Posted on 05/08/2002 8:39:38 PM PDT by Joe Republc
I used to be very tolerant of homosexuality, thinking that was just the choice between two adults. Not anymore.
Read "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," an article by Steve Baldwin. As noted on the web page leading to the article, it "addresses several recent attacks on our society driven by the homosexual movement. From the international campaign to lower or remove age of consent laws, to the recent assault on the Boy Scouts of America, homosexuals are waging an all out campaign to normalize homosexuality."
Reading through this makes a pretty convincing case that homosexuality and child molestation are well-tied.
I assume you are talking about children in the last portion. They can not consent because they are underage and if you are a 30 year old and can't tell a gay man not to have sex with you, then that is your fault. As I have stated, it is wrong to molest a child be it through homosexual means or heterosexual means. And by law, consent is not acquiescence if you are a minor.
Let me put it this way, they can express themselves just as we are expressing ourselves as long as they don't hurt anyone. Now if i said agree with me and if you don't, I beat you up or vice versa, then that would be wrong because we are infringing on the each other's rights. They are doing nothing constitutionaly wrong if they are abiding by the laws.
I do feel sorry for the burden of all the hate that you must carry with you. That is the one thing that will be different when we are done. You will hate me, and I will respect your opinion.
Not if there’s acquiescence.
If you don't understand how molesting a child doesn't hurt anybody, then you have some serious issues.
So instead of arguing the point, you attack me? Poor form. Obviously I do find pedophilia harmful, as I do the practice of perversion, but if consent is the only criteria then it’s possible for children to meet that burden.
I assume you are talking about children in the last portion. They can not consent because they are underage and if you are a 30 year old and can't tell a gay man not to have sex with you, then that is your fault.
That doesn’t explain why children can’t consent, you are relying on the law. If the law was the only criteria then obviously the practice of perversion is still illegal in many states.
As I have stated, it is wrong to molest a child be it through homosexual means or heterosexual means. And by law, consent is not acquiescence if you are a minor.
Of course it’s wrong, as is the practice of perversion, but it doesn’t address whether a child can consent, not whether some arbitrary age prevents him/her from doing that.
It’s difficult for the consent crowd to intellectually argue this point without personal attacks so let’s put it aside till later, I promise to return to it, and discuss the easiest of the three, why is consent between incestual adults not possible?
As far as the law goes, how do you plan on enforcing all of your beliefs. Magic and voodoo. No, you will use the law. Don't use the law when it suits you and throw it away when it doesn't.
As far as personal form, I believe we can find many direct tacks from you against me, so thanks for proving my point about them. That was not a personal attacke because YOU said you do not see how molesting a child is harmful and I do feel sorry for anyone who does not understand that.
Let me tell you why incestual consent is not possible. Because the scientific community said that children coming from the possible procreation of the two have substantially higher possibilities of problems. However, this law may be changing somewhat because they have recent'y found that sex with cousins will not result in this. So, to keep with what I have been saying, YES. It does hurt someone and that would be the child that would be born retarded, mlformed, etc. . .
The consent thing. You are saying that you think a child can consent. So your kid can go buy a house, a car, a gun, a tattoo, have sex with a 3 year old (because he asked the little girl if he could and she said "OK.") Do you just not understand while children can not consent. That is why sex is always wrong with a child. Gay or otherwise.
Now, as you can see, you were once again wrong on EVERY thing that you wrote. So, try again. P.S. Try actually reading what I write too, then I won't have to explain things to you over and over and over.
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
Doesn't matter if you believe in the Bible or not, Prager outlines practical reasons for opposing the homosexual agenda. Civilization itself is at stake.
Example, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world, even those parts of the world that are worse off because they did not follow the "western or biblical path." Their are many reasons why the west and the biblical people are better off. America for example didn't have to fight (big wars) to gain territory, we just moved onto it. Christian countries tend to have more freedom, so more people go to them and the smarter people come to them because they are free to explore all avenues (scientific and otherwise) that would be condemed in an Arab country for example. A huge factor would be schooling. Western Civilazation isn't better off because we view homosexuals as bad but because we educate people to become better than those that preceded them. The countries that are worse off than us don't.
I am not trying to come off as arrogant. I believe people can and should believe whatever they want. The only thing that I want is for people to rationally weigh all information before making a decision. Then after one has made a decision to be free enough and confident enough to change your mind if you are shown you are wrong. There are people that could have Jesus Christ himself come down and tell them that they are wrong and they would tell him to go check his facts. People will never learn anything if they just stick to what they know and refuse to hear anything else.
Umm…you’re missing the point of the exercise, but OK let’s go with this. Then what you’re saying is only if the LAW says a minor can’t consent they CAN’T? So if the LAW said they can, like in the Netherlands, then it’s OK, right?
As far as personal form, I believe we can find many direct tacks from you against me, so thanks for proving my point about them. That was not a personal attacke because YOU said you do not see how molesting a child is harmful and I do feel sorry for anyone who does not understand that.
No, you made the statement “The fact that it hurts someone” and I asked “How?” not that I “do not see how.” I simply wanted you to explain your statement, and you’re still welcome to, not me, I already know my views on the subject. Next time try and quote me more accurately.
Let me tell you why incestual consent is not possible. Because the scientific community said that children coming from the possible procreation of the two have substantially higher possibilities of problems. However, this law may be changing somewhat because they have recent'y found that sex with cousins will not result in this. So, to keep with what I have been saying, YES. It does hurt someone and that would be the child that would be born retarded, mlformed, etc. . .
Actually you are more likely to have genetic malnormalities from parents, the CDC says it’s 95% likelihood, from parents who have an existing genetic defect. So as not to be hypocritical, you would endorse sanction for people who have cystic fibrosis, Downs, spinal bifida, et al, having sex because they cannot give consent either? Or are you saying you just don’t trust adults to use safe-sex/birth-control methods, and I can always play the abortion card but I won’t because you must be pro-life, are causing “harm” some where? I smell a double standard here. But for the sake of argument I’ll concede your point, what if the mother has had a hysterectomy or the adult son has had a vasectomy, then can there be consent?
The consent thing. You are saying that you think a child can consent. So your kid can go buy a house, a car, a gun, a tattoo, have sex with a 3 year old (because he asked the little girl if he could and she said "OK.") Do you just not understand while children can not consent. That is why sex is always wrong with a child.
Well yes and no. Obviously you’re not very well prepared for this discussion so let me help you out here. I guess you missed the “lack of consent talking points memo”, you’re suppose to say children don’t have “mental capacity,” which is also included in the legal definition of consent. Indeed most children don’t have the capacity for consent, but many do. I can confidently say no 3 year olds have capacity but many children dohave legal mental capacity, not legal age, to consent.
Now, as you can see, you were once again wrong on EVERY thing that you wrote. So, try again. P.S. Try actually reading what I write too, then I won't have to explain things to you over and over and over.
Oh please… now you’re making me laugh.
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.