Posted on 12/29/2010 11:03:28 AM PST by Kaslin
I think that effectively ended the disingenuous debate.
I’m curious too.
Seems they stomped into this thread and keyed on little old me.
And they didn’t know about the push to lower the age of consent:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=126#126
Literally 126 is a “What?”
If people are going to try and defend the indefensible, they need to learn what it is they are defending first.
I bet they don’t know about the toddler fetish sex gear at the Folsom Street Fair.
The trend? The only trend I see as far as homosexual sex being normalized dovetails nicely with the progressive trend imposing big government, central planning, eradication of God from public discourse, wealth redistribution, and sacrificing individual liberty for collective ideology.
America has not changed into a progressive leftist nation. The trend you believe you see is but propaganda and encroaching imposed leftist tyranny.
It is illegitimate -just as illegitimate as the homosexual sex premised justice band wagon that Americans spit on...
I completely understand, Jim. I I’m not crossing the line. The reason I got involved in this conversation, is that I think Sherman Logan is asking a serious question. We agree that homosexuality is immoral. But right now (unless you bring in issues of age and consent) it is not illegal. So how do we “handle” people whose behavior is immoral but not illegal? What is the recourse?
You are quite correct. I was not using the term in the strictly legal sense. I’m sure we all recognize many cross-generational relationships are consensual (voluntary) on the part of the under-age person or even initiated by that person.
Doesn’t justify the actions of the “adult” in the case, who should be punished according to the law, but it is just silly to pretend every 16 year old who gets it on with a teacher is forced into it by violence or psychological pressure.
You forget: They recently pushed to lower the age of consent.
Ooh, thanks for the links about age of consent. Bizarre and inappropriate. Haven’t read all, because I wantedvto reply to you. Is the Ginsburg thing also related to sexual consent?
Consensual: existing or made by mutual consent
Trust me, I know what it means, my concern is that you are trying to validate and normalize a very serious mental condition by focusing on whether a person wants to be doing it. It is no different than trying to excuse cocaine addiction because the addict wants to use cocaine.
All I asked, originally, is what actions should be taken to enforce our moral opinions of homosexuality against those who voluntarily (perhaps you prefer that term) engage in it.
Very simple, homosexuality should be treated as a psychiatric disorder (as it was until the early 1970s), the AMA and APA should go on record with this and the DSM should be revised to reflect it. Schools should warn about homosexuality the same way they warn children about drugs and alcohol.
I don’t know but we’re not going to defend it here on FR. Those who wish to support or defend homosexualism or any part of the homosexual agenda can do it elsewhere. That means they’ll either keep it off FR, go somewhere else to post it, or be shown the door.
Sorry to offend about your brother (and about his situation). What I meant to ask was, was he trying to recruit/pick up kids in a bar? I wouldnt think that would be legal. In general, if recruiting means a pick-up, then it’s illegal if the pursuee is under-age.
I know, because this is my opinion.
Disregarding the unproved assertion that there are "homosexual beings" -what people do in private is not what is being debated in public. Two adults can legally do almost anything they want to each other in private.
The question is WHO decides which activities are of value to society, which activities should be promoted, which activities should be discouraged, which activities should be granted societal privilege etcetera...
Please, I don’t want to give the impression I’m trying to defend anything. I actually think the age of adulthood/consent should be raised. I’m asking what can be done about two adults.
Received and understood.
Leaving the thread now.
looks like we have the trolls out in force.
It seems the RINOs are trying to obfuscate.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Conservapedia
Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are "less than 12 years old."
Yes, The age of consent also applies to sex as that is what the age of consent is legally understood to include.
Scott Ritter, Mr. Burger King pickup line, would be free and clear of all issues were they to lower the AOC because all his victims and would be victims were “15”.
There is far more info on it available, but I don’t have the links handy on the run so to speak as I have three things going on at once on my end.
No. He was a newly recruited kid himself. Back then you could go in a bar at 18 and drink “3.2 beer” in Ohio.
Marriage is not a right. Not for homos, not for heteros, not for anyone. Millions who would like to marry cannot, and sometimes that's a lifelong situation. You have as much right to marry as you have to play professional polo. It can be done if you gain the qualifications, but most likely you'll be in an amateur league. Even that requires a rider and a horse; two riders can't play polo-- any more than two men can truly make a married couple.
Thanks for the info, Darksheare, and sorry if I interrupted you. I can definitely look this up on my own. And I’m sorry if I offended; I didn’t mean to, honestly.
I hope you have a wonderful rest of the Christmas season!
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.