The issue is that legally, in some places, even some states, they can, while it others, they cannot. If I wanted to make it personal, there is one country where I still cannot give informed consent (legally speaking).
Well, you see your honor... according to a graphic I found on wikipedia..... (I've seen this somewhere before?) There are a few counties that rules sex outside of marriage as illegal. One in particular in the middle east (I don't recall which one) had no minimum age, but required marriage. Thus, a 27 year old who was not married could not legally have sex with anyone. However, if a 13 year old were married, it would be legal.
Two points, dating someone under the age limit is not legal, though it is creepy.
A: Might wanna update this. I believe you meant the opposite of the bolded part. (I do that more often than I'd like). However, B: Imagine a society where, if you openly considered having sex with such a minor as "creepy" ... you were considered to be an intolerant biggot. Simply by disproving YOU have a problem.
What is the difference between a civil rights march led by Dr Martin Luther King and a KKK march led by that organization’s Grand Dragon?
A good correlation. Why is "black power" affirming and empowering, but "white power" inherently racist?
Again, never have I advocated any discrimination against any group of people, but, why is it inherently immoral for a straight white male to feel any sort of pride?
We have "women's history month" but no "men's history month." We have a month for every ethnic group except central europeans. We have a month dedicated to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, yet the only ones excluded are straight people. That strikes you as completely OK when every other feasible category of people are given recognition, and you're taught by society at every turn that you have to be ashamed of yourself?
Someone mentioned that (to paraphrase) "you had the freedom to disapprove of homosexuality, but we have the same freedom to call you an intolerant biggot."
But, the two aren't correlatory. When one "calls someone" emotionally charged names like that, it's no less discriminatory than if I were to call someone a (insert offensive minority-based slur here).
The correlation would be "I can disapprove, and you can disapprove of my disapproval." But throwing insults and inflammatory accusations around is a step beyond "disapproval" and into "discrimination."
You seriously have no idea what TRUE discrimination is do you?
Beyond what you can imagine, obviously. However, I'm not here for pity, so I'm not going to bring up the real hardships from my life.
People disagreeing with you is NOT discrimination.
So... if I disagree with homosexuality, I'm not discriminating?
Seriously you are going to try to say that's "out-of-context"? What a cheap cop-out.
Yep. Because contextually, the whole message of the bible is one of love, understanding, and inclusion. If you start and stop in Leviticus, of course you'll have a skewed, horrific understanding. Try John 17.
Please by all means do explain the verse that says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH in it's proper context. Bear in mind that it's in a section that are laid out as laws that were to be followed by "God's chosen people".
Perhaps because Levitical law was part of the old covenant, which was done away with nearly 2,000 years ago.
By your tone about "old books," I assume you're not religious and therefore athiest. You realize the religion of nature... survival of the fittest, and all that is equally harsh and those who cannot procreate? Unless you reject evolution as well?
I'm not talking about an individual I'm talking about YOUR HOLY BOOK, the place you claim to get your morality from. It says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH.
If you have such a problem with stoning someone to death, how do you know it's immoral? What if it makes me feel good? What if I just like doing it.
You can't throw morality out the window, yet still rely on it on your next point.
I'm sure there is a way for you to twist that around and you WILL say that you are not held to that anymore but that is what your holy book says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH.
Again... before you go around telling people what their holy books say... I'd suggest reading it first.
Phobia doesn't apply when a person isn't afraid of gays/homosexuals/ or whatever "etc" name some gays have informed people loudly that they want to be called.
In my opinion anyway.
Actually the only ones I'd say are "afraid" or have a "phobia" about homosexuals, are the idiot rednecks who ticked off a 6 foot 2, 350 pound male black crossdresser named Bambi around 4 or 5 years ago at a gay club in my city.
Especially when a police officer who just happened to be sitting in his car while Bambi dragged the screaming driver out of the cab of his truck and punched him several times, got out of his patrol car and walked into the bar to talk to the owner.
I'm not talking about an individual I'm talking about YOUR HOLY BOOK, the place you claim to get your morality from. It says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH.
"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”" (John 8:1-11)
Beyond what you can imagine, obviously. However, I'm not here for pity, so I'm not going to bring up the real hardships from my life.
Must be hard not being able to put down homosexuals without being called out on it.
So... if I disagree with homosexuality, I'm not discriminating?
No, it's not discriminating. It's OK to disagree, but please if you do disagree have a better reason then you read it in a book.
Yep. Because contextually, the whole message of the bible is one of love, understanding, and inclusion. If you start and stop in Leviticus, of course you'll have a skewed, horrific understanding. Try John 17.
But that's what you do when you say that homosexuals are immoral.
Perhaps because Levitical law was part of the old covenant, which was done away with nearly 2,000 years ago.
Another cop out.
By your tone about "old books," I assume you're not religious and therefore athiest. You realize the religion of nature... survival of the fittest, and all that is equally harsh and those who cannot procreate? Unless you reject evolution as well?
Let's not get side tracked here, especially on evolution as I seriously doubt you know much about it.
If you have such a problem with stoning someone to death, how do you know it's immoral? What if it makes me feel good? What if I just like doing it.
It's immoral because of the inherent cruelty and unjustness of it.
You can't throw morality out the window, yet still rely on it on your next point.
Your old book is not the start and end of all morality.
Again... before you go around telling people what their holy books say... I'd suggest reading it first.
I have, maybe you should try reading it too.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”" (John 8:1-11)
That is a nice part of the Bible, it's a shame that it was tacked on and not an original part of it. That also doesn't take into account that at one point and time your God saw it fit to STONE HOMOSEXUALS TO DEATH. That wasn't an idle law, people followed. That means that people were killed because of their sexual preference because other people were COMMANDED BY GOD to MURDER THEM. Guess what, that still happened to this day.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
The Gregorian-
We aren't living in 1984 yet. You are permitted to think what you like about other people's lives, whether you are in favour of them or not.
What is not legally permitted is to act on your disapproval of them, especially if what they do is legal.
You are not permitted to treat people badly because you disapprove of their homosexuality, just as others are not permitted to treat you badly because of your Christianity.
Thugs are not allowed to beat up homosexuals. They also aren't allowed to beat up paedophiles. They aren't even allowed to beat up active child molestors (although if the person doing the beating was a family member of the abused child the courts would probably be fairly lenient with them).
Child abuse hurts someone. It is a legal matter concerning the manipulation and harm caused to someone who is not capable of giving consent. It is NOT the same as two fully consenting adults doing whatever turns them on in their own bedroom.
Why should your disapproval of someone else's legal activities matter?
A good correlation. Why is "black power" affirming and empowering, but "white power" inherently racist?
Intent
Again, never have I advocated any discrimination against any group of people, but, why is it inherently immoral for a straight white male to feel any sort of pride?
You are the only one claiming it is
We have "women's history month" but no "men's history month." We have a month for every ethnic group except central europeans. We have a month dedicated to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, yet the only ones excluded are straight people. That strikes you as completely OK when every other feasible category of people are given recognition, and you're taught by society at every turn that you have to be ashamed of yourself?
There is a familiar story of a kid who looking at the calendar notes that there is a mother’s any and a father’s day and this strikes the kid as inherently unfair. He goes to him mother and demands an explanation. She responds simply “every day is kid’s day”
Someone mentioned that (to paraphrase) "you had the freedom to disapprove of homosexuality, but we have the same freedom to call you an intolerant biggot."
The same thing can be said of racists. They have the freedom to disapprove of racial equality but good people everywhere have the right to confront them on that point.
But, the two aren't correlatory. When one "calls someone" emotionally charged names like that, it's no less discriminatory than if I were to call someone a (insert offensive minority-based slur here).
The correlation would be "I can disapprove, and you can disapprove of my disapproval." But throwing insults and inflammatory accusations around is a step beyond "disapproval" and into "discrimination."
Lets see what you have done in this thread: you tired to compare pedophiles to homosexuals – multiple times You’ve tired to compare people who have sex with animals to homosexuals – three times You tried to compare prostitution to homosexuality You tired to compare individuals who have sex with corpses to homosexuals - twice You’ve called this minority perverted 1 Unacceptable Immoral You have claimed sexual orientation is a fashion statement You claimed gays are harmful You have claimed that gays and lesbians have liberties you personally are denied (we are all still waiting for you to specify just what rights gays and lesbians have that you are specifically being denied) You tired to use a disease to justify your personal prejudice
So you have been throwing around insults, inflammatory accusations and emotionally charged discriminatory names al the wile trying to play the victim and claim other people are doing exactly what you are doing
__________________ First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.
Mahatma Ghandi
Linear Mode
