Catholic University hosts transgender and drag queen book display for children

[o_mlly]

Pretty sure I answered that… We don’t have any systems in place to ensure standardized care, protections, and standards. Until we do, it can’t be legal.

What? So, why is skydiving and other dangerous sports not illegal? Try again.

Adult or not adult, it is not something that one can legally consent to, so with that being defined as something one can never consent to legally, consent is absent.

Again, read the post, both consent to the incestuous act. To argue that they cannot legally consent is circular reasoning and begs the question: Why?

Because the people who wrote and passed the law against it thought it should be.

See above. Same correction for your post.

 

[BCP1928]

What? So, why is skydiving and other dangerous sports not illegal? Try again.

Again, read the post, both consent to the incestuous act. To argue that they cannot legally consent is circular reasoning and begs the question: Why?

See above. Same correction for your post.

Once again, you are missing the point. The laws of a secular state are not moral statements. They are merely rules we agree to follow. The legal prohibition of incest does not have to be justified morally. All that the existence of such a law tells us is that a majority of voters thought at the time that incest was immoral and should be illegal as well, and that no one since then has made a case that the law is unconstitutional.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

What? So, why is skydiving and other dangerous sports not illegal? Try again.

Because they involve consent, significant oversight, and low risk for exploitation to crime…?

Again, read the post, both consent to the incestuous act. To argue that they cannot legally consent is circular reasoning and begs the question: Why?

Because legally it’s something that cannot be consented to.

If I had cancer and I asked and consented being euthanized by my husband, my husband would still be brought up on charges. Why? Legally, it’s not something one can consent to.

If somebody saw my neighbors car and asked me to take it and I said sure, go for it, I’d be in trouble. Why? Because legally, I can’t consent to giving away something that isn’t mine.

In that same vein, you can say “well my family member and I consented to sleeping together so it’s fine,” but the fact is the law says that’s not something you can consent to, thus, it is illegal even if you want to have an incestuous relationship with somebody.

 

[Belk]

? The prostitute does not make payment. Do some research. The prostitute and her "john" are both engaging in a criminal act in most states.

The John makes payment. That is the illegal part.

It appears you missed the "adult" modifier in the post. Try again.

Which is illegal due to the potential inbreeding issue.

No surprise in that opinion. But to the point being debated, if the act is consensual and no one is harmed, then why is it illegal?

Like Belk, it appears you missed the "adult" modifier in the post. Try again.

That is a good question. Why is it illegal? Mostly because Christians have a hang up about sex.

 

[o_mlly]

Once again, you are missing the point. The laws of a secular state are not moral statements. They are merely rules we agree to follow. The legal prohibition of incest does not have to be justified morally. All that the existence of such a law tells us is that a majority of voters thought at the time that incest was immoral and should be illegal as well, and that no one since then has made a case that the law is unconstitutional.

Still dodging? You are missing the point. I did not ask you why somethings are moral or immoral. I asked why some sex acts are illegal and others are not. So, far your responses have been it's illegal because it's illegal. Do let us know when you have an argument that is non-fallacious.

In that same vein, you can say “well my family member and I consented to sleeping together so it’s fine,” but the fact is the law says that’s not something you can consent to, thus, it is illegal even if you want to have an incestuous relationship with somebody.

Ditto.

The John makes payment. That is the illegal part.

Do some research and you discover how wrong your post is.

Would it be correct to assume that a Catholic university has the liberty to create a curriculum that does not teach that deviant or perverted sex is moral?

Why is it illegal? Mostly because Christians have a hang up about sex.

Really? That's all you got.

Do let us know when you have an argument that is not ad hominem.

 

[Belk]

Still dodging? You are missing the point. I did not ask you why somethings are moral or immoral. I asked why some sex acts are illegal and others are not. So, far your responses have been it's illegal because it's illegal. Do let us know when you have an argument that is non-fallacious.

Ditto.

Do some research and you discover how wrong your post is.

Feel free to document it. It is not my responsibility to prove your points.

Would it be correct to assume that a Catholic university has the liberty to create a curriculum that does not teach that deviant or perverted sex is moral?

Really? That's all you got.

Do let us know when you have an argument that is not ad hominem.

Let us know when you can offer substantive rebuttals instead of telling us to "research".

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Ditto.

How is “ditto” a response…?

Like, there is no context where “ditto” makes any sort of sense here.

 

[o_mlly]

Like, there is no context where “ditto” makes any sort of sense here.

Look up the definition of "ditto" and then get back to me if you still don't understand.

 

[o_mlly]

The John makes payment. That is the illegal part.

Feel free to document it. It is not my responsibility to prove your points.

I only asked you to support your own claim. Came up empty, I see.

Let us know when you can offer substantive rebuttals instead of telling us to "research".

Gald to. Just as soon as you give something to rebut instead of answering the question with meaningless fallacious replies. Back to you.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Look up the definition of "ditto" and then get back to me if you still don't understand.

I’m a child of the 80s. I know what “ditto” means. It makes no sense as a reply.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m a child of the 80s. I know what “ditto” means. It makes no sense as a reply.

Well, that admission explains a lot.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Well, that admission explains a lot.

Your not explaining what you mean is a bigger admission.

 

[Belk]

I only asked you to support your own claim.

No, you claimed it was wrong.

Do some research and you discover how wrong your post is.

Feel free to substantiate that.

Came up empty, I see.

Pointing out your posts lack of substance is never empty.

Gald to. Just as soon as you give something to rebut instead of answering the question with meaningless fallacious replies. Back to you.

Claiming fallacies is not the same as showing how they are fallacious. And volley.

 

[o_mlly]

No, you claimed it was wrong.
Feel free to substantiate that.
Pointing out your posts lack of substance is never empty.
Claiming fallacies is not the same as showing how they are fallacious. And volley.

Apparently, you don't know how this works.

• You make an unsubstantiated claim.
• I say show us your evidence.
• You don't have any evidence for your claim.
• You say then prove me wrong.

Example:

• I claim unicorns exist.
• You say show us your evidence.
• I don't have any evidence.
• I, wrongly attempting to shift the burden of evidence to you, say then prove me wrong.

Get it?

 

[BCP1928]

Still dodging? You are missing the point. I did not ask you why somethings are moral or immoral. I asked why some sex acts are illegal and others are not. So, far your responses have been it's illegal because it's illegal. Do let us know when you have an argument that is non-fallacious.

Some sex acts are illegal because "we, the people" acting through our elected representatives and in accordance with the Constitution, have decided it should be so.

Ditto.

Do some research and you discover how wrong your post is.

Would it be correct to assume that a Catholic university has the liberty to create a curriculum that does not teach that deviant or perverted sex is moral?

I would assume so. Secular universities seem to have no trouble doing it.

 

[Belk]

Apparently, you don't know how this works.

• You make an unsubstantiated claim.
• I say show us your evidence.
• You don't have any evidence for your claim.
• You say then prove me wrong.

Example:

• I claim unicorns exist.
• You say show us your evidence.
• I don't have any evidence.
• I, wrongly attempting to shift the burden of evidence to you, say then prove me wrong.

Get it?

Go play pretend you are a teacher somewhere else.

You claimed I was wrong, show your work.

 

[o_mlly]

Some sex acts are illegal because "we, the people" acting through our elected representatives and in accordance with the Constitution, have decided it should be so.

Describing the legislative process doesn't answer the question: "Why some sex acts are illegal and not others?

The same circular reasoning error: Some sex acts are illegal because they are illegal.

We've been over this enough times to conclude that you really do not know why.

 

[o_mlly]

You claimed I was wrong, show your work.

As suspected, you just do not have any evidence to support your claim. In case all your deflecting posts have distracted only you, here's your unsupported claim.

The John makes payment. That is the illegal part.

 

[Belk]

As suspected, you just do not have any evidence to support your claim. In case all your deflecting posts have distracted only you, here's your unsupported claim.

And you claimed it was wrong. So, since you know it to be wrong show me. Simply telling me I need to research is not a refutation.

 

[o_mlly]

And you claimed it was wrong. So, since you know it to be wrong show me. Simply telling me I need to research is not a refutation.

You gratuitously posted an unsupported opinion. What is gratuitously proposed may just as gratuitously rejected.

Please stop hitting on me with your uniformed and childish posts.