Congrats Michael Sam!
- Thread starter AdAstraPerAspera
- Start date
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
If the genetic predisposition theory Ad is referring to is true, then why is it unreasonable to believe that the "you can't help who you are naturally attracted to" argument can't also apply to other behaviors such as pedophilia, necrophilia, and any number of other -philias that some people find particularly offensive?Ms Tree said:
I know, you'll say that those are immoral or illegal, but what defines morality or legality? Popular opinion?
Don't misunderstand me here -- I'm not supporting or defending either viewpoint. Just pointing out how people would compare one to the other.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
A minor cannot consent. Whether or not a.pedophile is genetically predisposed to molest is irrelevant.
There is no legal justification to prevent two or more consenting adults from leading their life as they see fit. No one s rights are being violated. A child's rights are being violated because they do not have the legal right to consent.
you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
no idea what defines morality. As far as I am concerned the individual ideal defines it. As for the law. I believe the legislature defines the law and thE courts validate it.
There is no legal justification to prevent two or more consenting adults from leading their life as they see fit. No one s rights are being violated. A child's rights are being violated because they do not have the legal right to consent.
you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
no idea what defines morality. As far as I am concerned the individual ideal defines it. As for the law. I believe the legislature defines the law and thE courts validate it.
signals
Veteran
Why are you putting age of consent laws into your scientific facts(fables)?
NAMBLA might not agree with your assessment, but you won't get an argument from them.
NAMBLA might not agree with your assessment, but you won't get an argument from them.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
Grasping at straws only shows how desperate your argument is... Minors and animals can't give consent, sex without consent is rape, and rape is a crime. End of story. It has nothing pertinent to this discussion except when bigots try to associate it with homosexuality and inevitably fail. Oh and by the way, real classy implying that your gay friends such as me are pedos. Again, stop trying to associate being gay with rape. There are real rape victims out there, you know.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
There's nothing scientific about consent.
The entire concept of consent itself is man-made -- it's a reflection of societal norms, ideal, mores, taboos, or whatever else you want to use as a term to label the reason we have laws around it.
I don't happen to agree with the pedophilia or NAMBLA red herrings that get thrown out, but the ground that those arguments are founded isn't entirely based on ignorance.
It's an extreme example of how what's legal and what's not can evolve over time.
Look at consent laws --- they didn't exist at all until about 740 years ago, and didn't really start to get age specific until 438 years ago, and even then it was an inconsistent target (and still is).
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
Marriage at 15 wasn't all that uncommon 150 years ago in the US, but is now pretty much a taboo.
If I'd have told someone 25 years ago that gay marriage would be recognized, they'd have laughed.
Laugh it off if you will, but I'd bet my next paycheck that there will be a legal challenge to polygamy within ten years.
The entire concept of consent itself is man-made -- it's a reflection of societal norms, ideal, mores, taboos, or whatever else you want to use as a term to label the reason we have laws around it.
I don't happen to agree with the pedophilia or NAMBLA red herrings that get thrown out, but the ground that those arguments are founded isn't entirely based on ignorance.
It's an extreme example of how what's legal and what's not can evolve over time.
Look at consent laws --- they didn't exist at all until about 740 years ago, and didn't really start to get age specific until 438 years ago, and even then it was an inconsistent target (and still is).
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
Marriage at 15 wasn't all that uncommon 150 years ago in the US, but is now pretty much a taboo.
If I'd have told someone 25 years ago that gay marriage would be recognized, they'd have laughed.
Laugh it off if you will, but I'd bet my next paycheck that there will be a legal challenge to polygamy within ten years.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
The first issue is the DSM and whether there was any foundation for homosexuality to be included. There is not a single shred of evidence to support its inclusion.
The second issue is the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia, beastiality, and other such acts. The difference between those acts and homosexual is consent. Genetics aside, the people involved in a relationship give consent, abuse victims do not. Genetics is not an excuse to via the someone's rights.
Heterosexual it is genetic as well unless you want to argue that you made a choice to be straight. The fact that your orientation was genetic does not give a pedophile and excuse to molest children and more than the genetic orientation of gays does.
The second issue is the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia, beastiality, and other such acts. The difference between those acts and homosexual is consent. Genetics aside, the people involved in a relationship give consent, abuse victims do not. Genetics is not an excuse to via the someone's rights.
Heterosexual it is genetic as well unless you want to argue that you made a choice to be straight. The fact that your orientation was genetic does not give a pedophile and excuse to molest children and more than the genetic orientation of gays does.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Sidebar... you really need to turn off or override the auto-correct feature...Ms Tree said:
On a legality basis, I don't disagree with what you're saying.... however... laws change.
Consider that polygamy used to be legal, and then it wasn't. Arguably, it was outlawed in the late 1800's to persecute and limit the influence of Mormons. There's certainly no scientific argument for monogamy or a matter of rights being violated... Yet, it's illegal in the US.
Sodomy used to be illegal, and then one day it wasn't.
As I said, laws change over time...
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Yes they do and if the laws change regarding this issue then it will have to be dealt with at the time.
Right now there is no legal justification to prevent gays from having equal rights. Whether homosexuality is genetic or chosen is irrelevant to the argument.
Re side bar. I can't spell worth a dam so auto correct has to stay. The alternative would be far worse.
Right now there is no legal justification to prevent gays from having equal rights. Whether homosexuality is genetic or chosen is irrelevant to the argument.
Re side bar. I can't spell worth a dam so auto correct has to stay. The alternative would be far worse.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
It is if part of society can do it. Driving a car is not a right either but does that mean a law can be passed that deny the ability to drive for people who have green eyes? No. That would be a via tin of the Equal Protection clause.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,490
- Reaction score
- 2,680
Give the libtards time.AdAstraPerAspera said:
Dog Wonder
Veteran
And they will find some one who would consensually be involved with you.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
By that measure, how do you reconcile denying someone with a 20 year old domestic violence charge the ability to own a firearm, or denying convicted felons on probation or parole the ability to vote.Ms Tree said:
Don't they deserve equal protection? Is there really a compelling state interest in disenfranchising them, or is it really OK to say they're less equal than others?
