Pedophiles call for the “same rights” as homosexuals.

Being in the heart of the South, my folks get to see all kinds of flat out stupid opinions on people’s facebook.  Maybe now that I’m in Kansas I’ll get a piece of this treasure, but until then I just have to trust mom to send me stuff like this:

So I looked up the article.

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Hey!  It’s the old (and already debunked) slippery slope argument.  I guess it’s not just Christians who make this argument, but pedophiles too!  If the Vatican weren’t a Christian organization, I’d call it a strange alliance.

Right from the beginning the article already drops the ball.  Nobody’s using “I have x impulse and therefore should be allowed to do it” as the sum of their argument.  Otherwise we’d be arguing that people with a disposition to vandalize buildings should be allowed to do so.  What gay people are saying is that they shouldn’t be constrained in who they love because of what other people find attractive when their partner is a consenting adult.  You may have the impulse to sleep with children or to do any number of things, but if those things violate someone else’s rights or cause harm there is a societal interest in barring those behaviors.  The avoidance of harm and the protection of others, including children, takes precedence over what someone wants to do.

Homosexuals are arguing for the ability to marry the consenting adult that they love.  They are not arguing for adults to have the right to violate children, so pedophiles are not arguing for the same rights as homosexuals.

Children are not consenting adults.  Children don’t get to make a lot of decisions about what goes on in their life…because they’re children.  And that’s exactly the problem with the anti-marriage equality crowd: you want to treat adults not only like they’re children, but you want to treat every gay person as if they were your child and you are their parents, where you get to determine who they date, fuck, and marry.  Ironically, you seem to think that defying that idea lends legitimacy to the idea of children being treated as adults.  What’s next?  If we let gay people drive cars we also have to let five year-olds?  Jesus Christ.

And since the whole article is predicated on the soundness of its opening statement, the whole thing’s shit.

And the comments on Donella’s facebook are a special brand of oblivious and self-important that only seem to come from minds contaminated by faith.

That was my question…Where does it stop??

At one of two places: where somebody is not an adult or where sufficient harm is done (which is really why it stops when someone isn’t an adult), just like every other law in an ideal and civilized society.  Gay marriage is between adults, no harm is done, and a great deal of joy is created.  Not only that, but barring an adult from marrying the consenting adult of their choice on the basis of what one group finds attractive, as if all marriages should be based upon the opinions of that one group, is pure discrimination.  If there was a law saying two people with the same hair color couldn’t marry, it would be determined that this was an arbitrary standard and a discriminatory law.  Nobody would be shrieking “If we let two blondes marry because of what they find attractive, why shouldn’t we let adults marry children if they find it attractive?”  Anybody using that argument would be given a sneer that said “You’re a deranged person” before they were ignored.  That’s what should be happening here with the people saying that letting two consenting adults who find vaginas attractive get married means adults should be able to marry children, but because they’re carrying bibles they’re somehow spared the “you’re an idiot” sneer.

I think only God can save our nation, we have gone to far for man to get us out of the mess we have allowed our judges and political parties to create for us.

Out of this mess?  What mess?  Two dudes or two dudettes kissing?  Where is the mess here?  Does two clasped female hands somehow negatively impact the lives of others besides irritating people who think it’s their right to dictate what makes other adults happy?

Show me how we’re in a “mess” and then we’ll talk about whether or not the same god who watches children die of malaria on the daily is the one to get us out of it.

Are we to allow everyone with a different “sexual orientation” to do as they please. I mean after all we are “trampling” on their “rights”!

That depends.  Does their sexual orientation have to do with consenting adults?  If so, and not harm is done, then yes.

Here are some examples to help out people like Bob who seem immune to even the most obvious nuance:

Sexual orientations that are ok to indulge:

  • If you find cross necklaces attractive
  • If you find people of the opposite sex attractive
  • If you find piercings attractive
  • If you find blonde hair attractive
  • If you find someone of the same sex attractive
  • If you find feet sexy and want have sex with them
  • If you find sex with your kitchen table attractive (it’s your own property and doesn’t have a conscience, it’s not my bag but go nuts if that’s what gets you off)

Sexual orientations that are not ok to indulge:

  • If you find sex with someone against their will attractive (unless you’ve gotten an adult to consent to pretending in order to satisfy your orientation, but you don’t get to actually do this)
  • If you find sex with pigs attractive (a pig cannot consent)
  • If you find sex with children attractive (a child can consent to you giving them alcohol too or can consent to voting, but because children are not adults their consent is not always the deciding factor)(unless you’ve gotten an adult to consent to pretending to be a child in order to satisfy your orientation, but you don’t get to actually do this)
  • If stealing turns you on (it creates harm, so even if it gives you a boner you don’t get to do this as foreplay)

These lines are based upon the avoidance of harm while maintaining equality.  They are not arbitrary like the lines of the Christians who oppose certain people marrying because their holy book says so, regardless of whether happiness or harm is created by their proposed rules.

May I suggest you read Frank Perreti’s book “Piercing the darkness”. The Bible talks about the end says being similar to the times of Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) and look what happened to them! I agree if God does not choose to intervene we are on our way to extinction.

Gay people getting married will lead to extinction?  What, will allowing gay people to marry somehow make straight people sterile?  You realize that prohibiting gay people from marrying will not make them any more attracted to people of the opposite sex, and that straight people will continue procreating at about the same rate, right?  This argument from Jan is flat out one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

It’s interesting that Jan laments modern times, replete with our technology, medicine, abundant food, etc. as if it represent a regression of some sort, by comparing it to Sodom and Gomorrah.  You know what is not present in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the bible?  So much as a hint that god destroyed the city on account of rampant homosexuality.  Do you know what is present in the story?  Pedophilia and incest, all by the “good guys”.

As my father put it once:

A lot of people don’t really read the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. I read it. I find nowhere–repeat, NOWHERE–does it say homosexuality was the reason for god’s destruction of the cities. Since it is your reference, can you please provide that quote for me? I could understand the mistaken notion that the crime was homosexual RAPE or bestiality (angels aren’t men), but you would have to be in a fantasy world to manufacture anything resembling homosexual love in the story.

You DO understand the difference between heterosexual rape and heterosexual lovemaking, don’t you? Yeah, well, homosexual rape and homosexual lovemaking have the same difference.Anyway, what it definitely DID say in Genesis Chapter 19 verse 8 (KJV): Lot the righteous good guy says: “Behold, now, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes….”Now there is a great lesson for us. Lot (the only righteous good guy worth saving in the city) offers to send his two virgin daughters out to be gang raped! As an aside, if all the men are homosexuals, why even bother to offer to send out virgin girls? What interest would homosexual men have in girls? Does this make any kind of sense?

I am astonished that you people focus on the homosexuality that isn’t even mentioned and ignore the invitation to toss out young virgin girls for gang rape that is specifically stated. “Here, crowd, rape my virgin daughters as much as you want”.

That’s sick.

But wait, there’s more! How about a little incest and pedophilia from the only truly righteous people worth saving from Sin City?

Moving on to Genesis Chapter 19 verses 32+36: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father……Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”

How can you people ignore this type of incestuous pedophilia that is clearly and undeniably there while focusing on homosexuality that isn’t there? Where is your head? Oh, yeah, Let’s get Daddy likkered up and jump his bones. We’re the Good Guys! We’re the Role Models!

Either you are incredibly desperate or you don’t read your own reference….or both. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for:
Social injustice: Isiah: 1:9; 3:9
General immorality: Jeremiah 23-14
Ezekial 16:48-49 states that incredibly clearly:
“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”

It seems just from reading a few passages in the story of Sodom that the problem is not homosexuality, but is social injustice, even though an implied case could be made for rape . Lot offers his daughters to the group of men, but asks them to spare the angels because they have come under the “shelter of his roof,” and he is responsible for them, so honoring that trust is more important than his daughter’s virginity. The men are rapists.

So much hypocrisy, so many shit arguments…and so much confidence in presenting them.  Far from making these people better, religion has turned them into absolute fools so concerned with what’s “right” that they’re incapable of seeing what’s good.  These people are the reason that religion must die.

  • smrnda

    It doesn’t surprise me that someone made this case, but the key which is overlooked is consent which is really the only meaningful standard for sexual ethics.

    It’s also not surprising that religious people just lump this in as if the arguments for this and GLBT equality are equivalent. Of course, religious and Christian sexual ethics in particular trivialize really bad things like rape and molesting kids since they go ‘there are sexual sins like rape, masturbation and thinking sexual thoughts’ – like they’re all equivalent. Some even suggest that they are equivalent – to god, but any god that thinks that way is full of shit.

    • Spuddie

      Since when to fundies concern themselves with consent when it comes to sexual relations?

      These are the same people who want to force women to give birth regardless of their will, attack spousal rape laws, make excuses for sexual abuse by clergy, and want to enforce “purity” for young girls.

  • Loqi

    Consent is a difficult concept for authoritarians. I sometimes think the implication made by their “if there’s no god, we’d all go around raping people” trope is actually true.

    • baal

      Yes that’s about it. You are either in charge or not. When in charge, do whatever you damn well please to those ‘beneath’ you. When not, you take it ‘like a man’ and you’re done. So who needs consent? (/end neckbearded authoritarian mindset)

  • John Evans

    I’ve been formulating the idea that the fundamental issue here is that the strongly religious simply do not understand the concept of consent. Their entire belief structure hinges on a hierarchy of authority and submission. There is no negotiation. Person in authority wants sex, person in authority gets sex. So from that perspective, homosexual men are demanding to be granted the authority to require sex from other men, homosexual women are demanding the authority to require sex _at all_, so there is ‘no difference’ from a pedophile demanding the authority to require sex from children, in the minds of these people. The idea of negotiated consent is utterly alien to them.

    • invivoMark

      It’s part of the same culture that dictates that if a person (a woman, of course) doesn’t have sex with a person in authority (a man, obviously), then that woman is “a bitch.” If she then proceeds to have sex with someone else, then that woman is “a slut.”

      The concept of consent never enters the equation.

    • phhht

      Your idea is consistent with my view of fundamentalist christianity as based on sadomasochism and extortion.

      • Artor

        The S&M community is very, very clear about consent. If you really want to understand the concept of consent, go to the nearest fetish club and ask the most interesting person you see. They’ll set you straight.
        …so to speak…

  • Rafael

    Seeing as Homosexuality is not a sin in The Bible( savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/homosexuality-is-not-sin-part-1.html ) the people complaining about it, and calling it a sin are secular, not Christian.

    • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

      When the blog is titled “SavedByChrist94 presents True Christianity,” you’ve already failed with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

      Try looking it up.

      • Rafael

        How is it a No True Scotsman Fallacy? it would be a fallacy IF they were associated members, a Murderer is not an Associated member an Associated member does not sin, The DEFINITION of Christian whether I like it or not is that they follow and Obey Jesus Christ and do sin, has nothing to do with personal biased.

        As a matter of fact, you commit the fallacy because since the anti gay Are secular, you don’t want association.

        • EvolutionKills

          1- Christians don’t put sugar on their porridge.
          2- But Jim is a Christian, and he puts sugar on his porridge.
          3- But no TRUE Christian puts sugar on their porridge.

          Likewise…

          1- Christians who read the Bible find that homosexuality is not a sin.
          2- But Jim is a Christian, and he thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.
          3- But no TRUE Christian finds homosexuality to be a sin.

          It is a No-True-Scotsman fallacy…

          • Rafael

            You refuted yourself,

            “1- Christians who read the Bible find that homosexuality is not a sin.”

            So Christians find that Homosexuality is no sin,

            and

            “2- But Jim is a Christian, and he thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.”

            However in 1 you said a Christian finds that Homosexuality is not a sin, so Jim isn’t a Christian.

            a Christian reads the Bible to find Homosexuality is not a sin, therefore Jim is not a Christian, it cannot be both.

          • EvolutionKills

            You goddamn moron, you entirely missed the point. The point of the No True Scotsman is that you conveniently define a Christian to only be X. Someone else who also claims to be Christian, but claims to be not X. Instead of dealing with this problem in an intellectually honest way, such as realizing that YOU do not determine what a Christian IS or IS NOT. Instead you simply assert they are NOT a Christian, because they simply do not match YOUR definition of Christianity, which is NOT UNIVERSAL OR ALL ENCOMPASSING. So have some humility and go fuck yourself.

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            EvolutionKills, it’s because Rafael presents True XianityTM that logic about UnTrue XianityTM bounces off him. He’s yankin yer chain. Ignore the troll and go have a cookie and a drink of choice.

          • EvolutionKills

            He is the walking embodiment of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

            That being said I do like cookies, so I find your argument to be compelling.

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Most find the cookie argument only slightly less compelling than the cake argument.

          • EvolutionKills

            That’s because cookies, unlike cake, are not filled with lies…

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Perhaps if EvolutionKills had put it in terms of a conversation it would make sense to Rafael

            Rafael and Bill, both Xians, are talking one fine August evening.

            Rafael says “Christians who read the Bible find that homosexuality is not a sin.”

            Bill counters with “But our mutual friend Jim is a Christian, and he thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.”

            Rafael dismisses Jim and Bill by responding “But no TRUE Christian finds homosexuality to be a sin. So Jim isn’t a TRUE Christian.”

        • Azkyroth

          What.

        • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

          “How is it a No True Scotsman Fallacy?”

          EvolutionKills got it right.

          Put another way, Xian #1 claims to present “True Xianity” and believe that homosexuality is not a sin and those who don’t believe that aren’t real Xians while Xians #2 thru #10,000,000 claim to be Xian and believe that homosexuality is a sin.

          ” it would be a fallacy IF //snip//”

          Whatever.

          “The DEFINITION of Christian whether I like it or not is that they follow and Obey Jesus Christ and do sin, has nothing to do with personal biased.”

          Actually, one is a Xian if they claim to be one. Full-stop.

          “As a matter of fact, you commit the fallacy because since the anti gay Are secular, you don’t want association.”

          Whatever. Stop it. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    • baal

      What a bizarre argument. Since some christians do not agree with your reading of the bible, they must not be ‘true xtians’ and must also therefore be secular? You do know us secular types are not usually the ones to call out ‘sins’. We usually speak of ‘harms’.

      Also, secular does not mean not-christian. Secular means you want to split church and state. There are secularist Christians out there.

      • Rafael

        “What a bizarre argument. Since some christians do not agree with your reading of the bible”

        Where was MY reading included? Homosexuality is objectively not a sin in Hebrew/Greek Scriptures(Old and New Testament), you commit sin by disobeying Jesus Christ and adding to His law.

        “We usually speak of ‘harms’.”

        Which is what sin is, Sin is the breaking of Law(1 John 3:4) now what is the law?

        Matthew 7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” – YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

        Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, [n]a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [o]foremost commandment.39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” – YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

        “Secular means you want to split church and state. There are secularist Christians out there.”

        Secular means without God, you cannot by definition be Christian and secular.

        • EvolutionKills

          Sin is not the same as not causing harm.

          Working on the Sabbath is a SIN, in and of itself it does no harm.

          Believing in other gods or no gods is a SIN, but it does no harm to anything except your non-existent god’s ego.

          Taking the Lord’s name in vain is a SIN. but once again the only harm is a bruised ego, that’s not really harm at all.

          Thinking lustfully about a woman is the same as committing adultery with her (according to Jesus), and adultery is a SIN; so the thought is likewise a SIN. But there is no harm in thoughts and fantasy, so long as you do not act on those thoughts. Fantasizing about a woman does no harm, whereas actual adultery is a breach of trust and does cause harm.

          And lets all not forget that Sin doesn’t matter, because belief in Jesus is enough to wipe the slate clean. Once you’re saved, that’s all you need. Personal responsibility does not matter in Christianity, so rape and murder all you want, accept Jesus, and get into Heaven anyways.

          Also, a Secularist is someone who believes in the separation of Church and State. So you can be a Christian and think that both your religion and your government are best served and protected by remaining separated.

          You are very lazy and ignorant indeed, if you cannot even be bothered to look up definitions for ‘sin’ and ‘secular’…

          • Cake

            Sin is a imaginary concept made up by door to door religious salespeople so they can sell you a product that gets rid of it.

          • wombat

            I think the ‘secular’ problem comes from how many fundamentalist people are taught to use the word. To the rest of the world, it means separation of church and state, but to many evangelical Christians, it means ‘of the world’ (which translates to ‘anything that my church disapproves of’)

            Libby Anne had an interesting discussion on this evangelical word thing, where they have their own special meanings for a whole lot of words. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/07/what-do-the-words-mean.html

          • EvolutionKills

            They have their own ‘reality’, why not their own vocabulary?

            Thanks for the link, it looks like an interesting read.

          • baal

            Libby Anne really does everyone a huge service by explaining the fundamentalist / evangelical 2nd reality mindset.

          • Rafael

            “Sin is not the same as not causing harm”

            Yes it is, as a matter of fact that’s the objective meaning, watch,

            Sin is defined as Transgression of Law, 1 John 3:4 – “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”

            What is the Law?

            Matthew 7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” – YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

            Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, [n]a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [o]foremost commandment.39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” – YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

            So when you break the Law, you can only harm, Sin is Harm.

            “Believing in other gods or no gods is a SIN, but it does no harm to anything except your non-existent god’s ego.”

            Actually it does harm, if you do not believe in YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) then you basically don’t want His Life, you harm yourself to nonexistence/death.

            “except your non-existent god’s ego.””

            Nonexistent? Proof?

            “Taking the Lord’s name in vain is a SIN. but once again the only harm is a bruised ego, that’s not really harm at all.”

            Of course it harms, not about His ego,, but your sake, your conscious and thinking all day right? YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created life, so if you don’t respect Him, you don’t respect His Gifts.

            “Thinking lustfully about a woman is the same as committing adultery with her (according to Jesus),”

            No it isn’t Jesus Christ never said that, http://savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/lust-is-not-sin.html

            “and adultery is a SIN; so the thought is likewise a SIN.”

            Adultery is cheating.

            ” But there is no harm in thoughts and fantasy, so long as you do not act on those thoughts. Fantasizing about a woman does no harm, whereas actual adultery is a breach of trust and does cause harm.”

            Actually there is, what can of person fantasies about commiting adultery? you’d have to be evil, thinking of another persons wife is no sin though, there’s a difference, thinking of adultery, is just that, having a good sexual fantasy is ok.

            “And lets all not forget that Sin doesn’t matter, because belief in Jesus is enough to wipe the slate clean.”

            No it isn’t, Matthew 7:21 – “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” – Jesus Christ

            “so rape and murder all you want, accept Jesus, and get into Heaven anyways.”

            No because you have to Repent, you can’t act sorry or just say it, you need to truly be sorry, and someone genuinely sorry is a new person, they’d deserve forgiveness and never want to do that evil again.

            “Also, a Secularist is someone who believes in the separation of Church and State.”

            No, secular(which is a Scientific impossibility) simply means without God(YHWH: The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

          • EvolutionKills

            You are fucking retarded. You conveniently ignored my example of a sin that causes no harm, and it STILL STANDS. It is quite simple, your god commands us under penalty of death, to not do things that quite simply cause NO HARM. All I need is one example to destroy your assertion, because you made an absolute assertion. I have that one example, and I could cite more. So your argument misses the point entirely. Working on the Sabbath is a sin, but causes no harm. Try again, and try not dodging the point.

            “Actually there is, what can of person fantasies about commiting adultery? you’d have to be evil, thinking of another persons wife is no sin though, there’s a difference, thinking of adultery, is just that, having a good sexual fantasy is ok.”

            Thinking of adultery, while not committing it, IS SEXUAL FANTASY your fucking moron. Unless you’re advocating for ‘thought crime’, in which case, you and your nonexistent god can go fuck himself.

            “Nonexistent? Proof?”

            I can’t prove a negative, but I don’t have to. There is no positive proof for the existence of your god, let alone any other. In the light of NO EVIDENCE, there is no reason to believe your god, or any other, exists. You can’t reverse the burden of proof, nice try retard.

            “No because you have to Repent, you can’t act sorry or just say it, you need to truly be sorry, and someone genuinely sorry is a new person, they’d deserve forgiveness and never want to do that evil again.”

            But how do YOU know that? How do YOU know if they are truly repentant? All they have to do is SAY they are truly saved and truly sorry, and you’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt? And people have been using that for millennial to excuse their immoral behavior, then go right around and do it again. And that person will feel guilty, ask Jesus for forgiveness, and feel better. Then they do it again, and again, and again. Because they can keep asking Jesus and keep absolving themselves of personal responsibility. They never have to ask forgiveness from the persons they’ve wronged. They can essentially ask themselves for a clear consciousness. They will fool you and abuse you, and you will smile and let them, because you too believe in Jesus.

            “No, secular(which is a Scientific impossibility) simply means without God(YHWH: The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)”

            Go fuck yourself, you are NOT entitled to your own definitions.

            Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning “worldly” or “temporal”) is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied or against any particular religion.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity

            Your definition is WRONG, and you are more ignorant than the dirt you walk upon.

        • baal

          I was paraphrasing your argument to highlight the misuse of ‘secular’ and the ‘one true Scotsman’ fallacy. but the mere fact that you called some christians secular is proof that you don’t think they agree with you.

        • Gehennah

          With the government, you can be a secularist.

          You can want a separation of church and state in the government. Normally, that is what a secularist is wanting.

          And you can be a Christian who wants there to be a separation of church and state.

    • Loqi

      Your source is laughably bad. I mean that literally – I laughed at several points. Atheist pagans? That’s almost as bad as Newt Gingrich’s atheist muslims. Also, the line “…in order to be right, my opponent must refute every point made here” blatantly displays a fundamental understanding of how logic and reason work.

      • Rafael

        “blatantly displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic and reason work.”

        How does that display a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic and reason work? in order for my opponent to be right they have to refute, they can’t be right because they say so, they have to refute the argument and prove theirs.

        • EvolutionKills

          They only have to refute your argument if you have managed to prove your positive statement. You have failed to do anything more than assert your position, and claim it as true.

          • Rafael

            This assumes that my argument is the same as that math equation, no, with my arguments you have to disprove each and everyone of them, so if for example I give you The Shroud of Turin and First Uncaused Cause, and you disproved First Uncaused Caused and not Shroud of Turin, then the opponent still loses, as Shroud of Turin remains, in order to win the debate of “no evidence” you’d have to disprove each and every one.

          • EvolutionKills

            No, you are a goddamn moron that know nothing about the evaluation of evidence.

            The Shroud of Turin is bunk, that is fuckin’ woo-woo.

            The first Un-caused Cause is special pleading, and logically fallacious.

            Both of your examples do nothing to provide evidence for you, and you are left with nothing to support your positive assertion. It is now YOU who has a reason to change your position, not the skeptic. You have failed to prove your case, and now you have reason to change it, the skeptic does not.

            Enlighten yourself about the Burden of Proof before you try posting anything that vapid again.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL85F1EE32A438AEB8

            You you make a dozen unproven assertions, I do not need to refute your dozen to prove you wrong. Your dozen assertions are just that, assertions. No proof, no evidence, you have done NOTHING to support your case or position. I don’t have to do anything, your case simply falls apart.

            You know why? Because if it’s as simple as making shit up, we can do that too. But asserting made up shit does not make for an actual evidence.

        • Loqi

          First, no they don’t have to disprove yours. If they prove theirs, and your answers are not the same, and your answers are mutually exclusive, then the act of proving their argument proves yours wrong by definition. Second, you don’t have to prove all points of an argument are wrong to debunk an argument. Proving one point is wrong is enough to make the whole argument unsound. To illustrate, let’s say I make the statement (in base ten 1 + 2 = 3 and 4 + 5 = 9 and 6 + 7 = 12, therefore 1 + 2 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 3 + 9 + 12 = 24). The answer is wrong, and to prove it, you don’t have to prove every element wrong. Just one is enough. In fact, some of that statement is true, but that doesn’t rescue the statement. Proving things is hard. You have to prove every point is right. Disproving things is easy. You only have to poke a single hole.

          • Rafael

            “Just one is enough. In fact, some of that statement is true, but that doesn’t rescue the statement.”

            This assumes that my argument is the same as that math equation, no, with my arguments you have to disprove each and everyone of them, so if for example I give you The Shroud of Turin and First Uncaused Cause, and you disproved First Uncaused Caused and not Shroud of Turin, then the opponent still loses, as Shroud of Turin remains, in order to win the debate of “no evidence” you’d have to disprove each and every one.

    • wombat

      A line like “lunatic “atheistic” false religious cultic pagan things” generally tips people off to the idea that maybe the article shouldn’t be takes seriously

      • Rafael

        “lunatic “atheistic” false religious cultic pagan things”

        I wrote that for 2 reasons, I was angry and I wanted to distingish Homosexuality and Atheism, people seem to have the belief that Secularism is pro-gay, when actually Anti-gay use mistranslated verses, thus secular, I’m sorry for offending, I’ll edit it, it doesn’t however take away any validity to the article.

        • EvolutionKills

          Your entire article is invalid because of all of your blatantly false assertions, and making even more mistakes makes it even worse.

          Secularist are, for the most part, in favor of equality for homosexuals because there is no good non-religious reason to deny them equal protection under the law. You completely missed the entire point.

        • wombat

          I was not offended. It was simply the biggest shiniest flag signalling that what I was reading wasn’t quite in touch with reality. When you add in misspellings and gratuitous use of random capitalisation, the flags spell fundamentalist. Adding in demonisation of the sexual activities of people who have not invited you into their bedroom gives the entire message of fundamentalist bigot. The dodging of reality in modelling yourself on the Catholic doctrine of condoning homosexuality as long as people don’t have icky anal sex, and throwing in a good dose of No True Scotsman, label you as Not Worthwhile.

    • Loqi

      I do enjoy argument that it condemns just anal sex rather than homosexuality in general, based on this gem:

      If so, then the verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way
      that his penis is engulfed in the other man”s body. And where is a man
      penetrable? Here the rabbis make use of the fact that the word lyings is
      in the plural form. The lyings of a woman are plural because she may be
      penetrated vaginally or anally. A man, missing the vagina, is singly
      penetrable anally.

      Apparently men don’t have mouths. I’m not sure what this hole in my face is, but it’s definitely not a mouth, because mouths can be used for sex, and I’m only penetratable anally.

      • Rafael

        Key Word, Penetrate, mouth isn’t included here, Oral Sex isn’t penetration, rather is licking and sucking, even if it included mouth(which it doesn’t, Lyings mean Anal or Vaginal), I’d say penetrating a mouth is dangerous, you could harm the partner, oral should be receieved. thus man-man oral sex isn’t included.

        • baal

          Um, I’m not sure how to put this delicately but your range of oral activities is narrower than my experience. Said differently, personal experience (or even just some imagination) means your wrong about oral sex not being penetrative.

          • Rafael

            It’s not penetrative generally, as a matte of fact I’d argue danger of penetration due to teeth, oral sex is sucking and/or licking.

            Also, ” I’m not sure how to put this delicately”

            What does that mean? Is sex not itself good? why have to put it delicately, sex is sex, YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit) made it amazing, no shame to it.

          • baal

            Again, your oral sex definition is way too limited and teeth are not the biggest issue. STIs are (including throat cancer from HPV or sores from herpes).

        • Loqi

          What makes anal penetrative but not (some kinds of) oral? You’re putting something inside your body. Why is it penetrative when it goes into one orifice but not the other?
          As for your contention that the Bible was just trying to outlaw dangerous forms of sex, I’m not buying it. Vaginal sex has most of the same dangers as anal, plus some more. Childbirth was one of the leading causes of death at the time, and certainly outpaced anal cancer. If the bible wanted to outlaw dangerous sex, it would have started with vaginal.

          • Rafael

            “What makes anal penetrative but not (some kinds of) oral?”

            Exactly, some kinds, even if oral was penetrative(isn’t, due to dangers(teeth) the definition of Lyings is only Anal or Vaginal.

            “As for your contention that the Bible was just trying to outlaw dangerous forms of sex, I’m not buying it. Vaginal sex has most of the same dangers as anal,”

            So because Vaginal sex(original creation) is not condemned then it’s not outlawing dangerous sex? this makes no sense, the only way Vaginal sex can be dangerous is through diseases, which doesn’t need sex, we can get diseases plenty of ways. so the “I don’t buy it” doesn’t work.

            “this plus some more. Childbirth was one of the leading causes of death at the time, and certainly outpaced anal cancer. If the bible wanted to outlaw dangerous sex, it would have started with vaginal.”

            #1 Sources? #2, Probably Improper Childbirth, more knowledge has ensured that this doesn’t happen as often.

            So no if The Bible wanted to outlaw dangerous sex it would not outlaw vaginal sex, oral sex etc, Anal sex though for anyone is no good, The Vagina is self cleaning, Anus is not, it’s like penetrating a cut, Why do that? because it’s taboo? it’s pointless.

            You’re acting as if YHWH is being arbitrary/hateful here, He isn’t and is actually against that, if He was He would have just condemned Homosexuality/Oral sex in general, He didn’t, He specifically used the words Lyings of Woman, which can mean Vaginal or Anal, here with other men means Anal, because He wanted to probhibit Anal sex, not Homosexuality, with good cause too, it harms,

          • Loqi

            Exactly, some kinds, even if oral was penetrative(isn’t, due to dangers(teeth)

            …what do teeth have to do with anything? Oral isn’t penetrative because teeth exist? My logic hurts…

            So because Vaginal sex(original creation) is not condemned then it’s not outlawing dangerous sex?

            That is correct. You said the bible outlaws dangerous kinds of sex. I provided an example of sex that is dangerous (the most dangerous, really) and the bible does not outlaw it. What’s not to understand about that?

            this makes no sense, the only way Vaginal sex can be dangerous is through diseases

            And childbirth, which you conveniently forget. Besides which, if you just hand wave away diseases like you did here, how are anal and oral dangerous?

            which doesn’t need sex, we can get diseases plenty of ways.

            Putting your hand in a blender is dangerous because you can lose a hand. You can lose a hand plenty of other ways too. But that doesn’t make putting your hand in a blender less dangerous.

            #1 Sources?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/
            http://www.gapminder.org/documentation/documentation/gapdoc010.pdf

            Probably Improper Childbirth, more knowledge has ensured that this doesn’t happen as often.

            At the time the bible was written, they wouldn’t have had this “more knowledge.” At the time, it was extremely dangerous (just going back a mere 200 years, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/). It’s still dangerous today. Let’s just look at *one* complication of pregnancy, eclampsia. It’s not even the leading cause of maternal death, so it’s not like I’m cherry picking here. Some 585,000 women die of it every year worldwide (http://www.jpma.org.pk/full_article_text.php?article_id=242). Anal cancer, on the other hand, doesn’t even have that many new infections worldwide, let alone that many deaths (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_cancer). Aside from eclampsia, there’s still hemorrhaging, obstructed labor, and numerous other things that can go wrong.

            So no if The Bible wanted to outlaw dangerous sex it would not outlaw vaginal sex, oral sex etc, Anal sex though for anyone is no good

            You haven’t shown anything to warrant saying vaginal and oral sex aren’t just as dangerous, if not more so, than anal. As far as anal being “no good” for anyone, there are millions of people who would disagree with you there.

            You’re acting as if YHWH is being arbitrary/hateful here

            Actually, I’m acting as if Yahweh isn’t “being” at all. Since the rest of that paragraph is just word salad with random cap dressing, I’ll not bother addressing it.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I appreciate a good piece of South-bashing as much as the next yankee, but let’s face it, stoopid is everywhere. Wales 2000:

    Vigilantes mistake pediatrician for pedophile and attack home

    • wombat

      I sometimes wonder if the reason the US is laughed at so much isn’t because they’re more prone to saying silly things, but that their media is more efficient at reporting it, and combined with a large population, more ends up on the screens of the world. Because there is stoopid everywhere.

  • Azkyroth

    But they have the same rights as homosexuals: the right to have sex with other consenting adults, even if which adults they have sex with or what kind of sex they have with them makes the religious or prudish uncomfortable.

    • Len

      They even have the same rights as heterosexuals: the right to have sex with other consenting adults, even if which adults they have sex with or what kind of sex they have with them makes the religious or prudish uncomfortable. Interestingly, that’s the same rights as homosexuals.

  • indorri

    I’ve never seen any apologetic that addresses child rape. Ever. As far as I can tell, it’s never addressed either in scripture or in popular theology.

    As far as I can tell, the austerity of sexual relations being limited to older people comes, culturally, from Germanic pagan origins. Ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures had no problem marrying off young people as long as they were in puberty, at least for females anyway. This was both before and after Christianity.

    • Rafael

      Ever? well now you will,

      Deuteronomy 22:25-27 – “25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.”

      Basically rape is like murder, it is a sin,

      as Jesus Christ(YHWH, God of Israel) said,

      Matthew 7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” – YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

      Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, [n]a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [o]foremost commandment.39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” – YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit)

      • EvolutionKills

        For starters, you counter an accusation of “I’ve never seen any apologetic that addresses child rape.” with lines from the Bible in regards to rape that is not child specific. The point still stands, that there is nothing specifically against pedophilia.

        I also love how you stop at Deuteronomy right after 27, and didn’t give the next two verses. So here they are…

        “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”
        -(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

        That’s right, rape is ‘sin’, but if the victim is an unmarried woman, then she will be forced to MARRY her RAPIST. So fuck your religion, and fuck you for trying to omit that.

        In addition, the story in Matthew that you quote is nonsense. Jesus claims that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

        That is plainly false. The Law considered working on the Sabbath a sin, and it was punishable by death. Working on a particular day of the week is not immoral, unethical, nor does it violate the Ethic or Reciprocity (the so called ‘Golden Rule’ that Jesus is mooching in the passage). Quite clearly not ALL of the Law was built upon those two ideas, so we’re left with a number of possibilities.

        1. Jesus is mistaken.
        2. Jesus is lying.
        3. The person who recorded the conversation was mistaken.
        4. The person who recorded the conversation was lying.
        5. The person who made up the story was mistaken.
        6. The person who made up the story was lying.

        What you cannot get is ‘This is an accurate and truthful presentation of what a historical Jesus actually said’. That option is not open to you. So much for the Bible being inerrant…

        • Rafael

          What are you talking about? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is missing the word for rape, which is ve·he·che·zik-, which means forces, this word is used in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 to condemn rape, the word is completely missing in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, so the sentence cannot include rape and you provided a mistranslation.

          Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is essentially Exodus 22:16-17.

          ‘So fuck your religion, and fuck you for trying to omit that.”

          As demonstrated above my religion never says that nor did I omit anything as the word rape(ve·he·che·zik-) is nowhere there, you owe me an apology. Also why would you want to say “fuck you” to me EVEN if I did something wrong? why would you want to Harm/Offend anyone(even if they are evil)? this is evil. Love Your Enemies(YHWH/Jesus Christ, Matthew 5)

          “1. Jesus is mistaken.”

          He is YHWH(Zechariah 2)

          “2. Jesus is lying.”

          He did not sin.

          “3. The person who recorded the conversation was mistaken.
          4. The person who recorded the conversation was lying.
          5. The person who made up the story was mistaken.
          6. The person who made up the story was lying.”

          or 7 it was an Interpolation, or 8, The Sabbath was made FOR man(

          Mark 2:23-27)

          “So much for the Bible being inerrant…”

          Who said The Bible(canon) is Inerrant? surely Scripture is but The Bible isn’t inerrant, actually Errors and Contradictions authenticate The Bible, as whatever Contradictions a Majority of a Text is logically not the authors intent, and thus either Inauthentic and/or Intepolation.

          This means that since most of The Bible is that YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit) is Love, the minority is interpolation, which means YHWH is Moral and atheist have been lying.

          • EvolutionKills

            Let me stop you right there…

            “actually Errors and Contradictions authenticate The Bible”

            If you are that goddamn stupid, you owe me an apology for breathing the same atmosphere. Errors and contradictions indicate errors and contradictions, and not what you’d expect for a work supposedly inspired by the creator of the universe. Something with that much power would do better.

            New International Version
            If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

            New American Standard
            If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

            Revised Standard Edition
            If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

            Complete Jewish Bible
            If a man comes upon a girl who is a virgin but who is not engaged, and he grabs her and has sexual relations with her, and they are caught in the act, then the man who had intercourse with her must give to the girl’s father one-and-a-quarter pounds of silver shekels, and she will become his wife, because he humiliated her; he may not divorce her as long as he lives.

            To ‘seize her and lie with her’ sounds like a nice way of wording that she was raped, without using the word ‘raped’.

            If Jesus is found lying in the Bible, you cannot claim that it’s not possible because the Bible also says he is incapable of lying. The Bible is the claim, not the proof. You are attempting to use the Bible to prove the Bible, which shows you don’t know jack shit about evaluating evidence, the burden of proof, logic, or reason.

          • baal

            “not what you’d expect for a work supposedly inspired by the creator of the universe.”
            I keep expecting that the creator of an uncountable number of suns could have done something really neat and very hard to explain to prove His existence. Giant letters in the sky that are made of fire, show up only when you praise His name and rejuvenate you to 18 years old once every 50 years (if you’ve lead a godly life) would do it for me.

          • Loqi

            What are you talking about? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is missing the word for rape, which is ve·he·che·zik-, which means forces, this word is used in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 to condemn rape, the word is completely missing in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, so the sentence cannot include rape and you provided a mistranslation.

            Whew, that’s a relief. It’s a good thing there’s no other way to describe it than by using the actual word, or this argument would be total bunk.

            Nope, I can’t think of a single way to describe forcibly having sex with a person against their will without using a specific word. It’s simply impossible to say a person compelled another into sexual relations without using that word. Can anyone think of a way to convey the idea of a person forcing him/herself onto another in violation of their autonomy without using the word?

    • John H

      More recent – the entire concept of “childhood” as we understand it is an invention of Victorian English culture. Lots of cultures had (a few still have, though the idea that any sexual relations between an adult and person below a given age cutoff inherently exploitative, coercive, or otherwise harmful has spread far and wide at this point) sexual rituals predicted on the onset of puberty, which tended to be in the mid-late teens before industrialized agriculture made high-calorie foods plentiful. Some had sexual rituals involving younger children. (In none of these is rape considered acceptable, but not all sexual activity involving children was necessarily considered rape.) Interestingly, the Puritans didn’t try to hide sex from children at all (in contrast to the present impulse to ‘protect’ children from sexual knowledge or expression). Colonial houses in the US tended to be one-room (and even one-bed) affairs, and children were socially tasked with making sure their parents weren’t involved in sinful sexual acts (just the Yahweh-approved PIV married sex), as was everyone (the NSA spying network has nothing on colonial America). See footnotes to Chapter 2 of D’Emilio’s and Freedman’s Intimate Matters: A history of sexuality in America for original sources on colonial life as well as some descriptions of Amerindian cultures that accepted child sexual expression – I recommend the whole book, actually (it deals with the Victorians and their legacy as well).

  • Azkyroth

    If you find sex with pigs attractive (a pig cannot consent)

    To be fair, this is basically special pleading since society does not consider an animal’s lack of informed consent a barrier to putting it to work, surgically modifying or sterilizing it, separating it from its offspring, treating it as a possession to buy or sell, selectively breeding it with others of its kind, confining it, euthanizing it, or killing and eating it, and I’m aware of few serious arguments that those should all be prohibited. Thus the Sudden Interest when it comes to sex is explicable either:

    1) because It’s ICKY! (Which is true but not really relevant) or
    2) because presenting a “united front” on the importance of consent to sex, due to its current status in culture and how that affects humans, is more important than logical consistency on this point.

    (I’m pretty sure most people are working mainly from 1, but 2 is at least a reasonable argument).

    • smrnda

      Perhaps it’s because we register the sex as extreme animal cruelty or misuse. Even most carnivores feel better with more humane treatment of the animals they eat.

      I’d say 2 is important, because it’s important to note that anything less than an unambiguous “yes” is not consent. Justifying consent from an animal as a ‘it was something less than a total no’ opens up the door to treating ambiguous responses as consent in other situations.

      • Azkyroth

        …or, I suppose, you can formulate the need for consent as something that magically applies to sex, and only to sex, rather than grounding it in a more general right to bodily integrity and autonomy (which we pretty explicitly do NOT grant to animals in any case except the prospect of sex with them).

    • John H

      As long as we’re allowed to violate animals’ bodily agency in all the ways mentioned (whether that’s okay is a long, complicated debate best left for elsewhere), I see no reason to object to fucking animals. Even less to being (presumably enthusiastically) fucked by an animal. After all, the ‘rape’ (if one wanted to call it that) of an animal is only illegal when the person is deriving sexual pleasure from it – it’s a normal part of husbandry (mediated insemination) otherwise. The hangup is clearly about human sexual pleasure and ICKY, not animals’ rights in any sense.

  • ganner

    Saying that homosexuality will lead to legalized pedophilia is like like saying that the sport of boxing will lead to all assault being legal.

    • smrnda

      Speaking of that, look up James Butler, a boxer charged with assault for hitting another boxer inside of the ring – the fight was over and the gloves were off. We see the principle of informed consent everywhere – if you die *during the fight* (look up Johnny Owen) nobody presses murder charges, but the moment the fight is over, consent to be hit is withdrawn.

  • Randy Gritter

    So why consenting adult? Obviously pedophiles will contest the adult part. You don’t say why. Remember you need an absolute why that is intuitive in every case. You don’t even understand the problem well enough to refer to it once in a very long post. You just say consenting adult over and over and think that is a response. The slippery slope is firmly in place. Your arguments have zero traction.

    • John Evans

      Because children can’t meaningfully consent. That’s why we don’t let them sign contracts, either.

      • Randy Gritter

        Who says? Pedophiles will give you lots of examples of children that did meaningfully consent. Remember you can’t appeal to any form of sexual morality in you response.

        • John Evans

          Decades, if not centuries, of psychological study, and decades of neurological study.

        • Composer 99

          Randy, what are you going on about?

          Remember you need an absolute why that is intuitive in every case.

          With respect to legal questions (such as, say, whether pedophilia should be legal), which often hinge on contingencies and exceptions, this seems like an absurd claim to make. Certainly you have provided no reason for anyone to simply accept it. What is the basis for this claim of yours?

          Pedophiles will give you lots of examples of children that did meaningfully consent. Remember you can’t appeal to any form of sexual morality in you response.

          WTF is this?

          By definition, children can’t meaningfully consent, in the legal sense, to sex with an adult. So such examples would serve no purpose.

          Also, who died and made you the arbiter of what principles people can or can’t appeal to when constructing arguments?

          • Azkyroth

            By definition, children can’t meaningfully consent, in the legal sense, to sex with an adult.

            This could be reasonably construed as circular, unless explicitly grounded in the well-documented differences in impulse control, judgment, experience, and even cognitive capacity depending on age, between children and adults.

        • ZenDruid

          Yes, the Catholic story is that those filthy little children of sin actually seduced all those poor priests.

        • Zinc Avenger

          Please, tell us more about your Ultimate Morality in which you really, genuinely can’t see any difference between having sex with a consenting adult and a child. Are you on any particular offender registries, by any chance?

        • smrnda

          There are many things that we do not allow children to consent to. You have to be 18 (I think) to get a tattoo.

        • baal

          “Remember you can’t appeal”
          Oh yes I can! You nasty minded presuppositionalists do not have a lock on morality and atheist are just as moral (if not more so) than your ilk. Everyone is human and humans have morality, we evolved as a social species and that’s not really possible if you don’t have morality. I don’t expect you to understand that, however.

    • smrnda

      The law offers certain restrictions in terms of what minors can do but it also offers them certain protections. We do this because we’d agree that minors have less capacity to reason and make decisions, though any age you draw is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to draw some age. It’s kind of like putting a weight limit on a bridge. Maybe a 2 tonne truck won’t make it break, but let’s be safe and put the limit at 1 tonne.

      So… you think that the idea that ‘the basis for sexual ethics is fully informed consent by parties who are capable of fully informed consent’ is bad then what do you have to offer? I’ve never seen anything better than that.

      The problem with religions (Xtianity in particular) is that all they say is “all sex in religion approved heterosexual marriages is okay” – many religions force kids to enter into marriages and then they declare it okay, so I see no religion at all that actually provides any logical argument against pedophilia. All it demands is that a religious leader sanction the union, so Xtianity doesn’t explicitly prohibit pedophilia, just regulates it.

      • Rafael

        “The problem with religions (Xtianity in particular) is that all they say is “all sex in religion approved heterosexual marriages is okay””

        Where does The Bible say this?

        “so Xtianity doesn’t explicitly prohibit pedophilia, just regulates it.”

        Where does The Bible do this?

        • DavidMHart

          “so Xtianity doesn’t explicitly prohibit pedophilia, just regulates it.”

          Where does The Bible do this?

          It does it by regulating sex in general, but failing to contain a prohibition against having sex with persons under a certain age.

          Where in the Bible does it state what the age of consent is?

          • Rafael

            “It does it by regulating sex in general, but failing to contain a prohibition against having sex with persons under a certain age.”

            Lack of prohibitation does not equate to condonement, much like lack of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

            Also Rape is a Sin(Deuteronomy 22:25-27), pedophilla is therefore wrong.

          • Loqi

            It does that right after the part about slavery being wrong.

    • Gehennah

      Because the laws are in place to restrict certain decisions to certain ages. While technically, everyone doesn’t age or mature at the exact same rate, around 18 seems to be the average, and this is what the laws are now based upon.

  • EvolutionKills

    CONSENT MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT!?

    *For best effect, read previous sentence in the voice of Samuel L. Jackson*

  • Leo Buzalsky

    Right from the beginning the article already drops the ball. Nobody’s
    using “I have x impulse and therefore should be allowed to do it” as the
    sum of their argument.

    Sure, not the sum…but certainly you must admit it has been used as a major component? That argument and asking people to be “tolerant.” Both of which I find to be used way too often. Really, such arguments shouldn’t be used at all because they can be so broadly applied.
    In short, while I think we can agree these people are ignoring the better arguments for gay rights, I cannot entirely blame them for picking up on the bad arguments.

    • Loqi

      I certainly don’t admit it has been used as a major component. I’ve heard “I have x impulse *and it doesn’t harm anyone and creates happiness* therefore I should be allowed to do it” being used as a major component. But that’s quite different.

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: free instagram followers in seconds

  • Pingback: Google free instagram followers

  • Pingback: priligy cialis

  • Pingback: how to earn followers on instagram for free

  • Pingback: assailer acarocecidium azofy

  • Pingback: BlueOrchard


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X