Posted on 11/09/2004 7:17:10 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
First of all, dude, you have a serious problem. You are attacking me personally because you disagree with me on the silliest of subjects: whether consenting adults can have sex.
Secondly, you need to look up the word hypocrite, because you don't seem to know what it means. How am I being a hypocrite?
Now onto the content of your post: I agree with you that animals are personal property, but the fact is that animal cruelty laws are on the books. You cannot treat an animal in any fashion you choose just because you own it. Whether you agree with that principle or not, it is the law. By the way, tell your animal friends that they do not have the capacity to consent to sex.
Can you please name the states where bestiality is legal? Saying that it is part of pornography is hardly evidence. First, many porn movies are not even shot in the USA and secondly, child molestation and rape are also part of the porn industry, does that prove that those behaviors are legal?
Also, I do not care about the IQ of a 13-year-old. Intelligence is a very separate issue from maturity or age of consent. While there is no magic age of adulthood, I think most rational members of this society would agree that a 13-year-old is a child. This is how legislators determined that the age of majority in most cases is 18. Then when they created the statutory rape laws, they simply incorporated the age of majority as the age of adult consent. This was not "arbitrary law making."
I was "keeping up" with your rant about incest. I stated that the laws on the books were written with the intent of protecting children, but that they also had a secondary rationale based on public health (ie. my examples about the degree of cousins that could marry legally) so that the policy also applied to adult relatives who wanted to marry. I am not stating "my logic" nor saying that I agree with these regulations; I am merely pointing out what is already the law. I never said or implied that anyone with a genetic disease or condition should be barred from anything, again, your argument is with the statutes, not with me.
And I'll answer your question, I consider two adult brothers having sex to be pretty disgusting and certainly abnormal, but I see no reason why it should be illegal. It does not violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property and it poses no danger to citizens or their possessions.
That being said, you still have no reason to equate people attracted to members of their own gender with people depraved enough to have sex with children or animals.
I don't know why you are so angry or feel so threatened by people of the same gender having sex. It's none of your business what people do as long as they are not endangering your or anyone else's rights.
It isn't always about you.
Even if same sex marriage will not impact society in my lifetime, it will impact society. We don't have any reason to think the impact will be good because there is no surviving society that allows same sex marriage. We have no empirical evidence that it will not hurt society, and a great deal of information as to why it will hurt society.
But it may never affect you. Get over thinking that it's all about you. It will affect your children, and your grandchildren. That's who this battle is for. It's not for you.
For posterity's sake, we must not accept the notion that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, nor must we incorporate it into law.
Shalom.
That is a gross oversimplification generally put forth by those who don't want to recognize a responsibility to society.
Shalom.
Clint: That was intelligent.
Actually, in a way, it was. Sometimes it is foolish to argue a point that comes from a stupid premise. Have you ever tried to debate the point that electric motors run on smoke? Certainly you've noticed that when the smoke comes out of the electric motor it won't run anymore. But if the smoke is kept inside, the motor will run just fine.
When someone makes an absurd argument that he/she deems reasonable, it means that person himself/herself is absurd.
You can't argue with people who think homosexuality should be considered.
Shalom.
What benefit to society does divorce provide? None. It provides damaged children and damaged people.
We need to get rid of no contest divorce and make getting a divorce as close to impossible as we can. Divorce is ruining this country and we can trace the divorce revolution to the wanton sex drugged out hippies in the 60's.
Our children are not a means to run a social experiment, especially when the results can be so devastating to future generations.
Especially when nobody can point to a successful example.
And, while it doesn't involve homosexuality, we can all point to the example of the black community as one where a change in the traditional notion of family had drastic consequences.
Monkying with the notion of family is like monkying with the wall of your basement. You're a fool unless you ABSOLUETLY KNOW what you are doing.
Shalom.
Bump
>ancient Rome/Greece to varying degrees approved of or at
>least tolerated without persecution gay relationships
They are conquered peoples, and we don't want to emulate negative aspects of conquered peoples.
>American society is much different than it was in 1776, that
>doesn't mean that it somehow became "extinct."
Heterosexual America still stands.
>Tokugawa Japan could have continued had the West not existed
>and its fall had little or nothing to do with the sexual
>mores of the nobles.
Homosexual Tokugawa, like ancient Greece and Rome, fell.
The Greeks were conquered by the Romans.
The Romans were conquered by a bunch of barbarians.
America has worked so far with the Bible and marriage at it's center for more than two centuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.