases of sexual abuses from priests, however, were aimed at GIRLS. There are probably more. VERY few of these cases were reported in the media, because it's not sensationalist news for a man to sexually abuse a girl. Homosexual pedophilic behavior grabs headlines. That's a sad fact.

Before you can expect openess from others, you must be willing to be open to others yourself. Nothing I said was a personal attack; yet you seemed to take it as such and now attack me. Please grow up.

I think you need to take your own advice. I think you need to open your eyes.

Ge-Ren

Oh noes!

I don't think he/she/it will be able to get the duct tape off his eyeballs without a lot of help...
:p

Oh no, dont do that. Im having too much fun sitting back and watching Re-Gen slap it across the board.

Yeah, lets hurt it with common sense and respect for your fellow human being!

Rawr!

It burnses, it burns us!!
Graah!
Take it away, Master, it burns us!
Evil!

You two are really too much. Thank you both for making my Christmas more Merry :)

I have no problem with gays (and I'm even a Republican), but the two men should have had more respect for the situation. It isn't right to throw that sort of thing in the face of little kids.

I have no problem with gays (and I'm even a Republican), but the two men should have had more respect for the situation. It isn't right to throw that sort of thing in the face of little kids.

I'd like it if people would leave their vermin spawn at home.

first off - hooray for slippery slope!

Second - it might be good for the kid to open his mind. You don't see me yelling that Christians are a bad influence every time they start a war.
Religions can't start wars, numb nuts. Political groups that seize control of religions can. I suppose that the atheist commies have never started wars, eh?
Tool.

Why? It is no more wrong than throwing a relationship between a man and a woman in the face of little kids.

What, are homosexuals scary?
Eeevil?

:rolleyes:
it doesn't scare the kids, they don't know what it'll lead to in private.

its the adults that get the image of sweating hairly men pumping away to the sound of animalistic grunts and squeals, and it makes them nervous(or strangely aroused) and they don't like that.

Why? It is no more wrong than throwing a relationship between a man and a woman in the face of little kids.

What, are homosexuals scary?
Eeevil?

:rolleyes:
Gay relationships are not societally accepted as of now. Kids barely understand straight relationships, let alone those between homosexuals. If you're that open in every situation, try walking into a mall naked and making out with people, male or female. Great way to teach the kids. You're a real winner.

I have no problem with gays (and I'm even a Republican), but the two men should have had more respect for the situation. It isn't right to throw that sort of thing in the face of little kids.


This sort of thing is typical of people who start of with statements like "i have no problem with gays". And theyre usually republicans who say that. Trust me.

I mean, you might as well have said "Oh, im not racist but i think the blacks should get the fuck out of my country". It IS offensive and unfair, just as much as that statement is.

If you stop screaming "OH WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" youll find this generation are growing up to be the most accepting generation for a long time. People should not be forced to hide away in secret if they want to do something as simple as show affection towards one another in a simple peck on the lips. Of course, if it was a heterosexual pair-up, you wouldnt mind. Of course you wouldnt, thats my point.

If you think a certain couple are okay to kiss whereever they like, but others should do it away from you and other people, you are prejudiced.

isn't the term "ninja dom" just s&m code for a top into japanese ropework?

I have no problem with gays (and I'm even a Republican), but the two men should have had more respect for the situation. It isn't right to throw that sort of thing in the face of little kids.

Really, now...
You claim to have no problem with gays, yet your words seem to say otherwise...unless you'd have a similar problem with a hetero couple doing same, in the same situation...you DO have a problem with gays...whether or not you want to admit that is up to you.

but if you'd not have a problem with a hetero couple doing same, in same situation, then you do have a problem with gays, because you are holding them to different standards.

Go back to the stone age NARK.

lol there were probably gays then too, you silly little girl.

lol there were probably gays then too, you silly little girl.

Merry Christmas, Terminalia, we MISSED you! :)

Ah, so refreshing... a 'christian' that believes in the Stone Age...

That's my year made.

Merry Christmas, Terminalia, we MISSED you! :)

Ah, so refreshing... a 'christian' that believes in the Stone Age...

That's my year made.

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too Grave, have you got anything good

yet?

So far I have scored an Art Easel, and Ricky Pontings 'World Cup Diary' :)


I believe in the stone age, as I believe Adam and Eve etc came before it.

I dont think the world is 6,000 years old either, but the garden account in

the Bible I think is based on a real event.

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

That's absurd! If a student could become gay by having a gay teacher, for instance, than you would be able to "cure" gay kids by giving them 100% heterosexual teachers. Besides, you can't be TOUGHT to be homosexual. Why would anybody CHOOSE to be someone who would endure tons and tons of prejudiced remarks throughout their lifetime?

What kind of logic do you callt that? without heterosexuals, gays would die out?

You do realise, of course, that homosexuals CAN actually reproduce with the opposite gender, yes?
Well... I call it logic. Your rebuttal, however, is quite illogical.

Just as you could have sex with your own gender... you might not want to (although you do protest in a very loud voice, so who knows) - but you could... well, a homosexual might not want to have sex with the opposite gender, but they COULD.
You are correct that any normal functioning human being is capable of reproduction, but it is only through sexual[3] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexual) reproduction, that we actually procreate. Perhaps a confused individual like yourself can easily change your sexual nature, but my own gay friends have convinced me that it is in fact nature and not nurture that dictates their orientation. They tell me that they find women as unattractive to themselves as I do men to myself. If so, I find it hard to believe that they WOULD even if they COULD.

By the way, you are right about one thing monogamy has positive health effects. What you missed of course, is that 'gay' monogamy has the same health effects as 'straight' monogamy.
And how did I miss this? Reread my post; I said monogamy; I never mentioned hetero or homo at all if my statement regarding this statistic. Please do not put words in my mouth.

First, YOU are the one who made such a God-awful stink about it to post here, and I doubt you would have had it been a hetero couple doing the same thing. Your original words belie what you say now. You truly, in my opinion, are homophobic. And I react violently to homophobia. I'm sick and fucking tired of just "putting up with it!"

Goddamn it, what is so hard for you to understand? We GLBT people have been crapped on by society since the dawn of time, and we are finally standing up and saying we are NOT going to take it anymore...and it is NOT okay.
Please quote this "God-awful stink". How exactly do my words "belie" themselves? I find that my original post was I am not gay, but I have a few friends whom over the years have come out. I also happen to live in MA, which is pretty far to the left on these issues. I have nothing against gays, but personally I would prefer not to have to explain any (hetero or homo) displays of public affection to my children. Afaic PUBLIC is the key word in this discussion. Holding hands in innocuous; kissing is first base. I must have missed where I singled out homosexuals. I also have quite close gay friends whom would debate you heartedly on whether or not I am a homophobe. You love to sling the names around don't you? Try reading someone's words and responding to the individual instead of jumping on the bully pupit and spouting about how you are so oppressed.

Second...the fact that there is a "norm" means that some people fall outside that norm. And I say that those who fall outside the norm should not be punished, sanctioned, or otherwise harrassed for being outside that norm.
You are just playing with semantics. Try looking up norm[1,2] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=norm) and find that my use was quite normal :D in this context.

Third, I don't have a problem with heteros...I have a problem with homophobes. Homophobes piss me the fuck off, and I don't mind saying so! You homophobes talk about how we GLBT people are so "shoving it in your face" yet you won't accept the basic fact that hetero-ism is shoved in OUR faces every day!
You obviously do have a problem with heteros. And again with the names :rolleyes: ... My post was innocuous. You might like to read more into it than what I said, but I clearly stated my objection to the act and the stage, not the actors themselves. Guess what though-- you are shoving it in my face. Regarding your new word, hetero-ism, and that it is everywhere; perhaps you wish you had never been born? Otw deal with it. If not the only, it is at least the natural[3] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural) way of things. I don't argue that modern life is filled with sexual inuendo in all sorts of arguably inappropriate locations like the media and advertising, but if you think it is all heterosexual only, you have been smoking crack.

Fourth, personally, me, I don't care whether it is hetero or homo...I don't really want to see public displays of affection beyond a quick kiss or holding hands. PG-rated in other words.
;) Isn't this just a paraphrase of my earlier post?

Fifth, even you admit some TV shows like to poke fun. Well, to US, it's not fun...it's HURTFUL!!
I was personally thinking of Will & Grace, a show in which Will is arguably the most stable character. As I said, there are plenty of hetero follies as well. Has this show hurt you? Maybe Ellen's or Rosie's has? What show exactly has hurt you?

Sixth...the original poster made it exceedingly clear that his major objection was NOT the public display of affection...but rather the PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED in said public display. And that is what I reacted to.
Maybe you should react to him then. I clearly stated that I was against the public display of affection regardless of sexual orientation. Ever wonder why zoning laws do not allow certain establishments within school zones?

I, for one, am sick and fucking tired of being treated like shit just because I am different. Homophobes need to get the hell over themselves!!
[Pointless story eliminated for sake of space]
If we had all the same rights and priveleges the rest of you take for granted, you would not see Gay Pride or anything else like it. We'd just get on with our lives. BUT...we need to call attention, once in a while, to the fact that WE ARE NOT EQUAL, AND WE ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY!!

You want to stop all the Gay Pride stuff, etc...fine! Then work to change society that it no longer is necessary! Work to change society so that when someone says someone else is gay, the reaction is "Yeah?? So what??"

YOU are the ones who make a big issue out of it...and continue to make it necessary for US to make an issue out of it.

The first step to correcting wrongs and evils in our society is to point them out...and that is what we do with Gay Pride. We point out the injustice in society, and by that, seek to address it, and make it change, so that those who follow us do not have to go thru the bullshit we have had to!
Get off your high horse. Can you vote? Have you ever been denied any civil liberties available to any other US citizen? How exactly are you not treated equally? And lastly, who the heck are you talking to with your Gay pride rant? READ my posts-- I also clearly stated:

I would rather explain a gay pride T-shirt to my youngsters, than why two men (or a man and a woman) are swapping spit. The timing and place are inappropriate.
You obviously rant all of the time, which is probably the main reason that you get the response that you've come to expect. Rather than making grandiose statements like "We GLTB people..." :rolleyes:, maybe you should consider yourself and those you interact with as individuals. My sexuality, religion, or geographic region do not define me. I am one person speaking for myself as you should be. If you want to be treated better, start by treating others as you want to be treated. Why all the name calling and putting words into my mouth which I have never said? Yes, you are exactly the type of person I meant when I referred to shoving homosexuality in peoples' faces. You can't even see beyond your own preconcieved notions of what someone other than *your* people would say to you, even when it is obviously and blatantly stated again and again. Believe it or not, but I am about as socially progressive as heteros come. What exactly do you want? Imho you are a miserable, confused, and paranoid individual who is to be pitied. READ my posts beyond the line where I stated that I was not gay. Just because someone is not a homosexual does not make them a homophobe.

But what he is saying is that if homosexuals needed to reproduce, they are quite capable of it. It wouldn't be especially enjoyable, but if it were necessary, they could easily do so. Just because you find someone unattractive doesn't mean you can't reproduce with them

At least, I believe that is what he's saying...
That is what he was saying, and your repetition of it makes it no less illogical.

Let's see your old quote then.
Your browser doesn't page back or scroll up?

Hmm.
You did use hetero in that sentence, but not in the particular statement about monogamy. But you *did* present that statement as a supporting argument for a sentence about the positives of heterosexuality.
If you maintain now that you were not referring to heterosexuality or homosexuality, you are admitting that you put irrelevant facts into your argument.
This statement, which you now take out of context, was made in answer to Bucksnort's complaints about heterosexuality. His last line on *hetero-ism* "....and it is portayed as a positive and healthy thing." was stated to indicate that heterosexuality is not a positive thing. I happen to believe it is. The fact was hardly irrelevant to my answer to Bucksnort and while my answer was, as you point out, regarding heterosexuality; it is because that was the issue I was addressing. This does not mean that I don't consider gay monogamy also a positive thing, nor does it invalidate my statement that my quote did not specify hetero or hom sexuality.

For the record I also happen to believe that gay monogamy is a good thing as well. Happy now? :D I consider promiscuity a giant problem in modern society. Promiscuity leads to the current staggering divorce rate in the USA, spreads STDs, and erodes morals. Again-- you can call me a prude, but I am not a homophobe. ;)

In regards to the lesbians kissing just to provoke a reaction... That's something known among the freal/renn crowd as "freaking the mundanes". It's ugly, stupid, childish behavior. Kind of like trolling a forum, but more in-your-face. Realize that it's something people do regardless of their sexual orientation and comes from a distinct lack of maturity and ignore it. Just like the poster of the incident did. A stupid twit is a stupid twit no matter how they're dressed or what they're shagging.

Now why don't we all take the day off from ragging on each other and have a cup of something warm and tasty, eh? We can go back to being raging assholes tomorrow.

God Jolnir!

My mother's Boyfriend used to be homophobic, but then he realized he was only that way through his own insecurities, it takes a noble person to overcome homophobia.

That's absurd! If a student could become gay by having a gay teacher, for instance, than you would be able to "cure" gay kids by giving them 100% heterosexual teachers. Besides, you can't be TOUGHT to be homosexual. Why would anybody CHOOSE to be someone who would endure tons and tons of prejudiced remarks throughout their lifetime?

Exactly, so what happens when every body becomes completely accepting of gays and what not, then people start to choose to be gay....

Downfall of America.

Exactly, so what happens when every body becomes completely accepting of gays and what not, then people start to choose to be gay....

Downfall of America.
Do you have proof that people can choose to be gay?

Exactly, so what happens when every body becomes completely accepting of gays and what not, then people start to choose to be gay....
Downfall of America.

How exactly is an increase of love and happyness, due to the fact that people would no longer have to be afraid of becoming outcasts if they admit to their true feelings, equivalent to the downfall of the USA ?

I'd say it would be a great step on the road returning to paradise.

*takes this thread, covers it in bubble wrap, and mails it to Abu Dhabi*

Can't we all just get along?

Exactly, so what happens when every body becomes completely accepting of gays and what not, then people start to choose to be gay....

Downfall of America.

Being gay isn't a choice, let alone a choice exclusively for Americans :P

If being gay was a choice do you really believe that so many people would choose to be persecuted and condemned by narrow minded bigots afraid for their own sexuality?

Do you have proof that people can choose to be gay?

Do you have proof that gayness isn't a serious mental illness?

If being gay was a choice do you really believe that so many people would choose to be persecuted and condemned by narrow minded bigots afraid for their own sexuality?

I don't think anyone seriously actually believes that being gay is a choice. It's just an extremely convenient way to dismiss it. We shouldn't judge conservatives too harshly for being lazy.

Do you have proof that gayness isn't a serious mental illness?

I wouldnt say its a mental illness, their chemistry just seems to have been

wired around the wrong way.

Admittedly also, most people experiment at some stage in their life with the

same sex, but to take to it with a vengance, suggests a serious flaw of

nature.

this is ridiculous, i dont think gay marriage is good, and im not saying that because i "hate" gay people or anything like u filthy liberals think. im saying that because multiple times i have had gay guys from MY SCHOOL turn gay and then hit on me. believe me, it is not a good thing. am i close-minded? by no means. i gave them there shot, and they blew it.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

I've not read all 34 pages of posts, so someone might have beat me to this one. But I'd rather field a question about two people loving each other so much that they're not afraid to show it in public, than have to explain to Little Jimmy why exactly the US is fighting in Iraq, or Australia is sending more troops to the Solomons, or the Israelis and Palestinians are still warring in the West Bank...

this is ridiculous, i dont think gay marriage is good, and im not saying that because i "hate" gay people or anything like u filthy liberals think. im saying that because multiple times i have had gay guys from MY SCHOOL turn gay and then hit on me. believe me, it is not a good thing. am i close-minded? by no means. i gave them there shot, and they blew it.
Have you ever hit on a gay girl? I suppose that's her fault, right?

Do you have proof that gayness isn't a serious mental illness?

No. Do you have proof that being Christian isn't ?

I've not read all 34 pages of posts, so someone might have beat me to this one. But I'd rather field a question about two people loving each other so much that they're not afraid to show it in public, than have to explain to Little Jimmy why exactly the US is fighting in Iraq, or Australia is sending more troops to the Solomons, or the Israelis and Palestinians are still warring in the West Bank...
Only about fifty times....

Are you Turkish?

this is ridiculous, i dont think gay marriage is good, and im not saying that because i "hate" gay people or anything like u filthy liberals think. im saying that because multiple times i have had gay guys from MY SCHOOL turn gay and then hit on me. believe me, it is not a good thing. am i close-minded? by no means. i gave them there shot, and they blew it.

Oh, and their inability to earn your narrow-minded acceptance no doubt causes them to toss and turn at night. :rolleyes:

Why not accept it as a compliment? Someone found you attractive - that's never a bad thing, right? The only reason I can see that such a thing would make you uncomfortable would be if some little quiet insistent bit of your psyche was muttering "Hey, I wonder..."

I swear, no offence meant by any of this.

this is ridiculous, i dont think gay marriage is good, and im not saying that because i "hate" gay people or anything like u filthy liberals think. im saying that because multiple times i have had gay guys from MY SCHOOL turn gay and then hit on me. believe me, it is not a good thing. am i close-minded? by no means. i gave them there shot, and they blew it.

by this logic, anytime you hit on a girl (and she doesn't want to take you up on it) she should hate you because your advance was unwanted???

what's the problem with saying "no thanks" and moving on?? that's what hetero girls are expected to do their whole life - and it doesn't make them prejudiced and ignorant about all boys

Only about fifty times....

Are you Turkish?

... No?

Maybe I'm missing a joke here.

or Australia is sending more troops to the Solomons ...

They were requested mate.

No doubt people would have said the same thing decades ago if a black couple was kissing publicly... :rolleyes:

Why shouldn't gay people be able to live how they want? It doesn't hurt anyone.

I've not read all 34 pages of posts, so someone might have beat me to this one. But I'd rather field a question about two people loving each other so much that they're not afraid to show it in public, than have to explain to Little Jimmy why exactly the US is fighting in Iraq, or Australia is sending more troops to the Solomons, or the Israelis and Palestinians are still warring in the West Bank...

or why you need to go on television to find your "true love" (if you're heterosexual)

Surely shows like The Bachelor are more demeaning of marriage and love ???