Why doesn't that surprise me. Also, It should be phpgator, You know, The guy were cheer-leading for, Who should make the thread about the age of consent. After all, It was he who was using the example of sex with a 13 year old girl in an attempt to demonstrate something that is universally viewed as abhorrent which doesn't effect anyone other than the people directly involved. You didn't think he was defending sex with children (specifically 13 year old girls), Did you? I'll give you a moment to get your foot out of your mouth before you attempt an epic back-peddling post.
Is intellectual cowardice a requirement of your cult too? if you aren't prepared to participate in dialogue would you mind not cluttering up the thread? If you want to preach find yourself a street corner and a box to stand on. Otherwise, Answer the questions people put to you.
Huh? I'm not sure how I got dragged into his post as if we were contradicting eachother. I think we were both in different ways stating the same point. The age of consent is a law that we made and we developed based on our own thoughts and reasoning. The age of consent now days was the age that many of our grandparents were married at. You (as well as I) view it as wrong because the law says so, there was no fundamental problems with it 100 years ago, or even today in some places of the world. My point was that there are a lot of things that we view as wrong that have no direct impact on us. I think pingpong was conveying something similar in his post as well.
My point was that if anyone should be required to make a thread contesting the legal age of consent it should not be me like pingpong wishes, It should be you, As it was you who brought up the issue of sex with children and how it is viewed as wrong by most people.
You clearly have never taken a sociology class. This doesn't even deserve a response. I'm sorry, I thought the Politics and Religion section might contain some topics that would be accepting of discussing religious views. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have if they aren't littered with the junk you keep filling them with.
One key tenet of our system is precisely the opposite, PHP, namely, that those in the minority on any issue are not excluded from our very founding principles or rule of law. Majority rule has its benefits - for instance, it beats the pants off of autocratic rule. That said, as some here have pointed out, it has its downside. Your argument is resting on the notion that a majority of people view gay marriage as wrong, and that therefore, it should be illegal. Tomorrow, it may be any number of other things - say, being gay itself. Should a majority come to hold that being gay is not only wrong, but should be made illegal. Should we therefore establish laws making homosexuals a criminal class? I think not. One need only look at the twentieth century to see what happens under such a paradigm. If the majority wishes for something that falls afoul of our Constitution, it cannot stand. I would say that the notions you're talking about fall afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
"discussing" something is not the same as saying "an old book tells me what to think" and then putting your fingers in your ears. if you don't answer the question I'll just assume you lack the courage to give an answer and assume that the answer you would give, if you had the courage, would be the least favourable one. Which would be; "yes i realise my method of forming conclusions is illogical and infantile and based on nothing but obedience when it comes to following a primitive text without question and never once even attempting to use my own brain".
The same way you wont start a forum on how do u determine the age of maturity for a young woman? I guess that law is ok with you. Thank god my mom didnt have that law or i wouldnt be born today. I guess that is what you would call selective answering. Looking forward to seeing u become unbiased and starting a thread on this other subject
Why would i start that thread? it was phpgator who used sex with 13 year old girls as an example of something which is viewed as abhorrent and which only effects the people involved. he was using it as an example of something which i, And i assume he, Oppose which doesn't effect us. What part of that are you having such monumental difficulty grasping? If you want to start a thread justifying a sexual relationship between someone phpgators age (whatever that is) and a 13 year old girl, knock yourself out. i guess next time you should make sure you aren't inadvertently refuting something said by the person you are cheerleading for.
Like i said its all objective, this is why you wont start a thread because your biased one fashion. Majority won this vote and that is settled. God bless
no, i wont start the thread because it wasn't me who made the point it was phpgator, you know, the guy you were cheer leading for. what part of this simple concept are you having difficulty getting your brain around?
I get it, you're afraid to respond to my points and that's fine. No mystery there. But please, stop with the "majority voted and it's over" statements as if that ends the discussion. It's been voted on before and the margin was far more against gay marriage. Now that margin is just 2.5% away from shifting toward support for gay marriage in California. Like it or not, it will happen. Regarding the slippery slope that people keep trying to tie to this discussion: "if we allow gays to marry, then why not let adults marry minors?", please stop bringing in unrelated issues. The same exact question could be posed outside this discussion: "If adults can marry, why not minors?" And the answer would be something along the lines of "The arbitrary marriageable age differs from state to state as laws have found necessary in an effort to allow only those people who are mentally ready for the act." So obviously, age is a moot point in this debate -- gay marriage -- age isn't a factor. That's what I've been saying for days now. If you want to make a thread about age, go ahead, but this thread is about the original post, a hypothetical question... How about, instead of changing the definition of marriage to include gays, we remove the government's hand from the definition of marriage altogether. I say, let the church dictate who can or can't get 'married.' Then let anyone who wants to have rights in the eyes of the government in terms of what we now call marriages get a 'civil ceremony,' whether you're straight, gay or lesbian. Now I'm fully aware that popular vote is what keeps gay marriage at bay, but that's only because lots of people are confused in thinking that they're giving up some kind of religious right to the sanctity of marriage. Other people think gay marriages don't provide healthy environments for the raising of children. Other people just don't want to see gay people, period. I get it, there are differing reasons but only one of these arguments is valid in terms of governmental policy and that's the healthy environment argument. Here's a quote from an article on ReligiousTolerance.org: Nobody knows, with accuracy, how children raised in families headed by same-sex parents fare in comparison with children who live in families led by opposite-sex couples. Those opposed to same-sex marriage (SSM) often point to studies which show that children raised in families headed by a father and mother fare much better, both in childhood and later as adults. But further examination shows that most of these studies are not applicable here, because they compare families with opposite-sex parents to single-parent families, not with those headed by same-sex parents. Of course, many -- perhaps most -- children in single-parent families will be disadvantaged because of poverty, and the lack of a second parent to give the children more care and attention than one parent can provide. Those who advocate same-sex marriage often point to studies which show that children raised in two-parent families do well, regardless of whether the parents are of the same sex or opposite sex. But most of these studies are deeply flawed because: They involve self-selected subjects, and/or They do not study families over a sufficiently long interval, and/or They demonstrate bias on the part of the researchers. The lack of quality studies should not be a surprise. There has been a lack of meaningful studies in a many important areas. So until there's a clear study indicating one way or the other, the argument being made is being made under false pretenses and therefore, should be thrown out. So other than religious bigotry, does anyone have any valid points against the original hypothetical?
Honestly, marriage has become some sort of joke. Just the other day I was reading this article about hundreds of dogs breaking the record (Guinness Book of World Records) for the amount of dogs getting married in one day. So dogs are allowed to get married and gays (aka human beings) aren't? That's just ridiculous...
No. Marriage needs to be regulated by the government. Have you forgot about the financial benefits of marriage; income taxes, property, and other agreements between couples.
Just because someone chooses to live a certain way does not mean that I should be forced to accept it as OK. People will do what they want, regardless of right or wrong, legal or not. I don't presume that it's my job to say anything other than I believe it is wrong, and if it was legalized, that will not make it right. But if I'm asked, I will stand by my beliefs and say that I am against it. Period. That's my .02.
Are you serious? Did you not even read what I wrote? That's very true, but then again -- just because voting can be oppressive doesn't mean we should be forced to live in a society where oppression is OK. No, people won't do what they want -- because it's illegal in most states. If they could do it regardless, there would be no debate. If one more person says "I'm against it because I'm against it," my head is going to explode. There can't be this many people who just believe shit without thinking it through for themselves or having any decent reason. This is why oppression lingers.
Specifically, I was referring to homosexuality. Whether it's legal for them to 'marry' or not, they will partner up regardless. Marijuana is illegal. People still do it. Go figure.
Right. But so what? Your original point was that if people live a certain way, you shouldn't be forced to accept it. Your statement is correct but your intention was where you strayed: it's true, you shouldn't be forced to accept anyone's lifestyle -- you can move anywhere you want in the US to get away from it or even just stay cooped up inside your house but just because I might not agree with the way certain people choose to live their lives doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. For example, I don't like it when Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons go door to door "evangelizing." I don't like it when random strangers come up to me on the street or in malls and ask me if I've met Jesus. I especially don't like it when people smoke cigarettes in public right next to me. But the fact is -- they can. That's their freedom. My freedom allows me to move away from these things, despite my distaste for them. That's the beauty of our country -- we have freedoms outside of the death grip of religion. We have the freedom to actually think instead of accepting dogma. It's beautiful and it doesn't change just because you personally don't accept it. Yeah, because Marijuana is so much worse than alcohol and tobacco is arbitrarily still legal, despite the death toll. Go figure. -- Hey Christians, does this sound like you?