A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Have Sex With Children, Too?

Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

[tdadams]

every attempt to prove homosex is anything but a mental illness is non-repeatable or othewise disproven.

OK, you seem quite familiar with these studies. Link me to a study so I can see for myself.

Except for the idiots at Nasa and the pro-science crowd, the whole lunar landing thing is an absolute joke.

Well, that certainly is telling about the way your mind works.

the fact that my position has been the norm for centuries makes it stronger.

Or it could make it like moldy bread. Old and due to be thrown away.

OK, then, tell me again how homosexual perversion is like skin color.

Disregarding your pejorative varbiage, that discussion is recorded earlier in this thread. There is no need to re-hash it simply to provide you with a tangent.

[Protagoras]

There are some groups out there wanting it lowered to 12. I pray they fail.

Me too.

For the record, these deviates are a tiny group and I don't believe society will ever embrace their criminality. If they do, they deserve whatever happens to them.

[MEGoody]

"How is it that you can breezily accept that left-handedness is simply a "trait" in the absence of a genetic indicator."

It would seem that 'handedness' is a tendency that can be overcome. Ask all the old people who were left-handed as a kid but were trained out of it by parents and school marms.

[weegee]

Any state that permits a "romeo & juliet" clause is promoting teen sex (and even sex between adults and minors below the age of consent).

[ArGee]

I also do not think that non-rights violating private consenual sexual practices are included in the the list of things over which government has LEGITIMATE power.
I also think that children have rights like everyone else.
These rights are not granted by governments but it is the only legitimate function of government to defend those rights.

I think you and I would mostly agree. I think where you and I would strongly disagree is that the above points are safe without a strong moral foundation - the kind of moral foundation that we lost long before we legitimized homosexual conduct.

Government is not immoral, it is ammoral. People are immoral and all governmental systems other than making G-d king are not G-dly systems. That said, people in government must do the best they can to reign in evil. If they can not do that, no rights are safe, including the rights of children to be safe from sexual predators, homosexual or otherwise.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Disregarding your pejorative varbiage, that discussion is recorded earlier in this thread. There is no need to re-hash it simply to provide you with a tangent.

We call this backing off a point. You've done it twice now.

I'll leave the rest of your rant where it belongs.

Shalom.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I know one who pretended to be ex-gay for a couple of years!

Then you don’t know any ex-gays do you? Why are you so bigoted towards people you don't know or have the capacity to understand, it’s why I question your “sexuality”?

[ArGee]

For the record, these deviates are a tiny group and I don't believe society will ever embrace their criminality. If they do, they deserve whatever happens to them.

Never understimate the power of sin to corrupt.

Never.

Shalom.

[Protagoras]

Never understimate the power of sin to corrupt.

I don't. And that is precisely why government is immoral, not amoral.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I happen to know many gays and many ex-gays. It is no joke.

Me too but shhhhh...ex-gays are unicorns and just don't know it. But don't tell them.

[Lorianne]

Statutory rape laws are not intended to punish minors. Only the adult is legally culpable under statutory rape laws. If we want to prosecute teens for having sex, we'd have to come up with different laws.

[ArGee]

I don't. And that is precisely why government is immoral, not amoral.

Government merely is, like this computer. The morality or immorality is based on how men use it.

Shalom.

[weegee]

For the record, these deviates are a tiny group and I don't believe society will ever embrace their criminality.

Are they as large a group as (but maybe less outspoken than) homosexuals?

[tdadams]

We call this backing off a point. You've done it twice now.

Pure B.S. Maybe that's what it is when you do it. Me, I call it saving time and bandwidth. That element was a minor digression anyway, not worthy of expounding or overtaking the direction of the thread, first of all.

Secondly, if anyone cares to double-check your misrepresentation of our brief exchange, they can read the thread themselves.

[Protagoras]

I think you and I would mostly agree. I think where you and I would strongly disagree is that the above points are safe without a strong moral foundation - the kind of moral foundation that we lost long before we legitimized homosexual conduct.

Government cannot legitimize any conduct in the minds of right thinking people. The decision did not legitimize anything. It said that it's none of governments business. Some people believe that EVERYTHING is governments business. I strongly disagree with those people.

Government is not immoral, it is ammoral. People are immoral

Governments are only groups of people. That is why governments are inherently IMMORAL.

That said, people in government must do the best they can to reign in evil.

Your opinion, not mine. They must do their best to defend individual rights. The biggest evils ever recorded in history were perpetrated by governments.

[weegee]

Teens used to be prosecuted under statutory rape laws.

Doesn't happen much these days. Governments have approved of teen sex.

Romeo & Juliet laws provide a loophole to age of consent laws.

Underage drinking is just as illegal whether the underaged drinker is 5 days short of his 21st birthday or 2 years short.

[Houmatt]

Basic right and wrong has never been as decisive as some here insist it is.

Oh, really? According to whom?

[tdadams]

I'll leave the rest of your rant where it belongs.

Oh, brother, how hypocritical can you get???

First, you upbraid me without any validity for "backing off" a point when I did no such thing. Then you go and say this?

You are very clearly evading and backing off the discussion. It's because you've lost! You know it. Don't be a sore loser.

[Lorianne]

Teens used to be prosecuted under statutory rape laws. How did this work? Where they both charged? If neither one can legally consent, then how do you charge either of them with statutory rape? How can you charge people of raping each other?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Children are incompetant to make decisions about whether to have sex.

That’s not what the Rind et al Study says. Why do you keep aserting the same thing over and over? Do you have proof of this? What gauge do you use to measure “consent”?