The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

multi-species-angler Said:

guywhofishes Said:

multi-species-angler Said:

if you're serious about putting a stop to pedophilia...vote to ban catholic churches, gay people have nothing to do with this

Say what? Wow, I always thought gay men felt social pressure not to be gay, so they joined the church "to avoid sin", then found the youngsters in their charge easily coerced into gay activities - too easily corrupted. So much so that the gay guy's sexual urges win over in the battle of wills.

A gay guy has urges just like straight guy... I always thought that after a few yearsthat the alter boy eventually looked like an easy target of opportunity to "secretly" be the recipient of the gay guy's uber-pent up sexual urges.

The reason that more gay guys abuse kids in that position is that the heterosexual guys who had "the calling" to become priests were less likely to be in the priesthood to "hide" their heterosexualness - they had other reasons - some virtuous - some not.

Thus heteros are inherently a lower risk population to fall off the sex wagon and abuse kids under their "powerful" position... they inherently came there to serve for mostly non-sexual rational and thus are simply less risky around kids.

I had no idea it was the Catholic churches themselves that cause the gay guys to molest young boys. In that case - hell yes - these Catholic churches need to go!

Thats actually an interesting point and worth looking into more...so the typical priest/child molester cases are commited by gay men that joined the chuch to explore their sexual desires.  Are there any studies or numbers & statistics to support this hypothesis....if there is I'm not opposing this idea....its just hard to comprehend the very small church molestation numbers compared with the entire millions of people that are gay.

As to the catholic church causing child molestation, no it is not a cause.  It is, however, very well known for covering up, and hiding evidence and the criminals that committed such crimes.

I agree - the church elders should rot in prison for ignoring the abuse and for even passing priests along to molest new victims in new communities like they did - absolutely disgraceful and unimaginable to me.

But you misunderstood me on the highlighted text. I don't think the molesters joined "to explore" (then again anythign is possible) - I always imagined that they joined in an attempt to find a place (physically and spiritually) that their gay desires would lay fallow and/or be otherwise rendered neutral. You know - This type of thing:

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

There was a time and place where words like that meant something to most religious people - people took it quite seriously.

I'm just guessing but I think the days of the gay pedo priest zombie attacks are over. Less shame/guilt these days - more I'm OK, you're OK attitudes = less gays driven into the church in an attempt to run away from their gay orientation. Now there are churches that welcome gay pastors, most people don't give gays a hard time, etc. So the driving forces behind the Catholic priest gay pedo fest are behind us (no pun intended).

OK, I intended that last one.

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

KurtR Said:

why is it ok to have a gay pride march but if I had a hetero pride march I would be racist

I think because heteros don't feel inequal or like they have different rules to live by.

Kinda like when us gun owners feel someone is taking our rights away we have things like concealed n carry fishing tournaments to make the public aware of our concerns.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi, perhaps you overlooked the question posed to you as to what YOU find acceptable behavior?

If you did, please go back and reread those posts and then explain why YOUR views are any more valid than another persons?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 

KurtR Said:

why is it ok to have a gay pride march but if I had a hetero pride march I would be racist

I think because heteros don't feel inequal or like they have different rules to live by.

Kinda like when us gun owners feel someone is taking our rights away we have things like concealed n carry fishing tournaments to make the public aware of our concerns.

multi you seemed to miss the point.

It is not about WHY the parade is created, it is about what other people call you for creating a parade.

multi, why is it this segment of vocal gays are not satisfied gaining the same "rights" thru a civil union without also gaining the title of "marriage" to go along?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

I won't respond to anything but a semi-intelligent (or at least funny) responses.

oops I forgot the all encompassing, self determined "out" to avoid having to answer a question that paints you into a corner.

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

multi-species-angler Said:
 

KurtR Said:

why is it ok to have a gay pride march but if I had a hetero pride march I would be racist

I think because heteros don't feel inequal or like they have different rules to live by.

Kinda like when us gun owners feel someone is taking our rights away Shave things like concealed n carry fishing tournaments to make the public aware of our concerns.

I feel in equal all the time hell I am white have a job and not gay.   I am tired of the attitude of them if you are not with us you are against us.  You cant not compare the gun thing to the gays as it is in the constitution the second amm. is pretty self defined what it is missed the one about gay marriage.  What amm. has gay rights in it?  I am at such a disadvantage being white I need better credit scores than people of color or if I was gay and got denied a loan just cry homo hate and you have a loan a job or what not.  Forcing schools and business to have so many of a certain race is also a disadvantage I fight.  if they want equality I do also but then again life is not fair I learned that in 3rd grade to bad the vocal minority hasn't and f shit up for every one else.

If they just want to live there life than do it with out the parades with out the attention grabbing. 

 Adn

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Kurt if you were a black, wounded, lesbian vet federal agencies would be trampling people to hire you.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

Plainsman Said:
Kurt if you were a black, wounded, lesbian vet federal agencies would be trampling people to hire you.

don't forget native

 

kdm's picture
kdm
Offline
Joined: 9/5/08

As a father I will defend my child from any threat including pedophiles.  I give a damn what gender, race, age, employment status, political affiliation, religion, or any other identity they portray.  Not debatable or negotiable.  PERIOD!!

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

Regrettably, the U.S. government adopted the religious concept of marriage in order to convey benefits in support of "normal families". 

I do not support gay marriage because the root of the concept of marriage is based on religious grounds, Christianity doesn't support it in the bible to my knowledge.  So today  the gay and lesbian community have found a way into normalizing their lifestyle by the equality concepts of the Constitution.  Thus putting pressure on religion and religious people into accepting something they otherwise tend to not agree with morally. 

It is really an interesting tact on their behalf and a heck of a flaw in secular America given we have a Christian founding.

Civil unions I am less against and would be actually an easy sway.  There are, after all, still valid reasons for supporting normal families in this country.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Sum1's picture
Sum1
Offline
Joined: 1/12/08

I can count the number of "religious" people that have come to my door pushing their religion on one hand. As far as pushing their beliefs on a person it sure seems every time you turn on the TV or go to a movie there has to be a butt pirate in the movie or TV show that I'm watching so yes gay people are ramming their beliefs down our throtes(no pun intended....well maybe) every time I turn on the TV .

 "Play it Mr.Toot"

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

I see multi is still sticking his head in the sand rather than answer points of view and questions he deems "unworthy" that coincedently will paint him in a bit of a corner

I kinda get a picture in my mind of a little kid in the corner with his fingers in his ears yelling loudly la la la la la la la so not to hear what another person is saying thinking all the while that makes him right.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Very first statement by multi:

I'm sorry, but if you want to "not tolerate" pedophile behavior...overwhelming evidence will show that the Christian club you support so much is guilty of way more gay pedophilia than even the advertised pedophile's club. I'm not defending NAMBLA, I'm just pointing out a big black pot calling a big black kettle "black".

Then after he craps on us his very next statement says:

And before you guys start the "he hates Christian people" banter let me just discredit that with a simple example.

Discredit it??? How, he already let the cat out of the bag.  This before we start is bs he already started the hate talk about Christians.  One pedophile priest is to many, but they have cleaned up their act.  I will also agree that it should not have been covered up.  Next I would say you can not compare a pedophile club with thousands of members to a church with millions of members who have a few dozen closet gay priests.  Yes, gay or they would have molested little girls.  Same sex does = homosexual.  Or do we want to ignore the dictionary and all common sense now too.

Then we have this example from multi that I guess he thinks shows he is not a Christian hater:

GST heard me say "I hate cancer"
GST says: "MSA hates people with cancer"

If you can draw any comparison to that someone please explain it. 

Multi, it's your history of constantly blaming Christians for everything you can, while at the same time nearly always chiming in to bash them with your self perceived intellect. 

By the way, I'm not Catholic.  Also, if your going to judge the Catholics by a few bad priests do you also judge black people that way?  Multi why do you time after time come back to pedophile priests? 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:
Regrettably, the U.S. government adopted the religious concept of marriage in order to convey benefits in support of "normal families". 

I do not support gay marriage because the root of the concept of marriage is based on religious grounds, Christianity doesn't support it in the bible to my knowledge.  So today  the gay and lesbian community have found a way into normalizing their lifestyle by the equality concepts of the Constitution.  Thus putting pressure on religion and religious people into accepting something they otherwise tend to not agree with morally. 

It is really an interesting tact on their behalf and a heck of a flaw in secular America given we have a Christian founding.

Civil unions I am less against and would be actually an easy sway.  There are, after all, still valid reasons for supporting normal families in this country.

bigot!

You simply can not suggest that a heterosexual man and woman raising children are "normal" and thereby inferring any other combinations are not "normal".
 
That is nothing more than an uninformed imposition of YOUR standards of right and wrong stemming from a lack of intellect so apparent in conservatives aimed at an entire groups of people and is nothing more than a homophobic statement of hate that tears at the unity and tolerance of this nation and is perpetuated by the religious right wing Judeo Christian myth.

You have no basis to make the claim this nation was founded on Christian beliefs, nor that God should be or ever was involved in our political issues. To do so tramples ones right of freedom from religion this Constitution grants.

It is conservative hate speech such as this that drives people to vote for liberal candidates and that should be unconstitutional.

The divisive support of "normal" people and their ideologies over others simply will not be allowed by the party of tolerance.

(for those unable to discern it, the above post is dripping in sarcasm)

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Still missing one.  Must be on a wizard game binge.

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

The Denaturalization of America

By Daren Jonescu

In 2008, America elected a president from a broken home whose mother was sympathetic to communists; who as a youngster had formative relationships with a transgender nanny chosen by his mother and a bisexual communist pornographer "mentor" chosen by his grandfather; whose teenage friends were so devoted to drug use that they gave themselves a nickname derived from this habit, and developed their own vernacular related to methods of pot smoking; and whose chums as a young adult were Marxist professors and activists, a liberation theology preacher, and domestic terrorists.  This could have worked out all right -- we all have a few weird associations.

 

Five years later, aside from irredeemable debt, the tyrannical micromanagement of individual lives, and the bureaucratic obliteration of the last vestiges of private property, perhaps the most conspicuous aspect of America's fundamental transformation is the speed with which a latent emasculation, achieved over generations, has spiralled into an open assault on the very idea of "traditional gender roles."  The sheer unreflective suddenness of this plummet into chaos would be alarming were it not so predictable. 

 

A generation ago, fans were surprised to learn that Rock Hudson, a Hollywood heartthrob for thirty years, had been living a homosexual life all along.  For the sake of a career based on his romantic leading man persona, Hudson had kept his proclivities private, presumably judging that his preferences would have been upsetting to his audience, and therefore to the businessmen who signed his contracts.  His choice was not uncommon.  Traditionally, artists and performers -- whose vocation is to tease the psychological boundaries between reality and unfettered fantasy -- have been understood to be living on the fringes of ordinary mores.  For the most part this has been tolerated by even the most ordered communities as a fair price to pay for the benefits these artists provide to society, on the unspoken condition that they keep the "bohemianism" to themselves.

 

Today, by contrast, there is a veritable log-jam of American celebrities rushing to the cameras to announce their "alternative lifestyles."  Meanwhile, a TV network knee-jerkingly suspends its most profitable star for merely expressing the biblical moral view of Western history regarding the sexual behavior Rock Hudson tried to conceal, behavior that was still against the law in many American states ten years ago.  One wonders whether A&E would fire a homosexual celebrity for saying heterosexuality was distasteful to him.  Consider all the feminist academics that pursue acclaim and professional advancement defending the view that heterosexual relations are inherently, "systemically," oppressive.

 

Homosexual marriage, a passing joke at parties until a few years ago, is now legal in much of the U.S., as in many other Western progressive countries.  Meanwhile, in decisions soon to be upheld by the Supreme Court no doubt, various U.S. jurisdictions have declared that schoolboys who decide they feel more like schoolgirls will be permitted by law to use the girls' locker room, while the actual girls, unprotected by any new laws of their own, will apparently just have to get used to undressing in the company of boys.

 

The denaturing of the normal, and the naturalization of the abnormal -- twin processes that have slowly eaten up most of the Western heritage -- are now, under the supervision of the Obama administration, making a quick dessert of the erstwhile land of courageous frontiersmen and rugged individualists.   

 

"Wait right there!" progressive transgression-hunters will object.  "Are you saying that homosexuality, transgenderism, and other alternative lifestyles are unnatural?"

 

In a word, maybe.  And what does it mean to say they are unnatural?  For that matter, what would it mean to say that inversion and cross-dressing are natural?

 

Here, as with other elements of our moral lexicon, we have too long allowed political subversives to define the terms of discussion.  As a result, rational adult conversation is no longer possible in most company, since even to raise certain questions is inadvertently to frame the topic in a manner sure to arouse politically correct indignation. 

 

But philosopher Allan Bloom, one of America's greatest and most admirable homosexuals (not least because he was not asking to be admired for his sexual preferences) taught that indignation is the very opposite of a rational argument, and that recognizing indignation for what it is -- the soul's emotional defense against a disturbingly challenging idea -- is the first step toward a more honest moral inquiry. 

 

Following Aristotle and common sense, we may say that the "nature" of any object is, broadly speaking, the proper configuration and functioning of that object when it is in its developed state.  Thus it is the "nature" of a knife to cut things, of a cup to hold liquid, and so on.  The "nature" of artificial things, then, is determined by the purpose for which they were designed. 

 

The nature of living things, however, is not determined by any human intention.  (Men may make a jacket of cowhide, but this does not make "clothing" the proper nature of a cow.)  Rather, their nature is that set of properties or propensities which outline how they preserve and perpetuate themselves as living things.  The nature of a human animal, then, stated most generally, is the set of properties and propensities typical of our species which contribute to our successful functioning as the kind of animal we are, i.e., to our self-preservation and perpetuation.  As for which properties and propensities these are, experience and observation -- the raw data collected over millennia of universal history -- suffice to give us a general picture. 

 

And one of the most obvious parts of that picture is heterosexual behavior, the only means of propagating the species, a means available to every healthy adult, and one utilized without compulsion by humans of every race, language group, or geographical location throughout the history of the species.  Indeed, to emphasize the obvious, we may say that heterosexual behavior, and secondarily the inclination towards it, is sanctified by the fact that we have a "history of the species" to talk about in the first place.

 

If, then, we begin our pursuit of human nature with the evidence of experience and common sense, and on the understanding that the "nature" of a species comprises its innate and most fruitful means of preserving and perpetuating itself, we must conclude that heterosexuality is natural to humans.  Homosexuality would, on this reasoning, seem to be unnatural at the species level.  Note that this is not in itself a moral judgment -- it does not necessarily follow that homosexuality is "evil."  It does, however, follow that just as individuals are normally inclined to perpetuate themselves by means of the reproductive act -- the most common instantiation of what Socrates, in Plato's Symposium, calls the desire for immortality -- so societies which hope to survive and thrive will naturally develop social norms on the ground of heterosexual inclinations. 

 

In other words, communities naturally (i.e., if not thwarted by coercive artifice) develop moral precepts and practices consistent with the human behavior most likely to foster the growth, continuity, and long-term health of the community.  Hence marriage as both a social sanction for, and a means of moderating, the most natural (i.e., normal) sexual inclination.  Hence the consistent appearance, in our species' many and varied ethical systems, of some core principle of the complementarity of male and female, masculine and feminine, yin and yang, with their different but equally indispensable roles and tendencies.  Throughout history, heterosexuality has invariably asserted itself in the birth and evolution of political communities, by means of the ethical principles influenced by its undeniable centrality to normal human experience. 

 

That last sentence holds the key to what has changed.  The pervasiveness and necessity of the heterosexual inclination for the survival of the species -- the inescapable naturalness of that inclination -- is undeniably central to normal human life.  To deny this centrality would be to deny the evidence of history -- to deny humanity itself, as it has hitherto existed. 

 

And this leads us directly to the heart of "progressivism," the first comprehensive philosophy of oppression.  That is to say, while there have been plenty of philosophical arguments for state authority, these had previously been offered as genuine efforts to improve the human condition, however misguidedly.  Modern progressivism is history's first deliberate and knowing attempt to mask bloodthirsty power lust and hateful envy as a theory of the common good; that is, as I have explained previously, it is history's first comprehensive fake philosophy.

 

As a mask for power lust, progressivism begins with a quandary unknown to genuine political philosophies, namely an inability to ground itself in human nature as observed through the ages.  It must therefore refute history and inherited experience in order to remain tenable. 

 

This is why the first step in progressive theory is always an attempt to disprove or debunk the premises of all prior civilization.  Communism, fascism and socialism all justify themselves with the proclamation that humanity has hitherto lived under a net of delusion and systemic injustice, whereas now, through collective submission to unlimited state authority, we may finally create an authentically human way of life. 

 

And this is why the first step in progressive practice is the re-education camp.  Human nature is stubborn and recalcitrant to brute force.  It must be subdued through a carefully administered program of indoctrination aimed at countering the inevitable lessons of normal experience, within the mind-stunting machinery of an artificially restrictive and pre-packaged pseudo-world.  In the more subtle, developmental instantiations of the totalitarian state, these re-education camps have a prettified name: public schools.

 

In theory and in practice, then, progressivism is at base an effort to trick men into distrusting their own experience and resisting the persuasive force of our common inheritance, by denying the authenticity of the former and the reality of the latter.  In the former case, this means denying the primacy of individual minds.  In the latter, it means bracketing off the entire human heritage as an oppressive psychological "superstructure," or as "false consciousness."  These are the Big Lies at the heart of a pseudo-philosophy that is comprised of nothing but big lies.

 

The inversion to end all inversions begins here.  For while all communities develop out of presuppositions imposed by human nature, one key difference among communities is how they respond to the unnatural or abnormal in their midst.  In the modern world, the distinction is clear: while societies rooted in notions of liberty and reason have tended towards tolerance of the abnormal or "different," totalitarian societies have typically sought to crush it.  The totalitarian society is intolerant almost by definition.  Meanwhile, a semi-free nation's collapse into despotism is indicated by its increasing intolerance.  (See Roger Kimball's excellent discussion of this issue in relation to current events.)

 

But a contradiction in modern totalitarianism creates a unique problem.  On the one hand, the would-be oppressors can brook no minority opinion or alternative perspectives; this is why they tend to foster dreams of racial and ideological purity, mythologies of "the fatherland," and the persecution of "transgressors" of all kinds.  On the other hand, as we have seen, human nature itself is their feared enemy, as it presents millennia of counterarguments to the progressive state.

 

Today's advanced progressives are as intolerant as their more violent precursors, but they have come to realize that the proper target of their intolerance is not the "unnatural," but rather nature itself, which must be eliminated if progressivism is to find a secure foothold in men's souls.  Thus the pogroms and purges of earlier totalitarianism become the political correctness thought police of today.

 

The chief obstacle to "progress" is normal sexuality's normal result: the family, nature's buffer between the child and the state, which weakens the state's moral authority and therefore dilutes the devotion to the collective that progressive authoritarianism requires.  Some conservatives wonder why leftists should care about gaining for homosexuals the "right" to participate in marriage, an institution they have hitherto belittled.  The reason is that homosexual marriage is a compromise solution for progressives who know they cannot banish marriage outright.  Institutions of civilization which create a natural counterweight to the collectivist state, but which cannot immediately be destroyed, must be infiltrated and undermined from within.

 

The general solution for America, promoted with varying degrees of openness from the heights of the Frankfurt School to the depths of the Obama administration, is to "denature" society with regard to sex, i.e., to overwhelm the normal inclination and its historically sanctioned relationships by normalizing the abnormal.  This means blowing out the educational firewall between the nature-rooted norms (i.e., species-promoting behavior) and the abnormal and atypical, making the latter a part of the popular mainstream, and an omnipresent temptation for children.  This relentless relativistic moral overload is intended to make the natural inclinations which lead to family and the continuity of the human tradition seem trivial and boring, and the people who "cling" to these norms laughable, old-fashioned, and "regressive."  Conversely, behavior traditionally tolerated as "what people do in the privacy of their own homes" is now to be trumpeted in the public square as "enlightened," "superior," and universally desirable.  Plain old homosexuality, as is now obvious, is merely a transitional step.  Soon, even monogamous homosexuality will be as passé as Rock Hudson.

 

The knowledge that nature is the source of social norms and the traditions they support is the reason progressive intellectuals are dedicated to persuading the young that "alternative lifestyle" preferences are natural, widespread, and even latent in everyone, if only we would overcome our moral hang-ups and self-denial.  The purpose, to reiterate, is this: progressivism must snip the cord connecting nature to history, because nature asserts itself everywhere as collectivist totalitarianism's counterargument.  The progressive faith therefore demands that men believe the absurd, namely that the entire history of mankind, including the basic motivation that makes the perpetuation of the species possible, is part of a great and universal fraud.  The effort to denature civilization begins with burning the evidence.  

 

Then comes the substitution of the abnormal as a "new nature" to replace the old in the artificially emptied souls of the new, unnatural man.  This explains the rush to force children into "alternative lifestyle" education in the schools, and into questioning and doubting their own "gender," as though the peculiarities of sexual non-conformity just cannot wait until adulthood.  It explains the desperate need to convince us that not only homosexuality, but every possible inclination, from pedophilia to cross-dressing, is "natural," in the sense of being biologically determined. 

 

But nature redefined as "biological determinism" is a perfect iteration of materialistic nihilism.  By chance, I was born with fairly serious birth defects.  I was also lucky enough to be born in one of the first generations in which these defects were largely reparable, and in a place in which children with physical abnormalities were not left to die in a tree, or tossed in the river.  These defects were of course "natural" in the sense (also used by Aristotle) that they were not produced by human artifice or habit; but no one would claim they were natural in the sense related to species desirability or normalcy.  Am I saying abnormal sexuality is like a birth defect?  No, I am merely pointing out the folly of chasing progressive activists down this pseudo-scientific "nature vs. nurture" rabbit hole.  Equivocation is not an argument.

 

In fact, apart from the deliberate attempt to destroy the family, refute history, and unravel civilization, what is really most aggravating about the progressive politics of moral inversion is the petty, degraded materialism of it all.  Transgender nannies, communist pornographers, and trashy political exhibitionism of the "LGBT" sort tick me off, as they should tick you off, for their deliberate trivialization of life's most powerful mystery, the golden key to a lock mankind has been searching for since the beginning, and will likely continue seeking until the end.

 

The best antidote to this modern trivialization of life's essence -- and therefore my favorite book to teach to undergraduates -- remains Plato's Symposium.  Here, Plato's dream team of important men from the society most commonly associated with something akin to our modern "homosexuality" discuss the meaning of Eros in their lives.  And one of the lessons of this extraordinary discussion is this: much of this topic necessarily and properly falls outside the mainstream of civil discourse.  In fact, Pausanias, the one speaker at Plato's fictionalized banquet who tries to make the case for the social and legal "normalization" of his pursuit of boys, is treated with amused forbearance by the other speakers, and appears as a rationalizing, somewhat high-minded version of what people used to call a "dirty old man."  The aforementioned Allan Bloom, in his deeply personal interpretation of the Symposium, draws a similar conclusion; Pausanias is, in effect, advocating the weakening of the Athenian family structure for the sake of his own pleasure, and is therefore a soft, immoderate man.

 

Today, Pausanias' crass, halfwit descendants have taken his self-interested rationalizations to their logical extreme, proposing to overturn humanity itself in the name of childish power lust. 

 

Americans, a question if you will: when your entire nation is living an Aristophanean satire, or perhaps merely a Monty Python skit, should you be laughing or crying?  As for the rest of us, for whom you had long been our glimmer of hope that rationality and civilization just might survive late modern nihilism after all, the alternating laughter and tears evoked by America's precipitous collapse into moral absurdity is enough to cause severe spiritual nausea, of the sort one feels when one senses the bottom falling out of life.

 

A great society deserves a nobler end than the dreams of Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and their protégé.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/the_denaturalization_... at January 08, 2014 - 09:07:48 AM CST

 Nuke the Whales

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Although I doubt he will read it in it's entirety and simply deem it unworthy of a response, it would be interesting to hear multis take on the above post.

(it would be interesting to hear his answers to a couple simple questions as well!)

Me, I think it is a pretty accurate summary of the incremental change we are watching happen in this country.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

I'm blessed with the best pen pal one could ever hope for.  I didn't find this article on my own.  It was in my inbox.  I found it a great reply to the "disco hit" mocking I received.  Like I'm a dumbass and stuff...I can read words and stuff.

 Nuke the Whales

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

And this is why the first step in progressive practice is the re-education camp. Human nature is stubborn and recalcitrant to brute force. It must be subdued through a carefully administered program of indoctrination aimed at countering the inevitable lessons of normal experience, within the mind-stunting machinery of an artificially restrictive and pre-packaged pseudo-world. In the more subtle, developmental instantiations of the totalitarian state, these re-education camps have a prettified name: public schools.

This paragraph stood out to me, as I have found one of my kids history books a couple years ago, with very inaccurate facts in several "stories".

If history proves otherwise, just change it.

 

Neat

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Sorry Juanner; doesn't make a gnat's piss.  The supreme court runs the Country.

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Sorry again Juanner,

I see your point was "public school".

 Nuke the Whales

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

svnmag that was a wonderful article you posted.  As a retired biologist the biology aspect of it I found extremely interesting.  The wannabe pseudoscientists with the progressive bent will think otherwise.  Progress is good if it's going in the right direction.  Even the name progressive is masked, because liberals are anything but progressive.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

and still no reply.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Come on multi, I think we all know by know you will demand to have your own "tolerances" of what YOU believe are right recognized, but if others have theirs based on their religious ideas, you demand theirs be invalid as a result of your hatred of religion..

So that hypocritical stance is probably an understanding on here by most.

But why not address what is written in svnmags article?

I mean by most people's standards it is very well written and thought provoking.

It seems you believe you are intelligent enough.

It seems you believe you are perhaps a little better educated than many others.

So why not crawl out from behind you self decreed blanket caveat of protection and address the points brought out in this article?

Your silence on debating points a number of people have now brought forth since your initial little tirade calling people out actually says quite a bit.

Credibility.

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Just so multi doesn't get the wrong idea:  I am not justifying what the few creep priests did.  They have no excuse.  That said I think the church does share some blame.  You can't deny those darn hormones.  If you do it's going to screw with your brain.  It's foolish to ask them not to be married.

Anyway, multi my only point is it's very much a minority of priests that go astray this way.  Like I said I am not catholic, and I am not trying to protect the guilty, but I am trying to keep you from condemning all of them for a few out of thousands.  There is no comparison to NAMBLA.  At the worst one out of a thousand priests have bothered little boys, while 100 percent of NAMBLA have or want to.  There is a bunch of those creeps out there.  As I understand it the guy Obama appointed the head of education is a good friend of the guy who started NAMBLA.  Isn't that wonderful?

We need a little bit of reality with our opinions.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Just so multi doesn't get the wrong idea: I am not justifying what the few creep priests did. They have no excuse. That said I think the church does share some blame. You can't deny those darn hormones. If you do it's going to screw with your brain. It's foolish to ask them not to be married.

Anyway, multi my only point is it's very much a minority of priests that go astray this way. Like I said I am not catholic, and I am not trying to protect the guilty, but I am trying to keep you from condemning all of them for a few out of thousands. There is no comparison to NAMBLA. At the worst one out of a thousand priests have bothered little boys, while 100 percent of NAMBLA have or want to. There is a bunch of those creeps out there. As I understand it the guy Obama appointed the head of education is a good friend of the guy who started NAMBLA. Isn't that wonderful?

We need a little bit of reality with our opinions."

wow...I'm really surprised at this response, and yes, I realize that only 1 out of a thousand "catholic" priests are guilty of such crimes...Most of my blame and comments are toward the church for hiding it, denying it, and covering it up, but not because I think that is the only place it happens.

the only reason I bring it up on the gay topic is because some one always brings up pedophilia like its a gay problem...well lets face it, in real life, pedophilia comes up way more often in the church atmosphere than the gay one. and lets face it again...Sandusky isn't known for being gay or religious...so, lets remove pedophilia and religion from this topic and try to figure out why they can't get married

GST, can you please make your points in 5 sentences or less? trust me, 9.9 out of 10 FBO members don't give a shit what you have to offer on this site, but I am willing to make an attempt if you can simplify the questions and responses. I have a 6th grade education (seriously) so keep it short and to the point.

I know the 4 of you can carry this bitch out for 20 pages or more, and you're the only ones that notice or care....the rest of us have fishing and hunting stuff to discuss.

back on topic, what I have learned from this thread...

gay people force their agenda on us through the TV. (just like Mexicans do on that channel 13 Univision)

civil union is the same as marriage. (but without all the rights and benefits)

marriage was invented and only practiced by Christians (yes, none of the other thousands of religions Christians copied ever practiced marriage ceremonies)

I hate religion (well....)

if gay marriage is legalized pedophilia and beastiality will be rampant in the streets. (waaayyyy more than it will be since we allowed women to vote and black people to sit anywhere on the bus)

we all really wish to be black, handicapped, pregnant, gay, liberal, women so we can get all the free stuff Obama hands out. (because a meager free life is way better than an awesome one you have to hardly work at as a middle aged white man)

America was founded by Christians for Christians. (because religious persecution, differences, and fundamentalism had nothing to do with us leaving Europe)

and since were talking about religion....lets have a quiz

guess who?

born of a virgin

born on dec. 25th

performed miracles

birth accompanied by a star in the east

3 kings

baptized at age 30

traveled with 12 deciples

was betrayed, then crucified

buried for 3 days

then resurrected

who am I?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

and regardless of this insignificant thread, we all see where the future and the majority is going.

So, when the vote comes around, yes I support gay marriage and will vote in favor of it.

why? because it has nothing to do with me, my marriage, my way of life, or the TV I watch, and I feel like an asshole if I take part in denying someone the things they want because it might mean less Will & Grace on that one channel at midnight.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Holy Moly! Quite the thread. 

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 

Just so multi doesn't get the wrong idea: I am not justifying what the few creep priests did. They have no excuse. That said I think the church does share some blame. You can't deny those darn hormones. If you do it's going to screw with your brain. It's foolish to ask them not to be married.
 

The vow of celibacy also includes touching themselves.   How can that not really mess with your head?  

Lists of priests with credible accusations of abuse were recently released in MN.  Over 90 of 188 churches in the St Paul Diocese have had an accused priest serve in them at some point since the 50's.   That sounds like something over 1 in 1000.   The main problem I also have is the cover-ups, shuffling problem priests around and failing to report abuse to authorities.    They also have moved money out of dioceses to avoid paying settlements. 

Where was god?   Certainly these priests were counseled and many prayers were said before they were sent to new congregations.   Wouldn't god have a huge interest in helping them?   Yet many continued to molest over and over again.  

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 The issue of the 15 year old marrying the 40 year old keeps coming up.   Where in the bible does it say that this is wrong?    No where that I know of.   I know of nothing that talks about the age of consent and being capable of making one's own adult decisions.  If it is there show me.   

The bible also condones slavery and treats women as subordinate.   How can it be claimed as THE source of morality?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
the only reason I bring it up on the gay topic is because some one always brings up pedophilia like its a gay problem...well lets face it, in real life, pedophilia comes up way more often in the church atmosphere than the gay one.

Neither of us would have any idea, it's just that your so biased against religion you want to believe it.  I would say not all gays are pedophiles, but a lot of pedophiles are gay. 

I know the 4 of you can carry this bitch out for 20 pages or more,

Not without your help.

if gay marriage is legalized pedophilia and beastiality will be rampant in the streets.

Not rampant, but they are already out there waiting to come out of the closet.  People don't start out with heroin they usually start with tobacco, then, alcohol, then pot, then harder drugs.  It's a progressive thing.  The same will happen with the gay marriage.  It's simply a degrading of society. 

Since you think your an ahole for telling people they can't do something I guess you will vote for people marrying their dog and having sex with their pony right?  Or are you just full of bs?

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 There is a distinct line with animals and children.  They are incapable of consent.  

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 I've seen twelve years olds that are smarter than some adults

 

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 

Sum1 Said:
I can count the number of "religious" people that have come to my door pushing their religion on one hand. As far as pushing their beliefs on a person it sure seems every time you turn on the TV or go to a movie there has to be a butt pirate in the movie or TV show that I'm watching so yes gay people are ramming their beliefs down our throtes(no pun intended....well maybe) every time I turn on the TV .

I don't have a problem with people coming to my door if they do it at a decent hour.   I do have a problem when people want to take over gov't in the name of god and "restore christian values" (or similar), whatever that means.

Look at the recent legislative session here.  They had time to pass a whole fistful of abortion bills that they knew were going to be, and have been, overturned by the courts.   Yet the major issues of tax relief, in spite of promises of reform, and help to the oil patch got slapped together in the last hours of the session. 

They claim to be for limited gov't and property rights yet stores still can't open before noon on Sunday.    How is it acting in christian love when when gay people can be denied housing, fired and denied services just for who they are.    Will that change their minds and hearts?  How does that bring anyone closer to christ?  

Today in the Grand Forks Herald there is a letter to the editor stating that we should all suffer in death because that is the teaching of the catholic church.   Don't give that hospice patient that dose of morphine that may help take them over the edge, make them endure some more suffering at deaths door.     I don't even own my own body according to this guy.    If someone wants to live by these teachings - fine.   Keep it the hell out of the gov't.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

They're all here now.  Life is normal.

 Nuke the Whales

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Candiru Said:
 The issue of the 15 year old marrying the 40 year old keeps coming up.   Where in the bible does it say that this is wrong?    No where that I know of.   I know of nothing that talks about the age of consent and being capable of making one's own adult decisions.  If it is there show me.   

The bible also condones slavery and treats women as subordinate.   How can it be claimed as THE source of morality?

Candiru, in reality a majority of the worlds population in different countries and cultures accepts a 40 year old man marrying a 13 year old girl. multi calls it pedophilia (I would agree) but a majority of the worlds population culturally accepts it.

So what happens when the "pedophile" begins to make this argument here in the US? 
 
How many other justifications of wanting to make the US a global society have the "progressive" liberals pushed in their agendas? (what do you know about the "Agenda 21" program) ?

Candiru, look to individual states and in some cases it may already be allowed here in the US.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/family/marriage-and-prenuptials/marriage-laws-for-minors.htm

Do You Need Permission To Marry?

If you are under 18 years old, you will generally need either a court order or the consent of your parent or guardian. The means by which consent must be proven varies: some require one or more parents to be present at the marriage with identification unless the parent is deceased, overseas or otherwise unavailable, in which case proof of this is required. Some states may waive the need for parental consent if the girl is pregnant.

However, in Florida minors under 18 but over 16 can apply for a marriage license without their parents’ consent, but if under 16 the license can only be issued by a county judge – whether or not the parents consent. (Remember that applying for a marriage license is not the same as getting married.)

 

Minimum Ages for Marriage

A considerable number of states do not allow persons under sixteen to get married, period. Examples are Montana, Vermont, Illinois, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas amongst others. However in New Hampshire, girls must be at least 13 and boys 14, in Alabama, North Carolina and New York the minimum age is 14, in Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas it is 15, and in Mississippi it is 15 for girls and 17 for boys. In Nebraska and Oregon the minimum age for marriage is 17 years old. Until recently under the common law, girls as young as 12 years old were capable of marriage in Colorado but this has been overturned by statute.

Apparently in Mississippi they believe girls are "ready" for marriage two years sooner than boys!

Candiru, as you can see, Florida has dropped the age of "consent" down to 16. How many years before it is dropped to say 14?

So there in lies the importance to the answer to the question, does multi "tolerate" a 60 year old man "marrying" a girl at the ripe old age of 13 as the state of New Hampshire allows?

Or does HIS belief system , what ever it is based on, cause HIM to say this is wrong.

So then we must ask the question: if HIS belief system tells him this is wrong, why then should he condemn others who's belief system tells them two men "marrying" each other is wrong? 
 
Why should multi get to claim a different belief standard than his is wrong and those having it are wrong all the while maintaining his own belief system in what is right and wrong? 

So does he believe a 60 year old man screwing a 13 year old girl is "right" because they are "married".

We have yet to know because he will not answer.

So multi, grow a set and answer a couple of questions, will you "tolerate" a law in this state that would allow a 60 year old man to "marry" a 13 year old girl (and have all the "rights" associated with marriage including the legal ability to have sexual relations)?

Yes? No?

Understand here as made clear in the link provided, it is about the law and "rights" just as gays are claiming, NOT the sexual act.

 

multi-species-angler Said:
and regardless of this insignificant thread, we all see where the future and the majority is going.

So, when the vote comes around, yes I support gay marriage and will vote in favor of it.

why? because it has nothing to do with me, my marriage, my way of life, or the TV I watch, and I feel like an asshole if I take part in denying someone the things they want because it might mean less Will & Grace on that one channel at midnight.

multi, if a law allowing the 60 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl came up in ND would you support it?

Yes? No?

multi this law saying a 60 year old man can marry a 13 year old girl and thus have legal sexual relations with her will have nothing to do with you, your marriage, your way of life or the TV you watch.

So tell us multi would you be alright with a law that allows a 60 year old man to "marry"
 a 13 year old girl and legally have sexual relations with her as can be done in New Hampshire?

Yes?

No?

Not quite down to 5 sentences multi, but try and sort thru the best you can and actually answer the questions if you are willing to deem them worthy.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

svnmag Said:
They're all here now.  Life is normal.

I wonder if btr has as much issue with states setting their own marriage laws regarding age as he seems to regarding sexual orientation?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I'm sorry, but if you want to "not tolerate" pedophile behavior...overwhelming evidence will show that the Christian club you support so much is guilty of way more gay pedophilia than even the advertised pedophile's club.

Above we have a statement with no data and no common sense.  It's simply based on a biased Christian hating mind.  Followed by a statement that says he doesn't hate Christians and as a matter of fact uses the word "discredit" and even provides GST as an example of how wrong we are.

And before you guys start the "he hates Christian people" banter let me just discredit that with a simple example.

GST heard me say "I hate cancer"
GST says: "MSA hates people with cancer"

Now below we have a statement that essentially admits hatred for religion of which Christians are part of.  So which are we to believe?  Perhaps in these debates on FBO people could tell us when they are telling us the truth and when they are not telling us the truth.  That would be a big help.

I hate religion (well....)

Maybe it's that commandment of "thou shall not bear false witness" that makes some hate Christians.  Hmmmmmm

Some of these guys are making me nervous.  Personally if I had a friend I hunted with I would prefer finding he liked sex with his pony to finding he liked sex with men.   As a matter of fact the pro gay opinions bother me some.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Take note of what is emboldened and underlined here.

Do You Need Permission To Marry?

If you are under 18 years old, you will generally need either a court order or the consent of your parent or guardian. The means by which consent must be proven varies: some require one or more parents to be present at the marriage with identification unless the parent is deceased, overseas or otherwise unavailable, in which case proof of this is required. Some states may waive the need for parental consent if the girl is pregnant.

However, in Florida minors under 18 but over 16 can apply for a marriage license without their parents’ consent, but if under 16 the license can only be issued by a county judge – whether or not the parents consent. (Remember that applying for a marriage license is not the same as getting married.)

Stop and think about that for a moment

Don't be so foolishly naïve to dismiss the 40 year old man "marrying" a 13 year old girl argument as irrelevant.

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

In my view allowing men to marry teenagers or teenagers to marry each other is wrong because they are not capable of making such large decisions and properly consenting.   Laws that allow this should be changed

My question where in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?   We have evolved beyond the morality of the bible.  

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

Candiru Said:
In my view allowing men to marry teenagers or teenagers to marry each other is wrong because they are not capable of making such large decisions and properly consenting.   Laws that allow this should be changed

My question where in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?   We have evolved beyond the morality of the bible.  

"we have evolved beyond the morality of the bible"?  we have thrown the morality of the bible under the bus.  

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Candiru Said:
In my view allowing men to marry teenagers or teenagers to marry each other is wrong because they are not capable of making such large decisions and properly consenting.   Laws that allow this should be changed

My question where in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?   We have evolved beyond the morality of the bible.  

Candiru, speaking for myself in these discussions, this is more a states rights issue and peoples ability to determine what is "right or wrong" themselves. 
 
I have tried to keep the Bible out of the discussion soley to offset any religion arguments

So I must ask, why is it you believe YOUR views should prevail concerning age and marriage, but other views concerning sexual orientation regarding marriage should be dismissed.

People in New Hampshire have laws allowing 13 year old girls to be married to 40 year old men as well as men to marry men.

It appears you are willing to over look one decision of law made by the citizens of New Hampshire while supporting another that fits YOUR personal veiws.

But yet that is EXACTLY what some (multi, btr ect...) on here are condemning others for doing.

So candiru, if we have "evolved beyond the morality of the bible", who's or what "morality" should we follow, the gay man? the 60 year old man that wishes to marry a 13 year old girl?  Who now gets to set the standard? 

Why are THEIR standards any more right than someone elses?

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

gst Said:

svnmag Said:
They're all here now.  Life is normal.

I wonder if btr has as much issue with states setting their own marriage laws regarding age as he seems to regarding sexual orientation?

I don't know.  "There is no God" and all we can do is get along.  The more "depraved"; the more we need to tolerate and understand.  Without "God",  there is no basis for "right" and "wrong" which facilitates an easier existence to suck my oxygen and eat my food. 

Without God, these jackasses can't justify anger at ANY human action which doesn't directly affect them.  They DO know through indirect Word of God; what is Right and what is Wrong.  So let's all go fornicate with a seahorse.

 Nuke the Whales

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

evolved beyond the morality of the bible

Yes, but not in the right direction.  It would be more correct to word it "we have evolved away from morality".    It happened slowly in our society.  When it happens slow people don't notice it, and normal people start to accept some very bad things.  Maybe one day we can gas the Jews again.  It was ok with a lot of people then.  Perhaps we can evolve further.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

eyexer Said:
 

Candiru Said:
In my view allowing men to marry teenagers or teenagers to marry each other is wrong because they are not capable of making such large decisions and properly consenting.   Laws that allow this should be changed

My question where in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?   We have evolved beyond the morality of the bible.  

"we have evolved beyond the morality of the bible"?  we have thrown the morality of the bible under the bus.  

I throw the morality of the bible under the bus every time I eat at red lobster, get a hair cut, or let my wife tell me what to do.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

this whole pedophile thing can be discussed when its an issue with the gay community....as for now, it has nothing to do with it, but GST keeps bringing it up and predicting its move for legalization within 5 years with similar popularity as the gay marriage movement is now.

If that happens GST, with you as my whitness....I will eat my hat with a fork and knife and a side of ranch.

How come no one answered my quiz?....need more hints?

so, other than the pedophile thing, and the its against your religion debate....are there any other reasons I should vote no for gay marriage?

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

multi-species-angler Said:

eyexer Said:
 

Candiru Said:
In my view allowing men to marry teenagers or teenagers to marry each other is wrong because they are not capable of making such large decisions and properly consenting.   Laws that allow this should be changed

My question where in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?   We have evolved beyond the morality of the bible.  

"we have evolved beyond the morality of the bible"?  we have thrown the morality of the bible under the bus.  

I throw the morality of the bible under the bus every time I eat at red lobster, get a hair cut, or let my wife tell me what to do.

"Bible"  Capital "B"--tool.

Yes, don't we all?  It's all the foundation.  At one point in time physics will take over.  I believe these rules you mock were based upon hygiene and disease.

 Nuke the Whales

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Come on multi don't be such a chicken shit. Answer the questions asked of you.

gst Said:

So there in lies the importance to the answer to the question, does multi "tolerate" a 60 year old man "marrying" a girl at the ripe old age of 13 as the state of New Hampshire allows?

Or does HIS belief system , what ever it is based on, cause HIM to say this is wrong.

So then we must ask the question: if HIS belief system tells him this is wrong, why then should he condemn others who's belief system tells them two men "marrying" each other is wrong? 
 
Why should multi get to claim a different belief standard than his is wrong and those having it are wrong all the while maintaining his own belief system in what is right and wrong? 

So does he believe a 60 year old man screwing a 13 year old girl is "right" because they are "married".

We have yet to know because he will not answer.

So multi, grow a set and answer a couple of questions, will you "tolerate" a law in this state that would allow a 60 year old man to "marry" a 13 year old girl (and have all the "rights" associated with marriage including the legal ability to have sexual relations)?

Yes? No?

Understand here as made clear in the link provided, it is about the law and "rights" just as gays are claiming, NOT the sexual act.

 

multi-species-angler Said:
and regardless of this insignificant thread, we all see where the future and the majority is going.

So, when the vote comes around, yes I support gay marriage and will vote in favor of it.

why? because it has nothing to do with me, my marriage, my way of life, or the TV I watch, and I feel like an asshole if I take part in denying someone the things they want because it might mean less Will & Grace on that one channel at midnight.

multi, if a law allowing the 60 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl came up in ND would you support it?

Yes? No?

multi this law saying a 60 year old man can marry a 13 year old girl and thus have legal sexual relations with her will have nothing to do with you, your marriage, your way of life or the TV you watch.

So tell us multi would you be alright with a law that allows a 60 year old man to "marry" a 13 year old girl and legally have sexual relations with her as can be done in New Hampshire?

Yes?

No?

Not quite down to 5 sentences multi, but try and sort thru the best you can and actually answer the questions if you are willing to deem them worthy.

Come on multi straight up simple questions deserve straight up simple answers.

Unless you already know they will make you look the hypocrite.

multi-species-angler Said:

this whole pedophile thing can be discussed when its an issue with the gay community....as for now, it has nothing to do with it, but GST keeps bringing it up and predicting its move for legalization within 5 years with similar popularity as the gay marriage movement is now.

If that happens GST, with you as my whitness....I will eat my hat with a fork and knife and a side of ranch.

How come no one answered my quiz?....need more hints?

so, other than the pedophile thing, and the its against your religion debate....are there any other reasons I should vote no for gay marriage?

multi why do you always put the caveat that pedophilia can only be "discussed" legitimately when it happens with the gay community???

Does pedophilia not exist outside of the gay community?

Are you alright with it happening outside of the gay community multi?

Are you THAT "tolerant"?

Is it only taboo when a 40 year old man is trying to "marry" a 13 year old boy?

multi, in your view, do you consider a 40 year old man marrying a 13 year old girl in New Hampshire and having legal sexual relations with her "pedophilia"??

Yes?

No?

I ask these questions and would like answers, as it will determine the menu of your next meal as what most would likely consider pedophilia (40 year old man having sex with ANY 13 year old child) is permissible under the laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE in New Hampshire.

We are discussing the laws governing marriage here right?

Now that gay marriage is legal in New Hampshire along with a 40 year old marrying a 13 year old............................................how long before someone sues for the "right" of a 40 year old man to "marry" a 13 year old boy under state law.

Maybe a judge will determine this regardless of the parents desires as they do in Florida.

Don't chicken out from answering multi.

Just how big a hat will you be eating multi, and could you post a video so we all can "witness" ?

Oh never mind multi, it seems as if as long as it is not in the gay community you don't consider it pedophilia.

Indeed this "evolution" of "tolerance" by incremental design is a wonderful thing for this country right?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

how is eating shrimp as opposed to fish any less or more of a risk of disease? and what does wearing cotton and polyester have to do with hygene....these are some of the problems I find with using a 1500 year old book of stories & contradictions copied from dozens of ther religions, re-translated dozens of times, re-interpreted even more, as guide to set the rules of my life by....I don't need a book like that to keep me from being a bad person.

If you or others need such a book to aid in your journey through life, I got no problems with that.  What ever gets you through your day, it makes no difference to me.

I have a problem when people start using books like that to enact laws and rules for the rest of us.

which is why I will vote yes on gay marriage

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Really, now that "transgender" boys get to shower with the girls in their locker rooms, how many teenage football players will suddenly find they may be "transgender"??

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-year-old-transgender-boy-must-be-allowed-to-use-girls-bathroom-colorado-o

Okay, okay I know it is a 6 year old boy and simply going to the bath room..............................................................................for now.

Remember, this is in the state that has a purple haze over it that use to allow men to marry 12 year old girls.

Make sure you don't leave your little girls pink bracelet laying around where your 5 month old baby boy can grab it.

Pages