Posted on 07/08/2003 7:08:39 AM PDT by F_Cohen
BTW, the Libertarian party doesn't represent me or very many of the posters on this forum. It's called a strawman. The poster's stock in trade.
Oh, it's a trait? It's not genetic? Where is the left-hand gene?
Usual Liberaltarian reaction from hypocrites who can’t justify their position. Thanks for not disappointing.
Who said it did?
It does represent the sort of "consent" rationalization employed by elements of the Court to invent a Constitutional "right" to commit sodomy, and the party platform demonstrates that such libertarian doctrines extend to children.
Is there a comment you'd like to make regarding the quote Roscoe gave you?
I don't like to comment on off topic nonsense. In case you missed it, Bosco was talking about a political party which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything on this thread or this subject. That particular political party has only been introduced by those who have that agenda.
You find a topic, he will go to their website and find something to post which he thinks furthers his obsession. It's sad you fall for it.
Better go back and reread. I din't introduce the ten commandments, a different poster did. I asked That poster questions regarding his post.
From the article at the top of the thread:
The term "consenting adults" is itself a clear statement of moral judgment. An age at which consent can legally be given is set according to what is considered morally appropriate, and has no definitive connection to emotional, intellectual or physical maturity.
Uh, may I ask what scientific journals you're reading and are they from this decade?
The large number of ex-gays will show you that
Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Except for the die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers of the ex-gay movement and the fundamentalist tyrants, the whole ex-gay thing is an absolute joke.
your arguments are weak.
Show me how yours are any stronger.
You had to back-peddle away from your linkage to skin color
I didn't and don't back away from what I said whatsoever.
You don’t know any ex-gays do you? You have no basis for that opinion other than what’s published by homosexual activist groups who want everyone to believe their perversion is innate behavior. Your prejudice against ex-gays sad and telling. Are you a homosexual?
I didn't fall for anything. I read the post and moved on, filing the information away in case anybody ever wants to discuss the Libertarian Party's position on the AoC.
However, you felt the need to point the post out to me and make disparaging remarks about the poster. If you are right and he is a troll, you simply gave him what he asked for. If a post is off-topic, I recommend you ignore it. If you must respond, rebut.
Shalom.
You should really expound on this because you've got me curious now.
How is it that you can breezily accept that left-handedness is simply a "trait" in the absence of a genetic indicator, yet at the same time, you intransigently refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality could be a natural trait as well, even in the absence of a genetic indicator?
And I suspect even if a genetic indicator was found for homosexuality, you wouldn't waiver from your animus toward homosexuals one iota.
I recognized a long time ago that handedness was not like skin color, as did scientists, but they did find a way to determine whether a person was right or left handed.
Call me crazy, it's just a thought, but I think there are some pretty reliable ways to determine if a person is homosexual or heterosexual.
And you were saying something about me having a weak argument?
I know one who pretended to be ex-gay for a couple of years!
Must you ask this of everyone who disagrees with you? It's pathetic to even dignify that with an answer, but I've answered it before. Sorry to disappoint you.
Yep, every attempt to prove homosex is anything but a mental illness is non-repeatable or othewise disproven. Only gays ever make that claim and they can't back them.
Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Except for the die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers of the ex-gay movement and the fundamentalist tyrants, the whole ex-gay thing is an absolute joke.
Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Except for the idiots at Nasa and the pro-science crowd, the whole lunar landing thing is an absolute joke.
I happen to know many gays and many ex-gays. It is no joke.
Show me how yours are any stronger.
If I had nothing more, the fact that my position has been the norm for centuries makes it stronger. You want to change the norm, you have to have an argument. The "naturally gay" crowd doesn't have one. It is a perversion.
I didn't and don't back away from what I said whatsoever.
OK, then, tell me again how homosexual perversion is like skin color.
Shalom.
You clearly missed the context.
I'll tell you what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's start all over.
I think homosexuality is a sin.
I am not in favor of people accepting it as normal.
I also know that government is inherently immoral as an institution.
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.
Particularly for those who not powerful enough to defend them for themselves. Like children.
Children have a right to go unmolested sexually and otherwise.
Children are incompetant to make decisions about whether to have sex.
Society has long agreed that children need these protections and they cannot give consent. I believe that society was correct on that point.
Therefore even an imperfect arbitrary age of consent set by legislatures is preferable to no age of consent.
Having said that, I also believe that the laws that make reasonable distinctions between child molestation and consensual sex between minors of almost the same age are appropriate. A 30 yr old with a 14 yr old is clearly different than an 18 yr old boy and his 17 yr old girlfriend. It's common sense.
There you have it, disagree if you please, but don't accuse me of starting this fight with these authoritarian thugs who patrol this site with an eye to blaming every evil in the world on libertarians.
Nothing breezy about it. I gave you the reason that I believe it is a trait. I recognize homoerotic fetish as a mental illness not because there is or is not a genetic indicator, but because of my knowledge of gays and ex-gays.
You are right on one point, though. I believe we will one day find that alcoholism is a congenital tendency. That will not cause me to waiver at all in my position that alcoholics should not drink. Similarly, if sexual perversion is a congenital tendency, that will not cause me to waiver in my position that people should not engage in deviant sex.
Shalom.
You aren't blind and deaf - you've heard the rumblings coming from NAMBLA, et al. Even the pscyhologists are joining the band wagon and saying sex between a child and an adult is not always harmful, and might even be beneficial.
The 'age of consent' will be lowered. There are some groups out there wanting it lowered to 12. I pray they fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.