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.

"the preacher is yiffing in hell. he hides behind God to be a furfag."

President and CEO of massive Baptist ..."
"As I had the "fuck a dog" joke in my third book; this one took ..."

President and CEO of massive Baptist ..."
"It does come off as shady, doesn't it."

I’ll be doing a debate in ..."
"so you are against the mentally challenged as well, huh, "Ed"? Seems you have no ..."

Frank Turek fears me. Also he ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • LaGioiella

    This claim of those that prison psychologists say are “crazy beyond repair and redemption because they will ALWAYS have the desire to hurt…rape women and children” is just as sick and wrong as people who have sex with dead people. Gays are in committed relationships, and are consenting adults. Do not compare homosexuality to their crimes against humanity unless someone is getting raped. Bringing up an argument like this, just proves just how F-ing SOCIALLY RETARDED & STUPID these societal termites are. I believe they should be publically executed. I say replace Monday Night Football with Monday Night Crucifixions. Think of the ratings and how nice the world would be after exterminating the root problem of drug and alcohol problems.

  • LaGioiella

    One way to get rid of the vampires, is to drive a wooden stake through their heart and burn them.

    • baal

      don’t forget to decapitate them as well

  • John

    Whats wrong with polygamy then? if all 3 adults are consenting whats wrong with it? it is their human rights to love one another as well. Moreover, with more parents, im sure the children will get equal if not more family love as well!! so what’s wrong with polygamy?! They can use the exact same argument as for gay marriages. There has to be a line… the fact that homosexuality violates the purpose of pro-creation is the reason why gay marriages should not be allowed. It is NOT normal, if homosexuality was normal, there wouldn’t be a next generation here. There has NOT been a concrete research showing that homosexuality is genetic (i dare anyone to prove otherwise). If identical twins can grow up to have different sexual orientations it must mean something else, probably a post-birth factor that has affected sexual orientation. If that is the case, I question the issue of homosexuality as a problem of eroding social and moral values rather than an issue of human rights.

    • Zinc Avenger

      Whats wrong with polygamy then? if all 3 adults are consenting whats wrong with it?

      Yes. What’s wrong with polygamy?

      There has NOT been a concrete research showing that any religion is true (i dare anyone to prove otherwise). If identical twins can grow up to have different religions it must mean something else, probably a post-birth factor that has affected religion. If that is the case, I question the issue of religion as a problem of eroding social and moral values rather than an issue of human rights.

      • islandbrewer

        Yes. What’s wrong with polygamy?

        Well, for one thing, I’m never sure about the wedding present situation. Am I supposed to be buying something for everyone? Or just two out of the three? What price range should I be shooting for?

        It’s just so confusing! *throws up hands with a dramatic sigh*

      • John

        What are u even saying? christianity is not even asking for human rights.. its up to u to believe or not. But on the contrasting end, gay rights activists are asking for human rights. So ur analogy is completely out of context. Likewise, i dare anyone to prove otherwise that there is concrete evidence god doesn’t exist. But the main point here is if it is not a genetic issue, then the people who are arguing gay rights as human rights based on the fact that they were born like this, do not actually know what they are fighting for. And so now ur questioning what’s wrong with polygamy… ur the precise example of what I’ve just termed as ‘eroding social and moral values’.

        • Fred

          You fucked up.
          You might want to try reading what zinc is saying next time before you go off on a tangental wall of text. Seriously, what did the English language and paragraph breaks ever do to you?

          Nobody has to prove that whatever god you worship exists that would be counterproductive and silly. You have to prove that it Does Exist.

        • Zinc Avenger

          So Christians shouldn’t get “human rights” because there is no genetic basis for Christianity? I think you’re going to be arguing that a long time if you want to convince anyone of that idea, but don’t let us stop you.

        • RobMcCune

          christianity is not even asking for human rights..

          Because then they’ed be required to do unto others as they would have them do unto themselves…

          people who are arguing gay rights as human rights based on the fact that they were born like this, do not actually know what they are fighting for.

          Sure they do, they’re fighting for basic rights for other human beings. That should be obvious.

        • baal

          what’s wrong with polygamy… ur the precise example of what I’ve just termed as ‘eroding social and moral values’.

          You still haven’t provided anything but an assertion of wrongness. If I want two wives or if my girl friend wants a second boyfriend (or both of us as husbands) where is the problem if we all agree to it?

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      Well, what is wrong with polyamory? So long as everyone is a consenting adult, what do you see being wrong with any sexual activity or social arrangement? What are the actual harms?

      • John

        so ur suggesting now that its okay for a man to have more than one wife? vice versa.. Well done.. no wonder the world is getting screwed up with stupid people

        • Fred

          That’s easy to fix John.
          Stop being a stupid person. You could always explain why it’s wrong to have more than one wife or husband.

          Remember: “Because it’s Icky” is just as much a fail as “Because of Cooties”.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Ethically? I don’t care if a man is married to multiple women, multiple men, or some combination of the two and many other gender variations. I don’t care if a woman is married to multiple women, multiple men, or some combination of the two and many other gender variations. I don’t care if group marriages or linear marriages occur. Legally, it’s really really complicated so I’m not upset that marriage is currently confined to two people only.

          So long as everyone is a consenting adult, what is the harm? You’ve yet to actually name one. You’ve just asserted that I’m stupid, which is an argument that even kindergartners don’t buy.

          • Spuddie

            Since marriage is ultimately about a legally recognized relationship, the “really complicated” aspect of poly marriage is what keeps it from being legal.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Yeah. It’s a possibly resolvable problem, but a very, very difficult one with all sorts of weird contingencies.

          • Spuddie

            I just can’t see a way of doing it which doesn’t end up being arbitrary somehow.

            My attitude is if poly[whatever] supporters want it to be legal, let them figure out how to rewrite the existing laws to fit it in.

            One thing about gay marriage that its opponents do not want to think about is that our laws concerning marriage are already written as gender neutral. It requires absolutely no adjustment to current laws other than the issuing of the licenses to do it.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Agreed. That’s why poly marriages being currently illegal doesn’t bug me. The legalities are really complicated, as I said. All laws have some element of arbitrariness in them, so that’s not a terribly bad thing, but I agree that the people who want poly marriages legal should be the ones writing test laws and figuring out the corner cases and such.

            That wasn’t really my point to John above, though! He was claiming that poly relationships were inherently immoral and harmful, not that they were legally difficult. I don’t know how, though, so I was asking for clarification. I’m not confident I’m going to get any, though.

          • Cake

            I figure existing law can fit the bill. Like a busness, partnerships, incorporation, LLC’s. ect.

          • Spuddie

            The major drawback to the businesses model is that there is always a partner/shareholder who is more powerful in the relationship. A company needs a manager. A marriage usually doesn’t.

          • baal

            I thought it was anti-poly RCC memes littering history.

          • Spuddie

            Grecco-roman culture was also pretty binary when it came to marriage.

            Slaves, handmaids, concubines and mistresses aplenty but people only had one spouse.

        • Zinc Avenger

          Strange, you haven’t actually mentioned a reason why polygamy would be wrong.

          It’s almost as though you don’t actually have an argument…

      • Spuddie

        It creates holy hell for the legal aspects of the relationship. Child custody issues, inheritance, debt and credit obligations, property ownership, and a host of other issues get thrown into the ringer with poly marriage.

        • baal

          I’m convinced it’s not all that hard.

    • Spuddie

      1. It wreaks havoc on existing laws concerning marriage relationships in untold numbers of ways. (Property ownership, child custody issues, financial obligations, intestacy laws…)

      2. No polygamist has worked out a way to adjust said laws to make it function in a society which has premised marriage on a binary relationship.

      3. Marriage is not about procreation. Least of all sexual congress. People procreate without marriage rather freely and without much in terms of legal sanction. Homosexual relationships frequently have children. It was a loser of an argument 50 years ago when idiots used it as an excuse to ban contraceptives for married couples (see Grisowld v. Connecticut [1960])

      4. When did you chose to be heterosexual?

  • John

    secondly, is it just human rights they are asking? u sure no harm has been done to others? Aren’t gay unions fighting for their ‘rights’ to have marriages held in churches which are totally against christian/ catholic beliefs? The recent news about a gay couple who was rejected by a christian bakery as they would not bake a cake for their gay marriage against their beliefs, got mobbed at by gay rights activists. U don’t see the christians using mob tactics against this gay couple just cause they asked a christian bakery to bake a cake for their gay wedding right? How true is it… the people that ask for tolerance are usually the ones ending up being the least tolerant. So before making comments based on self-opinions, i strongly espouse the author to read up more about the issue. Ignorance is not bliss…

    • Zinc Avenger

      u sure no harm has been done to others?

      Which harm do you suggest is being done?

      Aren’t gay unions fighting for their ‘rights’ to have marriages held in churches which are totally against christian/ catholic beliefs?

      No.

      U don’t see the christians using mob tactics against this gay couple just cause they asked a christian bakery to bake a cake for their gay wedding right?

      “Mob tactics”? Is that what we’re calling the free market and freedom of association these days?

      the people that ask for tolerance are usually the ones ending up being the least tolerant

      Your intolerance of our intolerance of your intolerance is intolerant.

      i strongly espouse the author to read up more about the issue

      How much reading did you do before vomiting up your opinion?

      Ignorance is not bliss…

      I defer to your greater experience.

      • John

        “Which harm do you suggest is being done?”

        “”Mob tactics”? Is that what we’re calling the free market and freedom of association these days? ”

        -gay activists are calling on churches to hold gay weddings which are obviously against their beliefs. So its come to a point whereby people are not allowed to value the traditional family values of a man and a woman. Secondly, The news article on the mob tactics used against this family bakery who refused to do a business against their christian beliefs is not considered as harm to others???!?!! If ur questioning the definition of ‘mob tactics’, it is clear to me u have not read the article which has been published in over 10 different news agencies. Go and read up first before coming back to comment.

        • Fred

          “-gay activists are calling on churches to hold gay weddings which are obviously against their beliefs”

          Name Three. I’ve heard plenty of stories about religious caretakers of open Public Spaces trying to deny equal access to those areas to hold ceremonies. Not so much about being sued to open Privately held religious buildings. Please, name three.

          Traditional Family Values: I’m sorry people aren’t letting bigotry get a free pass in the same way that Miscegenation gets a free pass. Oh wait it doesn’t!

          I’m familiar with the article. Given the choice between buying a cake from a known bigot and some other company I’m choosing the other guy. It’s called voting with your wallet. What’s wrong with that?

          People called the company’s advertisers and suppliers and asked them if they supported gay marriage they obviously didn’t want to mixed up with a bunch of backasswards bigots either and they too voted with their wallets and asked the company to remove them from the Cake sellers suppliers page.

          You have a real funny definition of mob tactics. You look asinine thinking that people should ignore the harmful and hateful crap companies do when it comes to where you should spend your money.

        • Zinc Avenger

          You forgot to make a point amongst your personal incredulity, unsupported assertions, and accusations of ignorance.

        • RobMcCune

          So its come to a point whereby people are not allowed to value the traditional family values of a man and a woman.

          Actually it’s come to a point where people are allowed to value all men and women over the objections of people like you.

          it is clear to me u have not read the article which has been published in over 10 different news agencies.

          Actually that describes a lot of articles. Thanks to wire services, the same articles often get published in multiple sources. The fact you haven’t provided the article makes it clear you don’t actually want people to read because the actual events will prove you wrong.

        • Spuddie

          gay activists are calling on churches to hold gay weddings which are
          obviously against their beliefs. So its come to a point whereby people
          are not allowed to value the traditional family values of a man and a
          woman.

          So your entire point is premised on a fictional bullshit premise about churches being forced to perform gay marriages. NOBODY supporting marriage equality gives a damn what the churches do in this regard. Its a non-point made to sound like you have something of merit besides bigotry.

  • John

    u are one heck of an ignorant person…. stupid people shouldn’t be allowed on the internet. blogspot… seriously???!!?!?! hey u wanna visit my website: monksallowedtoeatmeatinmonastries.blogspot.com/stupidpeopleallaroundtheinternet

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    18 or parental permission. Same for piercings (I had to wait until I turned 18 to get my ears pierced, because my mom wouldn’t take me and sign the permission form).

  • Spuddie

    Christians NEVER understand the concept of consent or a right of privacy.

    Its why they want rape victims to bear unwanted children, can’t tell the difference between sexual predation and a loving couple and think they have a right to tell employees how to spend their paychecks and benefits.

  • Spuddie

    Rape has a different meaning in the Bible. It is akin to taking one’s property as opposed to forced sexual congress.

    Biblical rape is considered the taking of a woman without the permission of the male figure who claims her as a piece of property. It is punishable by forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist.

    Rape as in statutory rape, sexual congress with someone unable to form the legal notion of consent (pedophilia and ebibophilia ) is entirely absent in the Bible because consent is not a necessary element to physical relationships there.

  • Spuddie

    Right because according to religious authority sex is only considered truly right when it is between a priest and altarboy.

  • Spuddie

    Not to be overly icky but bestiality is banned for public health reasons too. Plenty of diseases transmit cross species that way.