Homosexuality [Archive]

Right_is_right

2nd February 2005, 01:05

I am posting this again because i have recently been a victim of communist censorship. If you want to read the whole story go to the politics section.

It is not a homosexual's right to get married. They just hunger for publicity. Why do you think they go on gay parades. You don't see straight parades. But the thing is, when a democracy decides that a gay marriage shouldn't be recognized by law, then they have the right to decide what the definition of the marriage should be. Otherwise, it would be minority tiranny. I have to stress this again, I personally can't understand which right is being infringed upon when we do not recognize their marriage. Isn't the definition of a word what most people believe it to mean? In the US, they elected a president who is antigaymarriage. So since the majority put him in, let him do what he believes in. It probably means most of the people are antigaymarriage.
And don't even think about bring up slavery... forced labour is clearly a violations of human rights... segregation, is a choice...you don't have to associate with people you don't want to. But im not saying racism is a good thing.

Publius

2nd February 2005, 01:19

Just a qustion: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriage? Bestiality marriage?

Eastside Revolt

2nd February 2005, 01:25

I support the abolishion of marriage.

I'll agree that I find it trivial of homosexuals to look for "gay marriage" rather than just an end to marriage period.

amusing foibles

2nd February 2005, 01:33

If homosexuals want to get married, why should you care?

Publius: I don't fully support any kind of marriage, but I have no problem with any kind of consensual relationship. That means the beastiality is out (unless Mr. Ed has a dirty secret), but polyamory is fully plausible.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

2nd February 2005, 01:38

So, what is communist doctrine on marriage? Please advise?

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd February 2005, 01:40

I agree absolutely with amusing foibles.
Bestiality is inherently rape.
Polygamy is a choice that harms nobody.
So is homosexuality.
It is no more "right" or "wrong" than heterosexuality.

The majority are bigoted, ignorant, superstitious, and prejudiced. My personal opinion is that gay marriage should be legalized. Democracy isn't agreeing with the majority. It's doing what the majority says.

And besides, I don't think that anyone can tell others what to do, when it doesn't affect them in any way. So not only do I personally believe that gay marriage should be legalized, I believe it should be done regardless of what most Americans think.

I also find marriage to be completely absurd and pointless.
You have to pay to hook up and pay to break up. Why?

Eastside Revolt

2nd February 2005, 01:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:38 AM
So, what is communist doctrine on marriage? Please advise?
We are not fascists, we say do whatever the fuck you want, just don't exploit anyone.

redstar2000

2nd February 2005, 04:25

"Communist doctrine" on marriage is that interpersonal affairs are personal...and require neither the approval of the "government" (we don't intend to have one in the contemporary sense of the word) or the "church" (we won't have any of those at all).

In the contemporary controversy, I note that only about 2-4% of the population is homosexual...so I frankly wonder what the fuss is about?

Why should it make any difference to anyone if gays want to marry?

Does gay marriage offend someone's superstitious sensibilities?

Oh, isn't that too bad. :o

Quick, where's the crying towel! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Right_is_right

2nd February 2005, 07:31

How are gays being hurt when the definition of marriage does not include them?

Also, marriage is still the most secure way to raise children, unless you live in Scandanavia where a single mother can easily raise children.

Latifa

2nd February 2005, 07:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:31 AM

Also, marriage is still the most secure way to raise children,

What in marriage is good for the kids?

How are gays being hurt when the definition of marriage does not include them?

Perhaps the same way as the resident capitalists feel when we restrict them. Go ask them how they feel.

Right_is_right

2nd February 2005, 08:02

I don't blame you for restricting. Censorship is an old habit of communists, it must come with the ideology.
Why is a marriage such a secure way to raise children? its versatile so the child is most likely to get the most love because one of the parents can stay at home while the other works or they don't have to work as long. Marriages are troublesome to break so a couples will put up with more for a longer time so the single parent situation is less likely to happen. Basically, couples will not break up on wim because of a fight, which is better for the child because even when parents fight they will usually still love the child so the child will continue to have more time with his or her parents. Once the child is old enough, it doesn't matter if the parents break up. Marriage will make it more likely for a child to have parents there for him or her throughout his or her dependance phase....

Sabocat

2nd February 2005, 10:46

I don't blame you for restricting. Censorship is an old habit of communists, it must come with the ideology

:lol:

Why is a marriage such a secure way to raise children? its versatile so the child is most likely to get the most love because one of the parents can stay at home while the other works or they don't have to work as long.

Hmmm...someone has been watching too many "Leave it to Beaver" reruns...

Fewer and fewer "couples" are able to afford having one parent stay at home with the child. Economically speaking for the working class, it's just not really feasible anymore.

Supposing however that one parent could stay home to raise the child, who's to say that a gay person couldn't nurture and love every bit as well as a heterosexual couple?

Marriages are troublesome to break so a couples will put up with more for a longer time so the single parent situation is less likely to happen. Basically, couples will not break up on wim because of a fight, which is better for the child because even when parents fight they will usually still love the child so the child will continue to have more time with his or her parents.

Sounds to me, like you're advocating that gays be allowed to marry to provide a more stable environment for a child. Congratulations on your epiphany. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intention with that statement though, and you are trying to say the heterosexual couples will fight but still stay together, and a homosexual couple would fight and instantly split up. If that's the case, I think you had better provide solid evidence that homosexual marriages deteriorate quicker than heterosexual ones. It's a slippery slope however, because you're bound to discover that divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples hovers around the 50% mark, disproving your statement that heterosexual couples will fight but "stick it out".

I also find it curious as to why threads on gay marriage always seem to degrade into this debate of parenting. I would guess that in another few posts, someone will be quoting the bible as if that's relevant in any way. The question isn't who you would allow to raise children, the question is; should two human beings who love each other and want the same legal and civil recognition as every other couple be allowed to have it.

How are gays being hurt when the definition of marriage does not include them?

Because the bottom line is, it's discrimination. Pure and simple. If you're are telling one segment of the population that they are allowed to do something, but excluding another group it is seperate and not equal. Why is that so hard to understand? The same type of laws existed years ago restricting blacks from marrying whites. Should we re-enact that as well? Should people be discriminated against solely for the reason that some people are uncomfortable with another's lifestyle choices?

The state I live in legalised gay marriage, and yet the sun still comes up in the morning, the world hasn't stopped revolving, people aren't running out to marry goats and dogs, and we're all still waiting for the great apocalypse.

RagsToRevolution

2nd February 2005, 12:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:31 AM
How are gays being hurt when the definition of marriage does not include them?
Because historically, and in previous societies, marriage wasn't always just the union of a man and woman. The "definition" has been warped by those in control for differing purposes. You do know that once upon a time polygamy, for either multiple males or multiple females, or both, was perfectly acceptable (and if its consensual, it is perfectly fine in my view, though I would rather it just be a consensual relationship, not a legal contract.) In fact, there were instances where even the Christian church had sanction same-sex marriages before the 18th century.

Upon request, I will provide source to this.

t_wolves_fan

2nd February 2005, 13:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:19 AM
Just a qustion: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriage? Bestiality marriage?
Our government gives benefits to a pair of people who call themselves "married".

However, we discriminate against pairs who are of the same sex.

Therefore giving government benefits to one pair of people but not to others is discriminatory and, in my opinion, just plain fucking stupid.

I've been married 3 1/2 months now. I cannot honestly say that the idea of two gay guys living next door to us calling themselves married would have any effect on how my wife and I interact.

The Feral Underclass

2nd February 2005, 14:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:05 AM
I am posting this again because i have recently been a victim of communist censorship.
Good.

It is not a homosexual's right to get married.

Can you define to me what a "right" is?

They just hunger for publicity.

Is that an inherent trait or socially constructed?

Why do you think they go on gay parades.

Because of people like you.

You don't see straight parades.

You don't walk down streets then? Heterosexuals consistently demonstrate their sexuality, it's everywhere. In the streets, in the shops, in magazines, on bill boards and paraded in front of our faces on a day to day basis.

I have to stress this again, I personally can't understand which right is being infringed upon when we do not recognize their marriage.

In the eyes of the law my relationship with my partner is not legally valid. This means I do not enjoy the same tax breaks, inheritance, benefit and medical laws like heterosexual couples.

This results, for example, in couples who have been together for 40 years have no say over their partners will or otherwise when they die. When Nigel Hawthorne died his partner of 40 odd years had no rights over his estate or even the right to see his body without one of Hawthornes relatives agreeing. That isn't acceptable.

Effectively the rejection of gay marriage is saying that homosexual relationships don't have the same legitimacy as heterosexual relationships. A man and a woman who fall in love can unify their relationship in the eyes of the law but two men or two women can't. There's absolutely no justification for that. Majority or otherwise.

So since the majority put him in

That's highly debatable.

The Feral Underclass

2nd February 2005, 14:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:19 AM
do you support polygamous marriage?
Absolutly.

Bestiality marriage?

That's actually legal in the states and in the UK.

The Feral Underclass

2nd February 2005, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:25 AM
'll agree that I find it trivial of homosexuals to look for "gay marriage" rather than just an end to marriage period.
It's about equalising opportunities. I agree in essence that marriage is a daft institution, but gay men and women should be allowed the same choices and opportunities as everyone else.

Anarchist Freedom

2nd February 2005, 15:52

We restrict cappies because this isnt a capitalist forum

RedStarOverChina

2nd February 2005, 20:23

Friedrich Engels (y'all know who that is, I hope) wrote a book on the concept of marriage. In his book, he suggested that, the defination of marriage is not absolute. It is a product of the economocal environment of which the people lived in. Thus, the idea of marriage is an invention by men, not God, or any other natural order.

He went on, saying that because there is nothing "holy" about marriage, the system of marriage constantly changes. We had monogamy and polygamy(one female, multiple males; then one male, multiple females), for example. Moreoever, the roles of male and female in a marriage changes as their economical or social condition changes. For example: women's social status imporves as they are able to gain access to more financial income.

Now we have shattered the myth about marriage, I can't help but wonder, what is there to be feared about homosexual marriage? We are so heavily binded by the chains of tradition and custom, that is it so easy to dismiss or even persecute new ideas.

By the way, I am able to tolerate marriage, tho it does not make much sense to me, logically. I violently oppose polygamy (I dont know why one of the comrades claimed that he supports it. But i see it as the most barbaric form of marriage.)

RagsToRevolution

2nd February 2005, 21:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:23 PM
By the way, I am able to tolerate marriage, tho it does not make much sense to me, logically. I violently oppose polygamy (I dont know why one of the comrades claimed that he supports it. But i see it as the most barbaric form of marriage.)
How is it barbaric? If each person in the relationship is acting in consent, how is it "wrong?"

Right_is_right

2nd February 2005, 21:13

Because historically, and in previous societies, marriage wasn't always just the union of a man and woman. The "definition" has been warped by those in control for differing purposes. You do know that once upon a time polygamy, for either multiple males or multiple females, or both, was perfectly acceptable (and if its consensual, it is perfectly fine in my view, though I would rather it just be a consensual relationship, not a legal contract.) In fact, there were instances where even the Christian church had sanction same-sex marriages before the 18th century.

Why do you even bother throwing most unlikely possibility at me? So what you are saying is gay marriages were once mainstream..... ok, this may have happened once or twice on some island off the coast of antartica by stranded explorers in ancient times, since anythings possible.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

2nd February 2005, 21:16

How about among others, the ancient greek society?

The founders of western civilization as some might call it.

Right_is_right

2nd February 2005, 21:20

Because the bottom line is, it's discrimination. Pure and simple. If you're are telling one segment of the population that they are allowed to do something, but excluding another group it is seperate and not equal.
I never said that they weren't allowed to do anything. I am merely saying that I choose not to recognize it. Somethings such as the definition of marriage definition should reflect what most people believe it to be. If most people want to recognize gay marriages then I would have to agree the definition of marriage should be changed because that reflects what most people believe in. But that still doesn't mean i want it to be changed, i just can't go against the majority. Can you see the difference?

RagsToRevolution

2nd February 2005, 21:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:20 PM

Because the bottom line is, it's discrimination. Pure and simple. If you're are telling one segment of the population that they are allowed to do something, but excluding another group it is seperate and not equal.
I never said that they weren't allowed to do anything. I am merely saying that I choose not to recognize it. Somethings such as the definition of marriage definition should reflect what most people believe it to be. If most people want to recognize gay marriages then I would have to agree the definition of marriage should be changed because that reflects what most people believe in. But that still doesn't mean i want it to be changed, i just can't go against the majority. Can you see the difference?
As I said before, using the same logic, segregation and slavery should still exist, and we would still be a colony of the British.

RedStarOverChina

2nd February 2005, 21:29

"If each person in the relationship is acting in consent" I guess we should remain open-minded towards new ideas. I dont have much against willingful relationship that consist of more than two partners.
However, its a different issue with polygamy, since it involves marriage. I oppose this form of marriage, which is an result of ill-tradition and oppression against women. Such as the cases in Islamic countries and Oregon, USA (Morgonists, i believe?)

RagsToRevolution

2nd February 2005, 21:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:29 PM
"If each person in the relationship is acting in consent" I guess we should remain open-minded towards new ideas. I dont have much against willingful relationship that consist of more than two partners.
However, its a different issue with polygamy, since it involves marriage. I oppose this form of marriage, which is an result of ill-tradition and oppression against women. Such as the cases in Islamic countries and Oregon, USA (Morgonists, i believe?)
The Mormons are sexist, as they do not allow women to have more than one husband. Yes, that is an aspect of patriarchal oppression. I still believe that consensual polygamy not in the oppressive styules seen today (one man and multiple wives only. We should allow multiple huisbands and multiple wives *and* husbands.) Of course, marriage will eventually be abolished, but I mean in this society.

Xvall

3rd February 2005, 01:06

Oh god.

It is not a homosexual's right to get married.

According to the constution, it is. Then again, being a right-winger, the constitution means very little to you.

They just hunger for publicity.

Speculatory personal opinion — irrelevant.

Why do you think they go on gay parades.

Because they feel descriminated against, and need to form a central community in order to prevent themselves from being violently assaulted by people like you. Oh, and because the constitution lets them. You're not big on the constitution, are you?

You don't see straight parades.

I do. They're usually run by the godhatesfags.com people.

But the thing is, when a democracy decides that a gay marriage shouldn't be recognized by law, then they have the right to decide what the definition of the marriage should be. Otherwise, it would be minority tiranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to get married tyranny? (Not tiranny. I don't even think that's a real word.) Which one of your rights does homosexual marriage infringe upon. Please tell me! I really want to know.

In the US, they elected a president who is antigaymarriage. So since the majority put him in, let him do what he believes in.

I don't think you understand the way the presidency works. It's ok. You're young an inexperienced. You'll pick it up eventually. See, the thing is: the president does not wield unlimited power. The president doesn't get to decide how to do everything. Things still need to be voted on by the house and senate democratically. I know that people like you and George Bush have a hard time grasping these concepts, but once you two get past the sixth grade I'm sure all this stuff will make lots of sense. Ok?

It probably means most of the people are antigaymarriage.

Actually, the first time he was elected, he lost the popular vote. And the electoral statistics do not take into account people who were uneligable for voting (be it due to age, past crimes, etc.) and people who simply did not want to vote for Kerry or Bush. Theoretical question. If the majority of people in the country were "anti-african", would you say it's acceptable for the government to deem all people of african decent uneligable for marriage.

---

Just a qustion: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriage?

I don't care about polygamous marriage. As long as it is entirely consentual.

Bestiality marriage?

Animals can not sign legal contracts, nor or animals considered citizens of the United States of America. Therefore they are not eligible for marriage.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd February 2005, 03:00

To tell you the truth, I don't really see a problem with bestiality.
I mean, we raise and kill animals all the time just to be slaughtered and eaten. Is this humane? I don't really give a fuck. But if that's okay, why isn't goat fucking okay? If killing them is tolerable, why can't you rape them? I say, if you wanna get married to an animal, go to it.
Gay polygamous bestiality, anyone?!

I'm itching to see what the moralist capitalists think of this one! :lol:

RedStarOverChina

3rd February 2005, 03:21

Pardon my ignorance...but wht is bestial marriage???

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd February 2005, 04:13

Marriage involving animals.

Ruby

3rd February 2005, 04:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:00 AM
To tell you the truth, I don't really see a problem with bestiality.
I mean, we raise and kill animals all the time just to be slaughtered and eaten. Is this humane? I don't really give a fuck. But if that's okay, why isn't goat fucking okay? If killing them is tolerable, why can't you rape them? I say, if you wanna get married to an animal, go to it.
Gay polygamous bestiality, anyone?!

I'm itching to see what the moralist capitalists think of this one! :lol:

How can you procreate with an animal? It's biologically impossible.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd February 2005, 04:35

I never claimed that it's possible.

Eastside Revolt

3rd February 2005, 04:39

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Feb 2 2005, 02:06 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Feb 2 2005, 02:06 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 02:25 AM
'll agree that I find it trivial of homosexuals to look for "gay marriage" rather than just an end to marriage period.
It's about equalising opportunities. I agree in essence that marriage is a daft institution, but gay men and women should be allowed the same choices and opportunities as everyone else. [/b]
I apologize, you are definitely right considering that "gay marriage" is alot more likely to happen than an end to marriage period.

Ruby

3rd February 2005, 04:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:35 AM
I never claimed that it's possible.
True, you didn't.

Right_is_right

3rd February 2005, 15:51

You are missing my point. I don't want to prevent them from doing anything that does not hurt anyone. Im just saying that a definition should be decided by what the majority believes in. Also, it is not your right to have your own way when you are not being hurt. You can't force people to recognize you. People have beliefs and opinions on certain issues and for an issue like gay marriages, the government definition in a democracy should reflect the beliefs of most of the people. If most of the people want to recognize gay marriages then so be it, then the definition should be changed. I just choose not to recognize gay marriages for personal reasons and if the majority think the same, then the governmental definitions of certain things should reflect that opinion. However, Im not saying ban gay marriages, they can have a wedding if they wish, a SWAT team isn't going to raid it. They can apply for the financial deals if they want. But i want my way when it comes to the definition in the constitution.

Right_is_right

3rd February 2005, 15:55

Bestial marriages infringe on animal rights because they cannot speak so there is no way of knowing whether they consent to it.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

3rd February 2005, 16:03

So the opinion of the majority goes above one's individual freedom?

By this logic, what is wrong with killing a minority with a majority.

Right_is_right

3rd February 2005, 16:11

As I said before, using the same logic, segregation and slavery should still exist, and we would still be a colony of the British.

Its pretty different actually. Slavery actually infringes on rights. Segregation actually hurt people. Its not like we want to force gays sit at the back of the bus or the courtroom or lynch them, or not do business with them. We just want to look the other way when they get married and we don't want to see it in the constitution either.

Sirion

3rd February 2005, 16:14

...but to give people different rights, depending on their sexual orientation (beastiality not included) is not an infringement of rights? If so, there are something fundamentally wrong with the rights.

However, you show the true capitalist ways here: "we don't want to achnowledge you, just to have your money".

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

3rd February 2005, 16:19

You crack me up. :D

Do you think gays are not hurt, because they are treated different from society? That they are not hurt when society denies their right to solidify their love? Or don't you think that gay couples are discriminated, because they can't benefit from the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples can. You are wrong, gays are second rate citizens. Their freedoms are denied.

Long live hypocrisy!

And it's none of your business with who someone wants to marry. It's not like I pick your lifepartner, do I?

Sabocat

3rd February 2005, 16:43

(Right_is_right)

We just want to look the other way when they get married and we don't want to see it in the constitution either.

Could you be this dense, or are you just tragically misinformed?

Gays aren't asking for the Constitution to be amended to give them the right to marry. The Constitution already gives them that right.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bush and the rest of the right wing, want an amendment to the Constitution to prevent gays from being married.

In other words, they want to add an amendment that discriminates against a segment of the population. In essence using the Constitution as an instrument to limit personal freedoms.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd February 2005, 22:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:55 AM
Bestial marriages infringe on animal rights because they cannot speak so there is no way of knowing whether they consent to it.
Killing animals is okay, but raping them isn't? Why?
I asked this question before, but you failed to answer it and instead used the argument that was refuted by that question.

marxist_chica1288

17th February 2005, 20:15

Bisexual commie reporting for duty. What did you say again?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th February 2005, 21:21

Raisa

19th February 2005, 15:23

Please help me understand why two grown people who want to get married should not be allowed to get married?

This is not a man marrying his dog, or children, or four other people at once. This is two people who want to be married.

You are falling for some puritanical shit that some folks in government have been saying, but there is more to why gays cant marry then just our country's religious values. I bet it has something to do with giving all of those people marriage benifits.....

In socialism ..and communism , people are meant to live fine as workers and human beings, they dont need to get married in order to have better financial lives.

You go on and on about freedom, and again.....you dont even know what the hell freedom is.

colombiano

19th February 2005, 15:48

That Right=right fellow is quite weird. It's the "freedom" of a majority of the people to oppress gays. But it's not the "freedom" of a majority of the people to dismiss private property. Love Capitalist apologists.

Exactly. Many scream that it is for the sanctity of marriage. I then pose the question who's sanctity are you speaking of? The one of your Christian God and Beliefs? Well let me remind you of the sepeartion of Church and State. This Sanctity you speak of is of your own religous beliefs and let us NOT forget that America is NOT a Christian State it is NOT even a Monotheistic State. It is a melting Pot and of many beliefs and ideas. So DO NOT Impose your religous beliefs on The Buddhist, The Jainist, The Hindu, The Angnostic or even the Atheist. You have No place to tell ANY Man or Woman who they can or cannot marry by Law in a Church Free State!

Anarchist Freedom

19th February 2005, 17:20

I dont understand the conservative dislike of homosexuality. Its not like homosexuality is a big cult that tries to recruit little confused children to there side lmao. Its usually the other way around the right trying to convince people to join them.

colombiano

19th February 2005, 17:30

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 19 2005, 05:20 PM
I dont understand the conservative dislike of homosexuality. Its not like homosexuality is a big cult that tries to recruit little confused children to there side lmao. Its usually the other way around the right trying to convince people to join them.
Perhaps it is just disdain for anything different than themselves. Perhaps in retrospect it is the very same logic and mentality of that during the 1960's and Jim Crow Laws.

Paradox

20th February 2005, 00:11

Its not like homosexuality is a big cult that tries to recruit little confused children to there side lmao. Its usually the other way around the right trying to convince people to join them.

This reminds me of the catholic church. It's a pretty sick contradiction when you're speaking out against homosexuality and then a shit load of your priests are molesting young boys. Disgusting.

Bestial marriages infringe on animal rights because they cannot speak so there is no way of knowing whether they consent to it.

I can't believe you're actually trying to argue whether or not AN ANIMAL can consent to marriage! I know! Let's call Dr. Dolittle! He can talk to the animals! Then we'll all know what they think of being married to a person. :rolleyes:

Drathir

20th February 2005, 04:51

This reminds me of the catholic church. It's a pretty sick contradiction when you're speaking out against homosexuality and then a shit load of your priests are molesting young boys. Disgusting.

Its not just males molesting males, there are plenty of women who sexually abuse kids...though youd prolly just say 'lucky bastard, what are you complaining about?'. its just not as common, and most people think, for some weird twisted reason, its okay for a 7 or 8 year old boy to have sex with a grown woman.

Paradox

20th February 2005, 22:35

Its not just males molesting males, there are plenty of women who sexually abuse kids...though youd prolly just say 'lucky bastard, what are you complaining about?'. its just not as common, and most people think, for some weird twisted reason, its okay for a 7 or 8 year old boy to have sex with a grown woman.

Who said I'd be ok with that? They're molesting kids either way. Why would anyone support that? I think you misinterpreted what I said. I was just using that as an example of the hypocrisy taking place. The catholic church (I know it's not just the catholics who oppose it) speaks out against homosexuality, and then there's all these priests who are molesting children. And yes, women are doing it too. Either way it's disgusting.

Paradox

20th February 2005, 22:39

and most people think, for some weird twisted reason, its okay for a 7 or 8 year old boy to have sex with a grown woman.

MOST people think it's ok!?! Where the hell do you live? I don't know anyone who'd say it's ok for a child to have sex with an adult. That is also against the law in case you didn't know. Most people? Who do you hang with that say it's ok to have sex with kids?

Livetrueordie

21st February 2005, 00:22

Springfield is making Gay marriage legal so, all arguments off it should be legal.
simpsons is on in like an hour and its all about gay marriage. lets all watch it and reflect :P

LSD

21st February 2005, 00:48

MOST people think it's ok!?! Where the hell do you live? I don't know anyone who'd say it's ok for a child to have sex with an adult. That is also against the law in case you didn't know. Most people? Who do you hang with that say it's ok to have sex with kids?

Well, he's right in that there is a double standard when it comes to child molestation.

While most people don't think it's right for a grown woman to have sex with "7 or 8 year old boy, you'll quickly find that they think it worse if a grown man has sex with a 7 or 8 year old girl.

Loknar

21st February 2005, 01:54

Well, I believe it isn’t as bad if a woman has sex with a boy, than if a man has sex with a girl. it's just a feeling, probably because it's every boys dream....

Anyway, I have no problem with gays entering into a union, but I personally believe that the term "marriage" is to be preserved for straight people.

LSD

21st February 2005, 02:28

Well, I believe it isn’t as bad if a woman has sex with a boy, than if a man has sex with a girl. it's just a feeling, probably because it's every boys dream....

You see Paradox? It's a rather common feeling.

Anyway, I have no problem with gays entering into a union, but I personally believe that the term "marriage" is to be preserved for straight people.

Why?

Livetrueordie

21st February 2005, 02:45

He said it wasn't as bad not "it's ok"

The Garbage Disposal Unit

21st February 2005, 02:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:54 AM
but I personally believe that the term "marriage" is to be preserved for straight people.

Why?

I've heard this insisted several times on the grounds of "tradition" - but isn't it a bit silly (and, no surprise, reactionary) to attempt to desperately hold back the evolution of social institutions and lay desperate claim on certain words? Shall we all cling hopelessly to certain words with meaning for us, and demand that others conform to our own, circumstancially unique definitions?

Thou soundeth absurd. Short of doing away with the dreadful institution entirely (What is wrong with the free expression of love unbound by grand laws and rules of conduct?), it is best to avoid, methinks, traps of seperate and unequal.

Loknar

21st February 2005, 03:56

Guys, I guess it is a traditional thing, but tradition isn’t a bad thing. I am not anti gay, I have no problem with allowing them the same exact benefits of a marriage, I just object to the liberal use of such a conservative word. I have no problem with defining the word as "man and woman" but I think it is a states issue. And for the most part the American people don’t support gay marriage, the last election shows this (in every state that gay marriage was an option, it was rejected).

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

Yes I agree, it is a paradox

I honestly think that "it isn’t a big deal" if something like that happens. I wanted to sleep with some of my high school female teachers and it is EVERY teenagers dream (in fact, I doubt most men care as they would like you to believe).... But I wouldn’t encourage such activities.

However, if I found out my 16 year old daughter was sexually involved with her male teacher, I'd kick his ass around the block for drill and go with a jury trial.