Thou shalt not kill?

A human?

_________________

It's not an argument.

I think we can both agree that there are a number of 12 year old males that would be willing participants in a sexual encounter with a hot gym teacher.

So if someone is born a pedophile and can not change, on what grounds can you deny them what they are looking for with a willing 12 year old male?

_________________

I don't think these hot gym teachers exist.

_________________

You sound reasonably sure about the 12 years old males though.

_________________

Yes, I'm sure 12 year old males exist.

_________________

Nope. You like pricks, not are one.

(look, I know you don't .... it's just one of those board memes I won't let die, like the fact that dolphin is an angry black woman)

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

The exact same way the law does - that a 12 year old is not mature enough to make such a decision. If you'll read my prior posts, I stated that I don't know if pedophiles are born that way. I don't care. They hurt children. Gays don't. Anyway, why are you defending pedophiles? We are getting off topic here.

_________________

You sure see a lot of rooftops in your daily travels.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

That was the topic of my original post.

And if you think that a sexual encounter, whether gay or hetero, at the age of 14, 16 or even 18 is not at times hurtful to both males and females, then call me surprised.

_________________

That's what I've been saying for five pages! The gay part is irrelevant to the discussion! What don't you understand about this!?

_________________

My bad.

I thought that you were trying to call every Judeo-Christian a bigot and repeatedly claim that I said things that were never posted in order to advance an argument that I had never tried to make.

_________________

Ha. You do such a fine job of advancing these arguments on your own that you wouldn't need my help.

Let's be clear here. You make an "attempt" at never actually saying anything so that you can always accuse one of claiming "things that were never posted." It's a horrible argument. This isn't a court of law. It's a message board. We all know what you are saying, and if you're not clear, we will infer the rest. You compared homosexuals to pedophiles. This is repugnant and unacceptable. I could forgive you if you'd just come out and apologize for your mistake. It's not hard. We'd all respect you for it.

_________________

Who cares what a guy from the Air Force Academy says anyway.

No, he didn't. What he's saying- if I read him correctly- is that we allow the concept that someone is "born a certain way" to justify their behavior. If pedophiles are born that way and we expect that they refrain from acting on their sexual impulses it may also be reasonable to expect that homosexuals refrain from acting upon their sexual impulses.

I also understand your point that the homosexuals in question are consenting adults. Personally, I don't give a fuck what two consenting people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and I think people are capable of consenting at a younger age than most others seem too. But Seacrest's viewpoint is hardly outlandish and, in fact, is the one expressed by most major religions.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Okay, but being expressed by major religions doesn't make it less outlandish. In fact, based on contextual evidence, it probably makes it more outlandish. I understand Seacrest's point, but the fact that one is with consensual adults and one is not makes it completely ridiculous. It's not the same. Pedophilia ruins people who haven't had a chance to live yet. Homosexuality - unless the homosexual is also a pedophile - is two consensual adults. Both can feel right to individuals. But one negatively impacts children and has rightfully been outlawed. That's all that matters.

_________________

... And let me just also say this. Your logic in the above sentence is sound, but that is NOT what Seacrest said. I've been thinking about it during this entire argument and was wondering if he was going to come out and make the point or not because I thought it would be the most logical argument he could make. He never did. Instead, he hemmed and hawed. I presume he did this because he doesn't like to commit to a position. However, it would do him good to actually pick a position such as the one outlined above. It's wrong, but it at least has some logical flow to it. This is Seacrest's fault for never stating a position, not mine for misinterpreting his "positions."

_________________

I don't want some uneducated douche to start calling me a pederast again, but the concept of a "minor" is nothing more than a social more. I tend to agree with you on this issue more than with Seacrest, but if I were making his argument, I might suggest that the laws of the Catholic Church are far older and more venerable than those of the United States of America.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

This is what concerns me about todays ruling. What is next and how far down this road will we go...

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Well, we're on the same page here, because I'm not willing to argue what constitutes a minor. That part is irrelevant to me, as long as we agree that there is such a thing as a person who is not old enough to make their own sexual decisions.

_________________

We go until it violates the rights of another person or creature. Children cannot consent. Animals cannot consent (though I would not be offended if a man could legally marry a giraffe. I'd find it quite funny). It's actually quite simple in my eyes.

_________________

I am glad you are confident about how simple it is. I wish I was that confident.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Well, let me ask you this: are you confident enough to deny gay couples the right to the financial benefits of a married couple based on the premise that eventually someone might marry a tree? If you are, so be it. I'm willing to take that chance.

_________________

I think obviously there is.

But in the wake of the Penn State thing I read an interesting white paper by some academic. I forget the guy's name but I'll see if I can find the link. Anyway, his position was that "innocence" is a quality we attribute to children rather than something they actually have. In fact, children are among the most manipulative members of a society. They may allow an old linebacker coach to grab their penis because they get to go to a football game and receive a brand new jacket. The child sees that as a good deal. He isn't "ruined" until society gets involved and tells him what happened was wrong. Then he begins to see himself as a victim or perhaps as a damaged person.

I don't know if I agree with the guy or not, but it's an interesting conversation, though probably not one that can be reasonably had in a forum such as this.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I'm trying to follow the discussion here, and I don't know how religion gets cited in a general discussion about the age of consent and homosexuality/gay marriage. Well, I understand religion and homosexuality to a degree, but what does it have to do with the age of consent? Honest question...

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Probably someone thought the ruling will somehow devolve things into pedophilia is ok.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I think Seacrest was trying to make that point that being born a certain way isn't always a justification for behavior.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

JORR, I know you're trying to use a logical train of thought here, brother, and I appreciate that, but it's wrong. Ask any person who was actually abused as a child to answer that one. Whoever wrote the article is off kilter and it's more than a little sickening.

_________________

Well, it would be nice if he just came out and said it, but anyhow...

The act isn't what's being debated. It's the outcome, which is on one hand, two consenting adults having sex with each other (and that's fine), or one mature adult taking advantage of an immature individual who we as a society have deemed incapable of making their own decisions, which usually ruins that immature individual for a lifetime. One affects no one. The other negatively affects the minor and everyone else who helps that minor through a lifetime of self-doubt and mental anguish. It's really that simple.

_________________

Well, it was prepared by a former FBI profiler who is an expert on child sexual victimization. The guy's name is Jim Clemente. It wasn't some underground wacko publication. And it wasn't a justification for what he referred to as "grooming" a child.

And of course you and I find it sickening. We were raised in a society where our values tell us it's sickening. But that same society also found homosexuality sickening for many, many years, right?

Again, I have no problem with gays getting married, having sex 24/7 or whatever. But I'm not sure the mere fact that they were "born that way" is enough to support the position.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I think you brought up similar points in the Kohl's thread. You've probably already addressed this, but I'm sure you know whether a child is inherently innocent or not, or whether a 16 year old is really in love with his/her 18 year old girl/boyfriend, is irrelevant vis-a-vis consent. I'm not sure what the legal definition of consent is, but if it includes language such as only those above the age of 18 are legally recognized as persons able to consent to sexual activity, then the points the article is making are irrelevant as they pertain to law.

I think part of this discussion finds itself at the intersection of law and morality, and the need for commensurability between the two. Some of the arguments I remember you making in the Kohl's thread struck me as more moral than legal, correct me if I'm wrong. I think this sub-discussion finds itself at a similar impasse.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY