Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

[Moral Orel]

If you read what so many liberals on this site have argued, I’m sure you’ll remember hearing them say that definitions are always subject to change with the times and the culture. So why not the definition of consent, or what the age of consent is? People on this site have even advocated lowering it to 13 or 14.

Don't believe me? Read from those who say it themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

You didn't even read that article did you? You couldn't have if you think it advocates lowering the age of consent. You must have stopped after reading the headline that you misconstrued.

 

[Belk]

If you read what so many liberals on this site have argued, I’m sure you’ll remember hearing them say that definitions are always subject to change with the times and the culture. So why not the definition of consent, or what the age of consent is? People on this site have even advocated lowering it to 13 or 14.

Don't believe me? Read from those who say it themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Or especially the home of their advocates: http://www.nambla.org/
Allow me here to show you their view of homosexual marriage:
"In aping the heterosexual lifestyle ("We're just like everybody else except for our choice of partners.") much of the gay leadership has cast overboard those they felt to be a liability. They would also disown, were they alive today, the likes of Allan Ginsberg, Oscar Wilde, Socrates and many other such luminaries and icons of civilization. Even if we do not agree with the assimilationist aspirations of those seeking gay marriages, we can admire the steadfastness of those who struggled to achieve their goal. Were they only to grant the same tolerance for the love that does dare to speak its name, the same love celebrated in the art and poetry of many cultures, the love between man and boy that was once synonymous with forbidden homosexuality.

The opponents of gay marriages, including hypocrites in the Catholic Church, claimed to know what is natural and what the word of their variously characterized gods is. These naysayers are certainly entitled to their opinions but they fail to grasp that these are far from universal."

Now tell me, do you you want to subscribe to this type of thinking? It's straight from the homepage of a pedophilia advocacy website.



You can go on believing that if you want. A person can blame their parents for everything wrong in their own life too since they wouldn't have those problems if they hadn't been born. But it's still a cop-out.

You mean the religious conservative who was arguing to lower age of consent to be in line with the norm in biblical times? Because he is the only person I remember on this site arguing to lower age of consent.

 

[Rajni]

Don't believe me? Read from those who say it themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Where in the NYT article does it advocate lowering the age of
consent to 13 or 14?

And I apologize in advance for shattering whatever
stereotypes are launched from the average conservative
pulpit by saying this, but even though I see no problem with
SSM/GM there's no way I'd touch a NAMBLA website. Sorry.
No thanks. They're two completely different things, and to
point to the interests of NAMBLA as being along the same
lines as SSM/GM is, itself, a cop-out.

You can go on believing that if you want. A person can blame their parents for everything wrong in their own life too since they wouldn't have those problems if they hadn't been born. But it's still a cop-out.

No more of a cop-out than blaming SSM for the various
projected, unrelated scenarios the TM camp conjures up.

-

 

[Rajni]

Just an afterthought:

If anything, the age of consent is already placed
at a tricky point, given that the human brain
(generally speaking) doesn't fully form until
one reaches one's mid-20s at the earliest.
It's a prefrontal cortex thing.

Link: At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed?

-

 

[SuperCloud]

If you read what so many liberals on this site have argued, I’m sure you’ll remember hearing them say that definitions are always subject to change with the times and the culture. So why not the definition of consent, or what the age of consent is? People on this site have even advocated lowering it to 13 or 14.

Don't believe me? Read from those who say it themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0N

Yeah, I would be one of them. I'm fairly liberal. Homosexual sex, 24 year-old with a 14 year-old, marijuana, heroin, prostitution... I'm fine with them all being legalized.

Has nothing to do with advising people to engage in homosexual sex, for a 24 year-old to date a 14 year-old, or to inject heroin in your arm.

I have done some reading over the years on various aspects of Christian history. Mainly Catholic. I was a bit surprised to discover Catholics in the Middle Ages and in say the 1600s were in some ways less "conservative" than modern Catholics and modern secular Americans actually.

I've only done a slight bit of reading on Eastern Christian history. So, I know less about them and their past. The Oriental intrigue me the most. Particularly because I perceive some of their history to be more "exotic" so-to-speak.

You know... the 1800s USA was in many ways more "liberal" too. In terms of laws. But in a certain sense more "conservative" in what was expected of how you behave, dress, and conduct yourself. At least in certain settings.

The 1800s New York City tolerated pedophilia and not just pedophilia but homosexual pedophilia. Little Irish boys being dressed as girls and sent on the streets of NYC to prostitute themselves with adult New Yorkers. Men. And they were being pimped by a man. But what is interesting is that both the grown up women and men back then held these little boys in contempt, blamed them, and held little contempt for the men that were paying for them. Now that is wrong.

So, like slavery, no need to return back to that.

But as for consent between a 14 year-old (maybe even 13 year-old) and 30 year-old I don't see a huge deal. As premarital sex it would be a sin. So gluttony. And prostitution. Probably even smoking marijuana. But I see no reason for them to be illegal.

I'm for having the legal right to carry guns and knives too.

The open West--and Midwest at one point--was very free in many ways. And not free in many ways. It was not free in the sense Big Government gives you freedom via welfare programs and fiscal liberalism and putting up cameras all over the place and regulates you and protects you with laws and an army of cops. But it was paradoxically more free in that sense. You were out in the open and drank and smoked what you wanted. But you had to protect and care for yourself. People self regulated themselves with being "neighborly." You wanted a man's daughter you probably spoke with her father and asked his permission and blessings.

Laws and more laws and expanded Big Government with courts, police, jails and prisons becomes a Catch 22.

I'm kind of pro Big Government on fiscal liberalism to some extent. Certainly free, universal health care including dental care. But I'd like less laws. I also would support 14 year-olds having the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, I would be one of them. I'm fairly liberal. Homosexual sex, 24 year-old with a 14 year-old, marijuana, heroin, prostitution... I'm fine with them all being legalized.

Has nothing to do with advising people to engage in homosexual sex, for a 24 year-old to date a 14 year-old, or to inject heroin in your arm.

I'm kind of pro Big Government on fiscal liberalism to some extent. Certainly free, universal health care including dental care. But I'd like less laws. I also would support 14 year-olds having the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections.

Yet so many people here argue when I say that there are liberals who actually are for these types of things.

Do you have any children?

 

[Aldebaran]

And I apologize in advance for shattering whatever
stereotypes are launched from the average conservative
pulpit by saying this, but even though I see no problem with
SSM/GM there's no way I'd touch a NAMBLA website. Sorry.
No thanks. They're two completely different things, and to
point to the interests of NAMBLA as being along the same
lines as SSM/GM is, itself, a cop-out.

I was just trying to show you that their arguments for what they want are the same as the ones used for justifying homosexual marriage. I’m sorry if you’re not willing to look at the evidence and realize that fact. I presented you with the facts, but I can’t force you to face them.

 

[SuperCloud]

Yet so many people here argue when I say that there are liberals who actually are for these types of things.

Although, I don't think I fall neatly under the label "liberal."

Most liberals would oppose legalizing, even decriminalizing, heroin. That is until one of their high leaders tells them this is what they should believe. Then they'll insinuate they became "enlightened" on their own. And most liberals--at least in the USA--are not going to be for lowering the age of consent. At least not with heterosexual males in relation to females. If anything they will one day march to raise the age of consent among females to 19 or 21.

Do you have any children?

Nephews. I treat my nephews better than some people treat their own kids. So, I don't think having children is necessary to some how being concerned with the well being of children.

(We all were children once. I was no angel at age 13 or 14. No evil monster either. But I understood certain things were wrong or sinful but I did them anyways.)

 

[Rajni]

I was just trying to show you that their arguments for what they want are the same as the ones used for justifying homosexual marriage. I’m sorry if you’re not willing to look at the evidence and realize that fact. I presented you with the facts, but I can’t force you to face them.

Again: Where in the NYT article does it advocate lowering the age of
consent to 13 or 14?

-

 

[lupusFati]

I think you guys are a bit off topic. If you're going to argue about 'age of consent', you should probably do it somewhere else as this is about group marriage.