Don't turn my God-fearing kid gay!

Here are a few webpages that say that the sin that made God destroy Sodom & Gemorrah was not homosexuality at all.ForbiddenHomosexuality in the biblical book of Genesis: Sodom and GomorrahIWG Gaming – Blend InAttention Required! | CloudflareJeff Schult -- Tales from the Bitstream

hi holmes, sorry but something weird happened. About two thirds of my post is missing...Will give a proper post shortly...Mick

quote:

---

You had a point when you said society views it as not normal. You lost your point by adding since the beginning of time.

---

Yeah, my attitude when posting that was, "I know I shouldn't add that, (because it's just too easy to refute mainly because of it's vagueness)Ohhh, what the heck, *click*.

---

porteus@gmail.com

quote:

---

That has been disproven. It is only many generations of inbreeding that can lead to such problems. Actually incest is part of breeding for superior genes within animal husbandry, don't they do that for horses as well?

---

Well yes, but it is very dangerous. From a very good site dealing with a particular breed, the Peruvian Paso, which is a good breed to examine because it is bred to naturally perform several unusual gaits rather than being taught them, so how it is bred is very important:

quote:

---

Remember the recent teacher-student case? She had sex with a very young boy was impregnated twice by him.

​

Their relationship was rejected by society and we used our courts to tear them apart. After all of that, the boy (now a man) appealed to the courts to remove the restraining order against the woman, and now they are getting (or have gotten) married.

​

Why was any of this necessary?

---

This was necessary because we cannot base our laws upon each and every individual case, but upon general rules of thumb.She was his teacher, and an authority figure who persued him sexually, which I find rather predatory and coercive. Maybe they have a healthy relationship, maybe they don't. The point is, that boy might have been one of those people who was ready to drive at the age of 13, but the law says you have to wait until you are 16, because that's the age at which most people can handle the responsibility.Tell me, do you think there should be a arbitrary, but reasonable restriction upon the age that someone is allowed to get a driver's license?

quote:

---

This is your perception.

---

This is not a matter of perception.Are you saying that, according to your perception, the instant that any given girl who has her first period at age 8 in fact IS emotionally and mentally mature enough to handle a sexual relationship?All I am saying with my above statement that the mere presence of a first period in a girl, or deepening voice in a boy, or whatever secondary sexual characteristics you'd like to list, does not mean that that individual is suddenly ready to have a sexual relationship with anyone. I would say the same about some college students I have known.

quote:

---

They have, including in the past. But even if I were to accept the first part of this statement, I am unaware what the age of the other party would have to do with whether the first party can handle giving birth.

---

It's not the giving birth. It's the raising of the child and providing for it alone if need be.

quote:

---

I have seen only a few limited studies which do not show that this is true. Given historical and cultural examples of young women giving birth, it seems a bit odd to say this actually happened. But I am open to any data that you have. To head off stuff I have already seen, please give me something that does not hinge on birthrates in Scandinavia.

---

Well, I can give you anecdotal evidence in that I had my first period at 13, when my mother and her mother both had their first period at 17.I can also give you this very good page from the Museum of Menstruation and Women's HealthIt does show that it may be that the past average age of first menarche might be younger than 17 and be more like 15. Still a drop in age is generally observed.

quote:

---

Imagine a society which cared for those that were young and had kids, or any age for that matter, and yet unable to provide sufficiently for a child. This is true in some places, especially societies with extended families. Now what would be the problem?

---

That wouldn't be a problem at all.Let's change the law when this society is in place and not before.As it is now, we can "imagine" all of the utopian versions of society we want but we do not currently live in that society. This society frankly does a really terrible job of raising most of its kids and does a worse job of educating people about healthy sexual habits so I am not very interested in adding to the problem of even more children having children than we already do. We aren't set up to handle even the most basic practicalities of such a society.

quote:

---

In today's culture gays cannot provide for their partners as well as heteros can as they are restricted by societal institutions, the same type of ones you just described.

---

See, I wasn't talking about two adults providing for each other, or even an adult providing for a child. I was talking about an 11 year old child being unprepared to provide for her children because she is undereducated and simply hasn't had the time or opportunity to become educated.

quote:

---

Thus it would seem you should agree there is a difference TODAY, as compared to PAST CULTURES, such that we should limit homosexual relationships.

---

No.We are talking about adults in every sense of the word, not just "having gotten one's period".Are you going to start telling me that a given 11 year old generally has the same social and emotiotional skills as someone who is 45?

quote:

---

Again arguing from an ethnocentric view point to support that ethnocentric viewpoint. It is hard for gays now, thus gays society should not change to make it easier for them?

---

Uh, the last time I checked, consenting adults are the sorts of people we've been talking about, not children who are easier to manipulate than adults.

quote:

---

Are we to change to what is possible for the greatest freedom to all minorities, or for the preservation of current "problems"?

---

Again, I thought we were talking about adults in consentual realtionships?

quote:

---

There can be coercion in any relationship,

---

Yes, but I didn't think I had to explain to you that children who by definition lack experience, education, and social skills, because all of these things take time to learn, are generally easier to coerce and manipulate than an adult.

quote:

---

there is no evidence for greater harm intrinsically coming from a cross-age relationship...

---

How do you know that this is true?Do you agree that a given 11 year old girl, taken as a wife by a 45 year old man, is not likely to be prepared to function as a successful adult in our society because she is still a child, uneducated, lacking in social skills, and more easily controlled and manipulated than an 18 year old woman?Remember, the laws are there to protect the majority, even though there may be exceptions to every rule. There might be an 11 year old who does have a high school diploma and all the adult social skills needed to be a independent adult, but most of them don't, so that's why we set a age of consent law.

quote:

---

Indeed, the Greeks have already been given as an example of homosexuality in this thread and their's was a pedophilic example. Is your argument that they were usually coerced and harmed from that coercion? Are we right now about that, and they were wrong then?

---

I don't know if they were or weren't. Do you?

quote:

---

If you feel coercion is not inherent, then are you accepting of no age of consent restrictions on homosexual relationships since they will not bear children?

---

Coersion is not inherent in any relationship, but made more likely as the age of one of the parties goes lower into childhood. infoRemember, people persue sex for all sorts of reasons, not always just for pleasure and sometimes for purely selfish reasons. Basically, people who don't care about others lie to get what they want, and generally, a child is not likely to be experienced or skilled enough to see it happening, more so as the age of the child is lower. The urge to sexually control someone else is common among many people, and controlling children is easier than controlling adults.That's why we have to set an arbitrary age of consent; because while there may be some children who have these skills, most do not.

quote:

---

This is both ethnocentric and self-fulfilling. In the Netherlands (as an example) the AOC is 12 and they can have kids at that age, and in the US it can be as low as 13.

---

I think that 13 is too low. I would pick 16, because that's the age when it is legal for a person to voluntarily drop out of school, and they can drive, and they have been in school and society long enough to have some measure of resistance to adult pressure and control.

quote:

---

Thus the "arbitrary" aoc you are talking about dips down to the very examples you say need protection.

---

We still protect 8-12 year olds.

quote:

---

So what then is the reason for AOCs? What do they provide?

---

They provide protection to the youngest children from the known danger of adults who will use and control them for sexual gratification without regard for the child.Please note that I am not talking about protecting kids from having sexual relationships with other kids the same age or close. An 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girl friend of a year is probably not coercing her, but a 45 year old man who has sex with an 11 year old probably is....and I do support some sanity and flexability WRT these laws.

quote:

---

What happens if they want to have sex in order to earn money? What happens if they honestly see nothing wrong with it and since they like having sex, and it brings in good money, they would prefer that kind of job?

---

Well, I guess they're going to do it, but like I said, I'd much rather live in a world where people have sex with each other because they want to not because they get paid to do so.Money is a big source of coersion. That's why you don't see a lot of independently rich people becoming professional prostitutes, even though I'll bet they have a lot of sex if they want to.

quote:

---

I just realized that this would touch on people who work in porn as well, and in another thread (which you have left hanging) you were arguing that "society" should take precedence over sexual minorities in that case. Remember? Women should not work in porn until the entire society has decided that it is okay and will let them do so?

---

That isn't exactly what I said. I actually wanted you to show me some evidence that you knew that these women (in Afghanistan?) were not being coerced, provided with drugs, or otherwise compelled to perform in porn, because your main evidence that the women wanted to do it was that they appeared in videos.

quote:

---

But actually they are the same when you get down to the root of the situations I have asked about.

---

No, I don't see that a high school and college graduate who has worked in his or her industry for several decades, owns a house, travels, and happens to be a homosexual who wants to adopt a child with his partner of 15 years actually has much to do with a 11 year old girl, in the 5th grade, living with her parents, making macaroni pictures at summer camp, and attending Brownie meetings being taken as a lover or wife by a 45 year old man and getting pregnant by him have very much in common.Now, you can argue about what you think the age of consent should be, but to argue that there shouldn't be any is, in my mind, irresponsible and reckless.

quote:

---

What you are doing when you "think about the implications" is bring into the argument ethnocentric issues. They are not universal and need not be the case.

---

Do you think that it should be legal for all 8-12 year olds to be be able to drive cars? What about buy liquor? Get married? Drop out of school and get a job? Decide to submit to scientific experiments? Vote? Gamble their savings at Atlantic City? Operate a wrecking ball? Own a gun?Why or why not?

quote:

---

Essentially someone against homosexuality could do the same thing. They could say they think its okay except for when they consider the "implications" and then list off the worries they have or conditions they have set up within modern culture.

---

But it's adults we're talking about. Their "worries" are irrelevant if they are not based upon the reality that homosexual adults behave pretty much like heterosexual adults in almost every way.

quote:

---

Please do not take any of the above as if I have said it with a mean or sarcastic intent. I realize you were giving me straight answers from your position. Indeed I think you presented them very well. I am simply trying to show you that in the end you are complicating the questions, or obfuscating them, by introducing a measure of circularity.

---

I really don't think I've been circular. I do think that you have argued from a "what if" viewpoint rather than a "what is".Oh, and thanks for saying that you think I presented my argument well.

quote:

---

No, come on, it's got to be more like 1-2% realistically.

---

Uh, why?

quote:

---

Out of every 100 people you meet, chances are that 1-2 are gay,
not 10-20. That's just too high.

---

Er, why?

quote:

---

it's hard to tell how many gays there are out there, but it's highly unlikely that it's more than a couple percent of the population.

---

Mmm, why?

quote:

---

And I guess it depends on where you live and who admits that they are gay.

---

Gee, ya think?

Actually, I object to any marriage between a man and a woman. It disgusts me.Know this. You better pray to your god that I will never gain power. Because if I ever do, marriage between opposite sex couples will be a thing of the past.

Hey schraf, just don't forget that he just came back from surgery. Don't give him a heart attack again.

Let me start be reiterating that you have been by far the best opponent I have had on this topic (well these topics really). You are sticking to practical issues as much as possible. However, as I stated before, and I will continue to try and make clear, much of it is based in an ethnocentric position that anti-gay advocates can utilize.You are not wholly incorrect that much of my argument has focused on the "what if" because that is the exact argument being used to support gay rights as well as was used for interracial rights. You use the "what if", or comparison to other "what is" and past "what has been" cultures to get at the base practical issues of sexuality. From there you can see what are real issues, and what are culturally manufactured issues. I think you missed that your article supported my position. The very first statement... "A universal effect of linebreeding or tight continued linebreeding is a loss of vigor" is exactly what I meant by... "It is only many generations of inbreeding that can lead to such problems".The following paragraph of being careful to discover which crosses are possible does not in any way diminish my point. Even their ranking of which are more dangerous does not show actual threats or how they relate to issues one might find between any two unrelated people out in society. For example there are wholly unrelated couples whose attempts to have children will result in abortions (natural) and deformities of some kind, greater than the risk presented by sibling parentage. Yet the former is given the chance to try and procreate as much as they want.And again there are the handicapped. Actually you can create laws which define specifics, and you can avoid having laws at all when they are not necessary. If our problem is coercion then we can make that illegal, not rules of thumb.When AIDs started its way through this nation it was without question within the homosexual community. There are also higher rates of spread of STDs within the homosexual community. Thus, according to your logic, societies can prosecute homosexuality due to its being a health hazard... as a rule of thumb.Interestingly enough, the rules I think should be in place, or at least the ones I feel are justified (given wholly different criteria than what you have set out) would likely have mangled the teacher-student affair as well. But I don't want to divert into that right now. Yes, but there is little connection between that and the use of one's sexuality. That said, I think the arbitrary nature does not have to be so arbitrary as we can generally figure out where people are capable of consistent eye-hand-foot coordination to operate a vehicle as well as understand signs and estimate the travel of other vehicles.What criteria are you basing protection against one's own sexual choices, besides cultural expectations of harm? Sexual relationship, or bear a child? There is a vast difference between the two. But yes in general I would say that at any age a child is ready for a sexual relationship, they generally do that all by themselves. The question is more about what kind of sex and with who, and as the only real practical matter concerning others: what do the parents want for their child.I am unsure if a child of 8 is physically ready to have a child and my guess is it would likely result in a natural abortion, although I have heard of a ten year old giving birth. I do not believe an 8 or ten year old will be capable of providing material support, but emotional support is possible. If you mean guidance for the child or will they be emotionally capable of handling every situation that having a child presents, my guess would be no. But on the other hand I have not known any person of any age that was prepared for what a birth represents, except for those who have already gone through it once already. Generally in a first birth, guidance is needed by those with experience. That is simply your perception. Kids begin playing with themselves just about right after birth. They begin playing with others not long after that. In ages past (and some cultures still today) sexual play was not considered bad and so done without the burden which you appear to be placing on it.It is only within cultures that have been formed by and accepted religious proscription on sexuality such that sexual play equates sexual relationship, with all the connotations of required intellectual sophistication, and thus seems like something a kid can't handle.You don't have to answer me, just ask yourself when you first became aware of yourself as a sexual being (that is you wanted to see and play with other people), and when did you act on this? If you had some rape or forced sex incident when you were young, perhaps that might change how you developed, but most people I have met recognize some of their earliest memories as containing sexual play.To be frank, I was not ready for a "relationship" until after I had had much sexual experience so that I was no longer confusing sex with love, or what society said had to be combined.Childbirth and raising children is separate from whether a person is ready for sexual play. That is not the anecdotal evidence I have. I know one family where the last two generations were all just on the edge of 12/13 (I forget which side), indeed almost clockwork down to month and day between sisters. I knew another family where they had at least 3 generations of women who began menstruating around 13, and indeed had a joke that the family tradition was for girls to get their first pregnancy at 13 (from the rural south where families are less nuclear and they all did just fine... one of the happiest families I have ever seen).I am not trying to say there is not a trend, it just goes against all I have experienced and I have yet to see a convincing study, especially one which includes good explanations why. I will read your article after responding here as it may need another reply all on its own. Well then you have just created the argument against gays, especially gays being able to adopt and have kids. Let us change the laws to allow THAT, and THEM, once a tolerant society is in place and not before.Certainly it has to be a society willing to give them equal parental rights before kids should be allowed to be given to them as "family".In any case, you seem to be using this as a reason to dismiss its credibility instead of using it to realize the nature of your own need to move society toward it. That is your argument is the circular reasoning of using the fact that society has created a situation which is intolerant to justify further intolerance... until it magically changes.In the end kids have been having kids since the dawn of time. They have certainly been raising them, often with the help of others. Just because people have become more selfish and nuclear, does not mean that the children of children have not been taken care of, or could not be taken care of. While at the same time expressing concern for future kids that have kids, you are helping damn the kids that have already had kids.Maybe they don't need to be pitied and viewed as damaged goods with no chance for a future. Maybe that is what has helped form a culture where they cannot do just as well as others.I am not asking for a utopia, I am a realist. Change is necessary in our society, and I am talking about how to find where we could be going and what is necessary at this point in time. The draconian sexual mores and laws we have at this time are not necessary, including for the issues you are discussing, even if there are some of the problems you have mentioned. Older is not necessarily wiser, but I will agree that age has an edge on youth in that category. What's your point? That it takes a lot of wisdom before one ought to be allowed to raise a kid? I knew horrifically bad parents in their 30's and good ones in their teens. Empathy and caring have little to do with wisdom.Generally every first time parent will need some guidance from those that have gone through the experience, and learn for future pregnancies. No amount of book learning will make one a good parent.I will note that many cultures have, or used to have the age of maturity somewhere between 11 and 13. I believe that is still a part of Jewish tradition. It is only recently, after the rise of victorian antisex campaigns and, later feminist championing of the same ideals, that we came to equate sexual capability with the arbitrary age of voting, signing contracts, and perhaps driving.I would argue there is a reason to have wisdom before voting, signing contracts, and driving. I see little reason for that in sex. That is what being young is about, getting wisdom in that regard so they can know what the hell they are talking about later in life.I guess I am less worried about kids having kids, than keeping kids kids until they are 18 and then saying they are magically adults with wisdom. You have to live life to gain wisdom, not read books. I am talking about concensual relationships, but I have extended this beyond just adults, as I have extended it to other sexual minorities as well. I know it keeps getting caught in the whirlpool of age, but that was not the only subject I was talking about.As I have shown with my other thread on the subject, current scientific data does not show that consent is best conjoined with age, nor that harm is intrinsic to age. Indeed the authors of the studies went on to note the correlation between the one subject and other sexual issues believed "harmful" in the past.Science is on my side in this case. Not only does this have ramifications which I mentioned and hope you will have addressed, but it opens the door for exactly what the topic of this thread is about.If kids are able to be coerced and manipulated into sexual play and identities they do not like, then having kids in homes where the sexual nature of the parents is not what society likes would be a problem. I have a thread on the latest data regarding this subject. Zhimbo read and replied to it, ask him. Not being sarcastic, just trying to cut to the chase. You have two questions in there.First, the question of whether an 11 year old is ready for marriage and be able to function as an adult is sort of beside the point. The fact that you expect a sexual actor or even a wife to function as an adult is an ethnocentric expectation on your part. Why is either necessary?Second, is an 11 year old able to be more easily manipulated than an 18 year old? Yes and no. Potentially an 11 year old is more easily manipulated because the person has had less experience, however cultures can change this. I would argue that nowadays in US society 18 and 11 year olds are about identical. Indeed I am almost wondering if there is much a difference between 11 year olds and most people of any age. The level of reasonable conversation (use of logic to actually communicate) has been all but lost, and the public at large is easily manipulated.Ignorance and lack of wisdom is a potential problem, age is not a solution. Neither is time in a school, nor even a degree. Indeed I am uncertain what degree one can get that will prepare one not to be used in a sexual relationship, except experience both with sex and with relationships. I assume some were and some were not coerced, just like any relationship. Given that most of the writers and public leaders of that time had experienced them and did not write about having felt hurt by them in any fashion, my guess is more often than not they were not coercive.Remember they even invented Ganymede to show the goodness of that kind of relationship. Please read the tread I have on the latest scientific evidence regarding this subject. I would also note that you should not confuse the likelihood of being able to be coerced with a factual percentage increase in coercion actually occuring, or the risk of being coerced increasing.I loathe statistics which come from a culture that has laws against something and demonizes it in general, as an argument that those stats hold true for what it would be like without the laws.We have been over this ground before with respect to prostitution and with drugs. You need to be much more careful in where you get your stats and how you use them. The link definitely did not show that age was more likely to result in coercion, even if it did show that many young people had been coerced. A big difference (even if it were real, which I don't think so). So you are saying that other societies are incorrect, despite having had little or no problems resulting from that decision, and conversely there are additional problems caused by having the laws... not the least of which is demonizing kids for doing what comes naturally. They are now considered life long sex offenders. This is better? This is NOT coercion?I submit you are picking that age because of ethnocentric biases which you feel comfortable with due to exposure to a society that was formed by and accepted antisex movements in the late 1800's as well as the feminist movement which used most of the same ideas, linking sexual ability with things like being able to vote.The reason why we had a voting is that it is thought one had gained experience by that age. Now we ask that people refrain from experience from life until that age? Not a good idea in my book. Who is "we", I just stated that in the Netherlands it was 12, I could go to find others that is as low as 9 or that have none at all. The cultural variation of this arbitrary number has been shown and you need to deal with it in a more serious way. hahaha... have you ever heard of Heidi Fleiss? How about Xaviera Hollander? My guess is you don't know many prostitutes at all, much less who would or would not become one.Yes the poor are more likely to try it, because it is easy money especially in a bad economy. That does not stop anyone else from doing it. Indeed there are several clubs near where I live where wealthy women do go to be prostitutes. They actually have the term "amateur hoertjes" signifying that they don't need the money at all.I would also say that I would wish no one had to do anything that they didn't want to, but they do. I don't see where sex should be viewed as different than any other activity. In fact I would argue that it is much better to have sex for money (if one wants to), then scrub toilets. Uh, perhaps on your way out of Dodge you missed my comments. I told you I have first hand knowledge of people in the MidEast who do that very thing because they want to, and in addition mentioned articles which exhibited this fact. I have even noted how it was within America before it was legal.This is going to be very critical: you are really allowing your view to take precedence over reality. You do not seem willing to recognize that people actually like and want to do this, even under the most repressive cultures which risk certain punishment.History has given you clear examples, and if you want to pretend that everyone in afghanistan is in lockstep on the issue, and will only vary under duress, that is a very biased view point. Wow, nice stereotypes (sarcasm). Seriously, you started by arguing that we must not deal with specifics. Each of these are specifics and unlikely what you are going to find as the common "rule of thumb" in the world. The idea that there must be an age of consent or total abandonment of protecting chidlren is merely a stock dilemma. I have already said I am for laws which will protect children from predation. Not only do I not see AOC laws protecting children, they do in fact coerce and punish children and require society to buy into fallacious arguments of why they are necessary.AOC laws and the arguments which advocate them are to my mind irresponsible and reckless. Given that we can show clearly where they come from and the only real reason they exist... its pretty well documented... I also find it intellectually ignorant to continue arguing for them. They are as bad as the other antisex initiatives at the time, as well as the holdovers which include miscegenation, homosexuality, masturbation, etc etc. no, limited, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, yes... Age is important for the issues I said "no" to. The rest are constructs which do not need age related proscriptions of legal/illegal.That said, none of them have any close reemblance to sex. Sex is a personal pursuit which people have right at their hands and generally like (choose) to do with others. They cannot accidentally crash into a line of pedestrians at high speeds, nor require a degree to understand what they are feeling (that is whether they want to do something or not). I am still not sure how you do not recognize the circularity of yoru argument. Yes homosexual adults act like heterosexual adults as long as your only concern is for "adult". Homosexual adults do not act like heterosexual adults if your concern is the nature of their sexuality.Your desiring adult to be an intrinsically important condition is just as arbitrary as nature of sexual act, or race of the actors, or etc etc. History and even moderns state of scientific evidence shows age is not an important qualifier, or should I say if you want to view one set as significant you will find the other conditions equally significant.Sadly I find that in all of this you have not dealt with the mentally handicapped. They have a great bearing on everything you said for the reason to ban sex based on age. I hope this was a simple oversight on your part. I will not move further with you on this subject until you address why the mentally handicapped, or the aged, should be allowed to have sex, while children need to be protected by draconian proscription.I would also like a better explanation of what the problem would be for sexual relations where no pregnancies can result.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Let me start be reiterating that you have been by far the best opponent I have had on this topic (well these topics really). You are sticking to practical issues as much as possible.

---

That's the plan. Thanks.

quote:

---

However, as I stated before, and I will continue to try and make clear, much of it is based in an ethnocentric position that anti-gay advocates can utilize.

---

See, I don't think so.What you call "ethnocentric" I call, at least in some cases, "what we do now because we know better than we did in the past."

quote:

---

You are not wholly incorrect that much of my argument has focused on the "what if" because that is the exact argument being used to support gay rights as well as was used for interracial rights.

---

Yes, except that with AOC laws, we are not talking about adults.

quote:

---

You use the "what if", or comparison to other "what is" and past "what has been" cultures to get at the base practical issues of sexuality. From there you can see what are real issues, and what are culturally manufactured issues.

---

Well, I think you are actually pretty biased when you go to determine what the "real issues" of sexuality are. I probably am too, but I perceive your position to be fairly extreme and not observant of the way adults can control children, and the way people use other people for their own gratification.You come at the issues from a perspective, it seems, that all sex between any people is likely to be good for all concerned. I don't think that's true, and that's my bias.

quote:

---

The very first statement... "A universal effect of linebreeding or tight continued linebreeding is a loss of vigor" is exactly what I meant by... "It is only many generations of inbreeding that can lead to such problems".

---

Well, that's why we have laws aginst it. Because people have done it for generations and it has led to (insert banjo music here)inbreeding problems. What's to stop people from doing such breeding in many generations if there's no law aginst it? They've done it in certain lineages in the past.OTOH, I am actually sort of torn about this particular issue. Since there is a rather strong universal, seemingly inherent avoidance of certain kinds of "close relation that were raised together, or parental" incest, (even among chimanzees observed by Goodall), it must be quite rare. If people are consenting adults and fully informed, then who am I to stop them. However, what are we going to do about the "fully informed" part? License someone to have sex with their sibling?

quote:

---

The following paragraph of being careful to discover which crosses are possible does not in any way diminish my point. Even their ranking of which are more dangerous does not show actual threats or how they relate to issues one might find between any two unrelated people out in society.

---

Actually, the essay does say this: So, we see a benefit to "hybridizing" in just one generation. I realize that this is related to the relatively small gene pool of a single breed of horse.

quote:

---

For example there are wholly unrelated couples whose attempts to have children will result in abortions (natural) and deformities of some kind, greater than the risk presented by sibling parentage.

---

But as a general rule, sibling to sibling breedings are more likely to produce these problems than a "outcross" breeding which results in a vigorous "hybrid".

quote:

---

Yet the former is given the chance to try and procreate as much as they want.

---

We are talking about odds here, not individual cases.

quote:

---

And again there are the handicapped.

---

Hmm, that's a good point. We don't legislate against people with genetic dorders reproducing, why should we legislate against incest, which is known to produce genetic problems?I will have to think about that.

quote:

---

Actually you can create laws which define specifics, and you can avoid having laws at all when they are not necessary. If our problem is coercion then we can make that illegal, not rules of thumb.

---

But who gets to define "coersion", and who gets to decide, on a case by case basis, if the 11 year old really was capable of making an informed choice to have sex with the 45 year old man, or if she was coerced?I sure don't want the Utah polygamists deciding if that 11 year old was coerced.

quote:

---

When AIDs started its way through this nation it was without question within the homosexual community. There are also higher rates of spread of STDs within the homosexual community. Thus, according to your logic, societies can prosecute homosexuality due to its being a health hazard... as a rule of thumb.

---

A virus that one contracts is not the same as "the way people treat other people."

quote:

---

Yes, but there is little connection between that and the use of one's sexuality.

---

Sure there is.There are certain risks involved to one's person and one's health, and also one's psyche that one takes on when one decides to engage in sexual activity. Are 11 year olds generally able to have a conversation with a 40 year old man and ask him about his sexual history and if they can, are they able to tell if he's likely to be lying or not? Can they look at and understand a blood test result from a lab? Do they really understand how pregnancy occurs, and are they responsible and "adult" enough to make sure to use protection, every single time, no matter if the man refuses to wear a condom? Do they have the ability to be an equal and active sexual partner to this 45 year old man?Similarly, the use of one's body and mind to safely and responsibly operate a vehicle on the public roads also requires similar levels of maturity and judgement and ability to handle scary situations without panicking that most 11 year olds do not yet posess.

quote:

---

That said, I think the arbitrary nature does not have to be so arbitrary as we can generally figure out where people are capable of consistent eye-hand-foot coordination to operate a vehicle as well as understand signs and estimate the travel of other vehicles.

---

Yeah. We can "generally figure out where people are capable" of certain things, like driving.And we set a somewhat arbitrary age, like 16, for when most people have displayed the qualities needed to drive fairly safely.

quote:

---

What criteria are you basing protection against one's own sexual choices, besides cultural expectations of harm?

---

I would pick an age at which people generally have enough independence to be able to say no to an authority figure, are able to tell if someone is trying to manipulate them, and are capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions.

quote:

---

Sexual relationship, or bear a child? There is a vast difference between the two.

---

Of course, But one often leads to the other, so they are very closely related.

quote:

---

But yes in general I would say that at any age a child is ready for a sexual relationship, they generally do that all by themselves.

---

"Is" ready, or "can be" ready?

quote:

---

The question is more about what kind of sex and with who, and as the only real practical matter concerning others: what do the parents want for their child.

---

On this we agree.

quote:

---

If you mean guidance for the child or will they be emotionally capable of handling every situation that having a child presents, my guess would be no. But on the other hand I have not known any person of any age that was prepared for what a birth represents, except for those who have already gone through it once already. Generally in a first birth, guidance is needed by those with experience.

---

There is a big, big difference between an adult not knowing exactly what to expect and being overwhelmed by the arrival of a first child, but having the emotional strength, maturity, and self-discipline to do what is needed for themselves and the child, and a child of 8 or 10 giving birth, being overwhelmed, and NOT having those internal resources of experience and maturity to draw upon.The girl just hasn't been on the planet long enough to develop her mental and emotional capacity to the extent that is needed. She is still a child herself.

quote:

---

That is simply your perception. Kids begin playing with themselves just about right after birth. They begin playing with others not long after that. In ages past (and some cultures still today) sexual play was not considered bad and so done without the burden which you appear to be placing on it.

---

OK, I am not talking about kids playing around with their genitals or with other kids' genitals.I am talking about an 11 year old girl becoming a 45 year old man's wife or lover, for example.

quote:

---

Childbirth and raising children is separate from whether a person is ready for sexual play.

---

But they are related activities, clearly.

quote:

---

Well then you have just created the argument against gays, especially gays being able to adopt and have kids. Let us change the laws to allow THAT, and THEM, once a tolerant society is in place and not before.

---

Nope.The loving, capable gay families waiting to adopt children already exist, with no evidence at all that they are harmful to the children in any way.

quote:

---

Certainly it has to be a society willing to give them equal parental rights before kids should be allowed to be given to them as "family".

---

No, there are plenty of children who grow up in blended families who are not ever adopted by their new mom or dad. I do think it's a problem, however, and should be rectified in both straight and gay families.

quote:

---

Maybe they don't need to be pitied and viewed as damaged goods with no chance for a future. Maybe that is what has helped form a culture where they cannot do just as well as others.

---

But how can they do as well as others in school, with a child to raise? It is just much harder to study calculus and become a professional mathematician when you have to make money to feed your 5 year old. No, it's better to drop out of school and get a job to feed and raise the kid. Now, less education is worse than more, I should think, and raising a kid and going to school are pretty hard to do at the same time. Saving for a really good college education is pretty impossible with a kid to raise, too.Oh, and where are all of those grown men who have had sex with these girls and gotten them pregnant?

quote:

---

The draconian sexual mores and laws we have at this time are not necessary, including for the issues you are discussing, even if there are some of the problems you have mentioned.

---

I hardly think that setting a minimum age at which children can give consent to having intercourse is "draconian", any more than age limits on getting a driver's license or submitting to scientific experiments is "draconian".

quote:

---

Older is not necessarily wiser, but I will agree that age has an edge on youth in that category. What's your point? That it takes a lot of wisdom before one ought to be allowed to raise a kid?

---

No.My point is that it takes quite a few years of experience of dealing with and having relationships with people before we become skilled at it. My point is also that children are trained to respect and obey adults at authorities, and it is generally when a child is in his or her later teens that they start to think about this authority and judge it as worthy or not.A child in the 5th grade is simply not at all likely to view a 45 year old man as an equal, a peer, and vice versa. He will likely be able to control her, and she is likely to submit.

quote:

---

I would argue there is a reason to have wisdom before voting, signing contracts, and driving. I see little reason for that in sex.

---

Well, of course, YOU wouldn't.

quote:

---

That is what being young is about, getting wisdom in that regard so they can know what the hell they are talking about later in life.

---

So, what about submitting to scientific experiments? It's their body, right?

quote:

---

If kids are able to be coerced and manipulated into sexual play and identities they do not like, then having kids in homes where the sexual nature of the parents is not what society likes would be a problem.

---

I don't see how this follows.I'm not talking about "protecting" children from exposure to anything sexual at all, just to active manipulation of them to get them to submit to activities they otherwise would not have.

quote:

---

First, the question of whether an 11 year old is ready for marriage and be able to function as an adult is sort of beside the point. The fact that you expect a sexual actor or even a wife to function as an adult is an ethnocentric expectation on your part. Why is either necessary?

---

OK, why not let the 45 year old man marry a toddler?After all, why is being able to speak in complete sentences even necessary as a spouse?

quote:

---

Second, is an 11 year old able to be more easily manipulated than an 18 year old? Yes and no. Potentially an 11 year old is more easily manipulated because the person has had less experience, however cultures can change this. I would argue that nowadays in US society 18 and 11 year olds are about identical.

---

I would not at all.I think you need to back that up.

quote:

---

Indeed I am almost wondering if there is much a difference between 11 year olds and most people of any age. The level of reasonable conversation (use of logic to actually communicate) has been all but lost, and the public at large is easily manipulated.

---

Again, show me that a man can walk up to a selection of 100 45 year old women on the street, tell each one that he has a puppy around the corner, and then try to lead her off by the hand. Now, have him try that with 100 11 year old girls. I'll bet he's more successful with the 11 year olds.

quote:

---

Ignorance and lack of wisdom is a potential problem, age is not a solution.

---

Why don't we give a minimum amount of time to every child to develop as much wisdom as possible, just to give them every chance? Ignorance in children is often caused by a lack of time to gain experience with their peers before being exposed to the full age range of people outh there.

quote:

---

Wow, nice stereotypes (sarcasm).

---

They aren't stereotypes. They are examples.

quote:

---

Seriously, you started by arguing that we must not deal with specifics. Each of these are specifics and unlikely what you are going to find as the common "rule of thumb" in the world.

---

Should my "unlikely case" be legal, though?Because doing away with AOC laws would make it legal.

quote:

---

The idea that there must be an age of consent or total abandonment of protecting chidlren is merely a stock dilemma. I have already said I am for laws which will protect children from predation.

---

But what is "predation"? Is my example of the 11 year old girl and the 45 year old man above "predation"?It seems that, according to you, almost nothing short of actual murder, could be considered predation.

quote:

---

no, limited, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, yes... Age is important for the issues I said "no" to. The rest are constructs which do not need age related proscriptions of legal/illegal.

---

So, it should be legal for an 8 year old to stop getting an education because they don't like their mean teacher, go buy liquor on the corner, marry the 55 year old pedophile on the block because he can't get a driver's license, but you are going to stop them from deciding what to do with their own bodies WRT scientific experiments, and from gambling at Atlantic City?Interesting.

quote:

---

That said, none of them have any close reemblance to sex. Sex is a personal pursuit which people have right at their hands and generally like (choose) to do with others.

---

Scientific experiments something they can choose to do with their own bodies.

quote:

---

They cannot accidentally crash into a line of pedestrians at high speeds,

---

But, at 8 years old, they can forget to use a condom and then give STD's to lots of other people.

quote:

---

nor require a degree to understand what they are feeling (that is whether they want to do something or not).

---

How many 8 year olds do you know who is the societal equal of the 45 year old man they are having sex with so that they can have control of the situation?I'll have to finish this later, as I'm going to be late for work.

Why is it 5%? 10-20%?Do we have good statistics on these things? No.It just seems unrealistic to assume that it is as high as 10%.But reading this page lets you know how widely the numbers game ranges:
Family Research Institute » Page not foundI would take what this guy says:

quote:

---

"‘If everyone examines their own conscience, they know that more than one in 100 people is gay.... Common sense tells you this survey is nonsense,’ said Gregory King, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the nation’s largest homosexual rights group. ‘I feel the 10 percent figure is probably about right’ because many homosexuals fear to admit their sexual orientation, said Cathy Renna, co-chairwoman of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Againse Defamation."

---

and reverse it.
I would say that if you look at the people around you one in a hundred is gay, not one in ten.
One in ten is just too high.
If it's true then out of those 100 people around you 8-9 are closet gays. Sorry, that's too much.
Maybe if you live in San Francisco or something it might be higher,
but I have a hard time believeing that 80-90% of gay respondents to an anonymous survey are hiding the fact that they consider themselves gay.And it depends on the survey and how questions are worded.http://www.geocities.com/plusg1/facts_05.htm

quote:

---

The 1993 Janus Report, the first broad-scale scientific national survey on sexual behavior since Kinsey, concluded that 9% of males and 5% of females had had homosexual experiences more than just "occasionally."

​

The 1993 Yankelovich Monitor Survey, considered the first nationally representative survey to reflect what percentage of the population identified itself as homosexual, indicated that 5.7% described themselves as "gay/homosexual/lesbian."

​

The 1994 Sex in America Study Self-identified gay and bisexual men accounted for 2.8% of the surveyed respondents, while 1.4% of the women identified as lesbian or bisexual.

---

Cuz. Cuz. Ya think ya can do a little better than this?Give us some reasons why a figure of 10% must be true.
I have the same reasons that 1% must be more accurate.

This method of posting is dragging me into something I don't have the time for and what I was looking to avoid from now on. Thankfully it is not overtly negative of making me feel bad, but it is pressing on me time wise.I'd like to ask you a favor and not use so many direct quotes and answers. It is elongating the response and in some circumstances is premature given later things I mention in my posts. It would be better (for me) if you could make your responses as compact as possible by dealing with the most important issues as collectively as possible.That's not to say you should not use quotes, but limit them to the few you need to deliver a reply and not repeat issues which are recurring.Unfortunately I have already written a point by point, before coming to my conclusion that it would be best to condense. I don't want to put more energy into a rewrite at this point. That is exactly what anyone else can appeal to, including anti gay advocates. Remember homosexuality was once a clinical problem because people "knew better", and has only been changed recently due to political pressure by people who feel we "know better now". There are factions which want it returned because they "know better". Thus who knows best is not concluded at all.As far as I can tell the practical definition of ethnocentrism is a belief that "what we do now is because we know better than we did in the past."It is possible to overcome this bias by excluding a priori beliefs of this kind and starting from scratch, working up definitions and looking at how evidence fits those definitions. It is quite possible that we have gotten on the wrong track and are building a self-fulfilling prophecy. Actually I'm not. And I'm not just blowing my horn. What pretty much everyone here at EvC has resisted on this subject is a good discussion of sexuality and more importantly harm in sexuality. What one has to do is not start with any preconceived notions and instead start with a clinical definition of harm, find where any and all sexual activities might cause such harm (clinical evidence), and then discuss what laws would be necessary to remove that harm.That is a pretty neutral discussion and yet I can't seem to get it started, instead we get stuck on worrying about the end state of laws... will X be condemned and Y allowed? Am I a bigot who hates X or a practitioner of Y?What I did do (years ago) is define harm for myself, discovered what evidence we have for harm regarding sexuality, and then figured out what laws I think ought to be in place, or at the very least what are the only ones necessary to remove the potential issues. This is incorrect. I do believe that in general sex is a pleasure and so healthy and good for one's health. That has been borne out by studies. And conversely the harm of "bad" sex has been shown to be less destructive than feared (mainly stemming from violence not sex).However there are certainly cases of using sex to abuse others, as well us just plain bad (usually negligent) sex. And of course there is sex which is undesirable for children based purely on moral reasons by parents. Thus, like anything else, not all sex is good.This reality does not argue for simplistic and draconian laws such as AOCs. People need to be protected from sex using laws as much as they need to be protected from the problems associated with playing sports or eating or listening to rock music. That is we deal with the problems, and not the potentialities. That is not true. You are availing a bigoted stereotype in order to propose some logical reason people created a bigoted law. You need to do more research. But I don't want to get sidetracked, even if this were true, all that would (at most) preclude is extensive tight incestuous reproduction, which would be the same as unrelated couples who are unable of having healthy children. Why can the latter stay together and adopt but the former can't even get together?Your slippery slope of lots of deformed children is hardly likely, given that it is also your argument that they will have spontaneous abortions and children incapable of reproduction due to ill health right? The stereotype you used was of people having problems due to pollution, poverty, isolation, and ignorance... not merely inbreeding.If your argument is that relationships be ended based on potential for deformities, and you were consistent, this will have to hit others besides incestuous couples.An anti-miscegenation advocate could avail themselves of this argument pointing out that sickle cell is possible to whites pretty much only if a white person has a child with a black person (or anyone with a black). You have just added another ethnocentric concept. What is "fully informed", what does it mean in an objective sense, and how is that applied consistently across the sexual realm or to the needs of children?An anti-gay activist can readily use "fully informed" against homosexuality, especially allowing children to be put into homosexual homes that will have different forces at play... including dangers... that are not inherent to a heterosexual home. The same will go for mixed race homes. I didn't say benefits would not be seen and that is actually countering your claim of why we should stop it. The question is of deficits, and that is mainly seen over successive generations of inbreeding, and little access to larger gene pools. The article I discussed in the other thread went into what criteria seems to have scientific utility on that subject as well as what might be useful in court. Thus an argument from ignorance does not work here. You need to inform yourself to a greater degree on this subject. Some argue that homosexuals are people with sexual disorders which have confused them regarding their proper sexual orientation, and are being coerced by other homosexuals and those who are pro-gay to remain confused and not seek help. They sure don't want homosexuals and the liberal elite deciding whether a person was coerced into being gay or not.Likewise they do not want homosexuals and the liberal elite deciding if children were coerced into going into a home which is not "normal" by societal standards.The only logical difference between your stance and theirs is the nature of the bigotry in the initial premise. If it is about odds, which is what you have claimed, the public can protect itself from the odds of harm from passage of a virus, even if it is self inflicted harm, using elimination of sexual activity which is the highly correlated with it.This is where the patchwork nature of your argument begins to show. You'd be better off reworking your entire stance from scratch. Think about what constitutes harm (physical realities/potentials for physical realities/ moral outcomes), and then what does each kind of sexuality give you (inherent vs sociological), and then what would be necessary or allowable to create the protection.Right now you vacillate between all these criteria. I said there was little connection between sex and driving, not none. You have just stated the little connection there is: there is risk. But that is the same for any endeavour a child goes through. Whether to join a sports team can be equally dangerous and just as coerced as sexual activity.I can see you really dislike older men and view any that might like younger people as inherently dangerous. How is this not the same as having a fear that a child hanging out with someone from the "bad area of town", or of a different race or religion is somehow more likely to be dangerous?And why can an anti gay person not feel there is greater risk for a child in a home with gay parents? Or that they are likely to have a greater risk of abuse?But in any case let me get back to the driving analogy. One does not need to be sophisticated to have and enjoy sex. A kid simply cannot operate a car safely, due to the way cars are built, and highways constructed. They were built for adults to use. Sexual organs have no such criteria. This is either going to cut out sex altogether, or definitely fall below 16. How did you come up with that age?And again there is the mentally handicapped and elderly to think about.Why is it better to criminalize children and force the ones that are enjoying themselves to hate themselves, rather than punish the people (old or young) in the specific cases where a child has been hurt? This society's ability to underestimate the ability of young people and overestimate problems never ceases to amaze me. Rather than these generalities, how about coming up with something concrete?I already admitted that a child will not be able to provide in the same way as an adult, nor likely provide guidance in the same way. Besides that, what are the extra traumas that a child will go through and not be able to handle in much the same way an adult will?Have you ever seen kids going through cancer or other debilitating illnesses, compared to "grown ups" faced with the same issues? If anything children seem more resilient. They won't become a lover in the same way that a 30 year old would. Different ages, even between a 20 and a 40 year old, bring different views and natures of sexuality. It would be different, not necessarily harmful, nor necessarily potentially more harmful.And why do you keep bringing up men, there seems to be a growing trend of women getting caught at the same thing. Do you see a difference between an 11 yo boy and a 45 yo woman? How about an 11 yo boy and a 45 yo man?If stats show anything it is generally the last one you should worry about most. And again that does support antigay activists in arguing that such a home would not be good for kids. No, it is a habit of yours to conflate sex with reproduction. For the human condition, sex is generally just about pleasure and thus there are many other outlets than reproductive ones. This is not to mention we could simply make illegal reproductive sexual acts, much as we currently make illegal all acts. Where and who judges which are loving and capable, you? There are families in Utah which are also capable and loving, but you apparently would not want them or one of their advocates deciding their home is better. I'm sorry, are you now proposing laws to eliminate sexual activity of the poor or ignorant or lazy? Not everyone has to have the same ambition or desires for such specified success as you have.Who knows, maybe a kid will be less of a debt than college, and give the girl much more happiness in life. I've certainly known people that have lived that way and been happy. Well when you have laws that will slam them in prison, my guess is as far away as possible. If you changed that to laws which criminalize abandoning a child, even if not married, when the spouse is under 18 (or at any age), that could change things. Draconian to me is simply slamming a "not possible" label on an activity when other possibilities are credible and in fact more reasonable. I think that is practically the definition of draconian.To label a child who engages in sex under a certain age as a criminal or engaging in a criminal act is really draconian as far as I'm concerned. Might as well outlaw eating candy (can they be fully informed about obesity?). How is this different than an adult pushing a child into a sport (where the child can be injured or killed), or into enjoying something like sweets (where health or eating disorders can result), or conversely berating their choice of foods or clothes, or pushing them into an acting career? The rest are allowed.The only consistency I am seeing is that sex is considered different and more harmful, because sex is considered different and more harmful. It is not from evidence. Actually no, it's their parents' body. But let's say it was the kid's body, why on earth would a kid be submitting themselves for scientific experiments for, and how would they understand what the technological meaning is of what they are being told. Some book smarts would be needed before signing on to that one. This reveals your bias.You view coercion to do something a child might not want as likely and so in need of protection, even to the extent of damning all kids who might actually want to do that thing. In addition you don't view the coercion of children to not do something they want as somehow unlikely or harmless. Isn't coercion in any direction undesirable?But let's say it is consistent to think children should be coerced not to do things they want, and not coerced to do things they don't want. How does this not effect gays?Antigay advocates might readily argue that adults are actively manipulating children to submit to living in a home that does not provide all they could have, as well as presents risks they may not understand at the time, and if they knew they might not want. It is arguable that deprivation of physical and mental nurture that would be inherent in a homosexual home (no exposure to different sexes as providers) poses potential risks. Most such activists are consistent in this position as almost all equally dislike single mothers or fathers. Uhhhhh... why not? It's just a social convention anyway. You are aware that some kids are set for marriage before they are born or shortly afterwards right? Yes arranged marriages still exist (in fact I knew a girl that defied her family to break hers).The world is a bigger place with a lot of different mores than you seem aware of... and they get along. Over 60% of the population (grown ups) believed that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 despite repeated statements to the contrary. I feel very little problem in holding a position that it takes less brain power or will power than an 11 year old to have believed that. It is ignorance and maleability plain and simple. All you have identified is aspiration, not gullibility. If the person tried something other than a puppy, he could get the 45 year olds as well. That's how telemarketers work, and they often do more damage.A guy can also do the same with elderly and mentally impaired individuals, again, what is the difference? Where did you get this idea? The blind do not get better by being led by the blind. This appears to be the "innocence" myth regarding kids. They need some protective screen from adults as if they are tainted by interaction with adults or the "adult world".I do think kids should have some fun with other kids, but it isn't always possible, and clearly not necessary. As far as learning is concerned, they are almost always better off with an adult than with a kid of equal age.That does not mean I think kids "ought" to learn about sex from adults, as I don't believe every instance of learning must be the potential best, but it does negate believing that kids are better learned about sex (or anything else for that matter) from hanging out with other kids equally not in the know. No it wouldn't. You are simply not thinking beyond the box formed by late eighteenth century and feminist doctrine. Draconian measures are not the only kinds of laws available to address the issue.In any case you also missed the point I was making. You gave a best case scenario for gays and a worse case scenario for child sex. That is a bit self-serving don't you think? What are you talking about? I have repeatedly stated that people can be coerced and violently raped which are short of murder, right?As far as predation goes, antigay advocates view homosexuals as generally predatory, and they have evidence to back them up. By predation I assume you mean looking to have sex with someone, and willing to encourage it even if the other person is unsure if they want to or not.If you have some other def, I'd like to know. Well you took it out of context. Do I think all those practices you listed should be legal, as defined by not having laws against it?... yeah. That does not mean there won't be laws in place which in practice would limit some of those far fetched things from happening.I find it interesting that you'd want children, who you view as incapable of making decisions, labeled as criminals or engaging in criminal activity. Also that you view sexual play the same as any of those artificial and extra-human activities. We are born with organs and we are born to play with them. AND generally choose to do with others? Give me a break. Really, sex works like that? And that is the same as operating a vehicle that is not built for their body type, and roads for their intellectual capacity to judge distance and maneuverability? Give me a break.These are very stretched analogies which only hinge on one thing: risk. Who has to be in control? All they have to feel is that they are enjoying themselves and were not forced into a situation they don't want. That is after all what evidence is accumulating on the subject.If a 45 year old offers to take a bunch of kids to disneyland, my guess is you don't stop to care that the kids are not in control of the situation.Neither do you seem to care when a couple of 45 year olds decide they want a kid to be their child, when the kid might have actually wanted to have a mom and dad instead of two dads or moms, or not wanted to have to face the challenge of ridicule, or wanted a parent that would be capable of discussing the sexual issues they might face as a heterosexual... in other words that the child is in control of their family relationships.All of your arguments are usable by antigay advocates.Again you don't have to answer point by point. You can take it all in and then give a general reply to the most important points, which I believe are formulating a coherent response regarding potential harm (which will then clip many other relationships) as well as control and consent (which would clearly clip homosexual parenting).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I'd like to ask you a favor and not use so many direct quotes and answers. It is elongating the response and in some circumstances is premature given later things I mention in my posts. It would be better (for me) if you could make your responses as compact as possible by dealing with the most important issues as collectively as possible.

---

Sure thing, and I think that's a great idea.I haven't read your reply to me as I'm posting this. I'll see if I can let this one stand as it is as a summery.Here's what I wrote a couple of posts ago, and I think this is pretty much the crux of my argument: link to infoI's also add that the urge to simply control other people is pretty much part of the human condition, and controlling someone sexually is part of that, and both the general conrol and the specific sexual control is easier when the one controlled is a young child and the one doing the controlling is an adult.And... This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-03-2005 11:06 PM

quote:

---

Uhhhhh... why not? It's just a social convention anyway. You are aware that some kids are set for marriage before they are born or shortly afterwards right? Yes arranged marriages still exist (in fact I knew a girl that defied her family to break hers).

​

The world is a bigger place with a lot of different mores than you seem aware of... and they get along.

---

Are you advocating middle aged men being in a long term, sexual relationship with children still in diapers and not yet fully verbal?Do you actually think it is completely arbitrary and "draconian" to have a law against 45 year old men using toddlers to have sex with?Let's say your 45 year old neighbor starts talking to you about how tight his new girlfriend's pussy is and then shows you a picture of her, and she's 3 years old? Do you object to that? Do you think that there should be a law agaist what your neighbor did?Sure, there's "child marriage" in other cultures, but that is a fundamentally different institution than in our culture.A man might be promised a bride before she is even born in that other culture. That man doesn't then start banging away at the infant moments after it's born.Remember, we are talking about sexual relationships within marriage or not, and always have been, and I find it particularly slippery on your part to answer as if you don't know that.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-03-2005 11:03 PM

So. what you're saying is that Jews aren't normal? That, in fact, they're less normal than the gays?How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say things this dumb?

I would say that since you don't know the people around me, you have no idea how many are gay. And if we're going to play the "it depends on where you live" game, I would suggest that, in Nashville (one of the places where they still tie gay men to fences and beat them to death for fun, etc) only one in every ten gay people would be stupid enough to come out of the closet. (10% of 10% of the population would be 1%.)As it turns out, I'd say about one out of every 20 people I know is gay. (That would be about 5%.) This is not a very good sample because, as it turns out, I don't really know the sexual orientation of more than about 20 people.