The other ones

[meol]

It seems to me you are confusing pedophilia with something else, y_guy. Pedophilia is being attracted to children, even before their bodies have become mature. There's a big terrible moral and legal difference between statuory rape and child molestation. One is in place because young children are extremely vulnerable and undeveloped, both mentally and physically, while the other is more of an arbitrary line that simply must be drawn somewhere. What are you arguing for here?

[i_love_burritos]

Objectum Sexuality - Sexual attraction and relations to inanimate objects.

 

Oh my. I do say, my razor blade fetish doesn't go down too well.

 

EDIT: Well, on a more serious note. I didn't even know this [cabbage] exists. If some guy wants to get married to a [bleep]ing chair, it's fine by me.

[obfuscator]

It seems to me you are confusing pedophilia with something else, y_guy. Pedophilia is being attracted to children, even before their bodies have become mature. There's a big terrible moral and legal difference between statuory rape and child molestation. One is in place because young children are extremely vulnerable and undeveloped, both mentally and physically, while the other is more of an arbitrary line that simply must be drawn somewhere. What are you arguing for here?

Pedophilia is more of a fetish, that is true. But particularly in cases of statutory rape, consent is there, and realistically no different from consent given from an adult.

 

There is an age,obviously, where a child is incapable of giving consent - but when a child can give consent I see that as a legal opening.

 

I'm not arguing for anything, in particular. Although obviously these are very small facets of the population, there are people who want these things legalized. I want to know why we shouldn't do it.

 

I further find it interesting the number of people who have just "blown off" the zoophilia and objectum issues - saying "that's so ridiculous it will never happen". This has been an attitude for many things in the past, and yet they've changed.

[Furah]

1) I've never had a problem with polygamy, or polygamous marriages. They happened in the bible allllllllllll the time.

 

2) Bestiality, as Cycnic stated, would never happen, because one party can't really consent.

 

3) Pedophilia impossible. Under 18 they are under their parents unless emancipated. Plus, it's easy for older people to manipulate younger. Though in all reality, I wouldn't mind if this passed. ONLY IF IT WAS PROVEN BOTH PARTIES WOULD CONSENT. AND, the older party would not be abusive. As is often the case.

There are cultures where people are married at young ages. I remember being told about people in Papa New Guinea where by 13 they're married and most likely have a child. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it Islamic countries people (especially girls) are married at a young age too. So why are your morals the only option?

[Seraphi]

Polygamy has some real ground to stand on, and will probably end up being looked at in the near future anyway.

 

Pedophilia and Zoophilia, I'd say no.

 

 

Though with that said, if somebody really wants to marry a brick, I say let them. What's the harm in it?

[Saru Inc]

1) I've never had a problem with polygamy, or polygamous marriages. They happened in the bible allllllllllll the time.

 

2) Bestiality, as Cycnic stated, would never happen, because one party can't really consent.

 

3) Pedophilia impossible. Under 18 they are under their parents unless emancipated. Plus, it's easy for older people to manipulate younger. Though in all reality, I wouldn't mind if this passed. ONLY IF IT WAS PROVEN BOTH PARTIES WOULD CONSENT. AND, the older party would not be abusive. As is often the case.

There are cultures where people are married at young ages. I remember being told about people in Papa New Guinea where by 13 they're married and most likely have a child. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it Islamic countries people (especially girls) are married at a young age too. So why are your morals the only option?

 

Wow really. the [bleep]?

 

I just said I don't mind it...? I would just want to make sure the younger party is aware of whats happening. no offence, idc what they do in Papa New Guinea that place is an island far from any society >.> (/sarcasm)

 

 

What I'm trying to say is I agree with you, and am now perplexed how you said I wasn't agreeing with you. I only said it was impossible because the majority of people would not vote this into law.

[TTanT]

I think he meant to say a 17 years old (Not Legal Adult yet) dating an 18 year old (Legally an Adult). There's always some problems from these.

 

What I was trying to shower was that a line had to be drawn somewhere. Sure the guy who passed a test with a 65 doesn't really have a better grasp of the material than the guy who failed with a 64, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Giordano]

1) I've never had a problem with polygamy, or polygamous marriages. They happened in the bible allllllllllll the time.

 

2) Bestiality, as Cycnic stated, would never happen, because one party can't really consent.

 

3) Pedophilia impossible. Under 18 they are under their parents unless emancipated. Plus, it's easy for older people to manipulate younger. Though in all reality, I wouldn't mind if this passed. ONLY IF IT WAS PROVEN BOTH PARTIES WOULD CONSENT. AND, the older party would not be abusive. As is often the case.

There are cultures where people are married at young ages. I remember being told about people in Papa New Guinea where by 13 they're married and most likely have a child. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it Islamic countries people (especially girls) are married at a young age too. So why are your morals the only option?

So why should their morals be the only option too? Islamic countries and Papa New Guinea can do whatever their people choose and America and Europe can do whatever their people choose. If we want to make laws based on other cultures, why the hell have one our own? Maybe is that you don't think we have one? A true possibility, since we've lived in it all our lives it seems like there isn't, but, there is. Anyway, just wanted to throw that one out there, even though you ARE agreeing with Saruman. :razz:

[Roberthree]

Why the hell do people feel the need to compare homosexuals to pedophiles? They are not the same people. They are not related. Stop comparing them. Talk about the issue instead of trying to make them sound like monsters.

[Giordano]

Why the hell do people feel the need to compare homosexuals to pedophiles? They are not the same people. They are not related. Stop comparing them. Talk about the issue instead of trying to make them sound like monsters.

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots.

[Myweponsg00d]

Why the hell do people feel the need to compare homosexuals to pedophiles? They are not the same people. They are not related. Stop comparing them. Talk about the issue instead of trying to make them sound like monsters.

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots.

 

You can choose to marry someone based on the fact that they are the same sex as you.

 

You can't choose to marry someone based on the fact that they are a child. Marriage is an indefinite contract, and if you want to acknowledge pedophilia as a sexual preference or marriage preference, youd better figure out a way to keep people from aging.

 

Unless you are saying "Well, if sex shouldnt come between a marriage of two people, why should age?" In which case we first of all need to stop using the term pedophilia, because the person is not attracted to the age but to the individual. A pedophile would exclusively perfer children.

 

Secondly, the age barrier is not permanent and will not stop two people from getting married their whole lives, whereas you will not outgrow your gender... Gay marriage is being fought for so that the two people can just have the same legal benefits as straight people. Someone under 18 would not even benefit from such things.

[Romy]

Why the hell do people feel the need to compare homosexuals to pedophiles? They are not the same people. They are not related. Stop comparing them. Talk about the issue instead of trying to make them sound like monsters.

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots.

 

It's not any objection, it's pedophillia, quite commonly expressed as rape, or manipulative abuse of children's innocent minds, followed by their bodies. It's a monsterous thing to do.

 

Gay sex is not, it's just 2 adults who happen not to be attracted to the opposite gender. There's nothing monsterous about that.

[Giordano]

Again, people think I'm aan idiot and overcomplicate what I'm trying to say. Being able to marry the same sex or a minor has one similarity: the legal marriage process. Nothing else.

[Romy]

Again, people think I'm aan idiot and overcomplicate what I'm trying to say. Being able to marry the same sex or a minor has one similarity: the legal marriage process. Nothing else.

 

Okay, but there's a good reason why sex with the underaged is considered rape by the law, even when there's agreement on both sides.

[Giordano]

I was going to make a little note at the end of my post trying to prevent that, but I figured you would understand it enough.

 

I never said it was okay for anything to happen. I just related the similarities of two things were discussing in this thread that is all.

 

NOTE: please understand that I only just stated the similarity of two things that we are discussing on this thread.

[Romy]

But the similarities can be disqualified, even law-wise. That was my point.

[Roberthree]

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots.

 

Uh, denying someone rights based on sexual preference is pretty much the textbook definition of bigotry.

[Giordano]

Gays shouldn't be given a million dollars because they're gay.

 

Oh look, an objection.

[michel555555]

Gays shouldn't be given a million dollars because they're gay.

 

Oh look, an objection.

 

But a heterosexual couple should because they're heterosexual?

[Giordano]

That makes no sense.

[Alg]

This whole string of posts doesn't. Where was homosexuality compared to pedophilia?

The two are only grouped together here because both are (somewhat) stigmatized in some cultures and their respective marriages are illegal in some/most countries

[Giordano]

This whole string of posts doesn't. Where was homosexuality compared to pedophilia?

The two are only grouped together here because both are (somewhat) stigmatized in some cultures and their respective marriages are illegal in some/most countries

That's exacly what I said and everybody misunderstood it and all went to hell. :cry:

[Saru Inc]

Why the hell do people feel the need to compare homosexuals to pedophiles? They are not the same people. They are not related. Stop comparing them. Talk about the issue instead of trying to make them sound like monsters.

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots.

 

 

 

I mean I agree with both of you. I was a bit offended when y guy made this topic, because I insinuated that he was saying well if gay marriage is this bad, whats next?!? But then again, it can also be looked at in the perspective of what other marriages are possible. I decided to take the second view.

[Giordano]

That's the only way anybody should view this thread because anything else is not what the thread is about.

[Saru Inc]

That's the only way anybody should view this thread because anything else is not what the thread is about.

 

 

According to you...? This thread, while yes is about ONLY a certain thing; me and Robster were talking more about the insinuations of the post.