Sex with kids OK

[Tommycat]

I could agree with that in so far as everyone had to go through the civil unions and that the government did not tell a religious institution that it could not perform homosexual marriages. What I mean is if “Our Holy Father gets to pass final judgment and not man” church wants to have wedding ceremonies for Homosexuals then the government (and other churches) should keep their big noses out of that religious institutions business.

 

FWIW: I also agree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. My religious beliefs tell me this, but my religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with to do with others. They form the standard I strive to reach, not the standard to which to hold others.

That's why I added that section about IF the church deems it so. If the Church of Love decides that two men or two women can be married, So be it. Marriage itself is limited to a religious construct independent of government(or at least that's how it SHOULD be). Whereas the civil union is the government recognized formation of cooperative linking for the purposes of rights.

 

I tend to find same sex "icky" BUT "icky" is not a valid reason to treat someone differently under the law. Just because a religious institution finds something "wrong" should not determine how a person should be treated under the law. In OUR country religion is not supposed to determine treatment. Too bad more of our leaders don't see that. It's one of my gripes with the party I belong to.

[VarsityPuppet]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Everything is about control it seems.

 

Well, as others have stated, homosexuality is often seen as a perversion of sexuality, all along with pornography, rape, pedophilia, orgies, voyeurism, nudism, bestiality. This is how the connection is made, at least for this man, in this case. Personally, I don't think this man cares whether people think he's right or wrong, just that they understand his message.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Wow. Is critical thinking something that is taught, at all, anymore? How about basic logic, and cognizance of classic fallacies?

 

It's a fantastic example of the slippery slope fallacy, i'll give him that much.

Thank you. For those of you not familiar with this arguments form, please see this link. If you feel that arguments of this form are legitimate, you really have no business in Kavar's Corner.

Makes perfect sense to me. (Seriously)

Case in point. You make a value-based claim and offer nothing to support your argument. We should agree with you because you are with the right crowd? Oh wait, that is this type of fallacy....

Paranoid schizophrenics have the right to free disturbing speech.

 

We would charge them causing a public nuisance (summary, just a fine but arrest if they don't leave or bin the signage), or affray (indictable, if an altercation actually ensues and there is injury/damage, means they're going to the station).

Yes.

Well then I'm against two red heads getting married. Can we take away that segment of the populations rights too?

I hate this type of argument. If you keep using it, pretty much you can justify anything.

Oh, so his argument by analogy, which CAN be fallacious, is unacceptable to you, while ad populum and slippery slope and probably ad infinitum are all perfectly acceptable. Consistency.

I feel everyone has their own line to draw on this issue. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd be perfectly fine with it. But, because the Bible says it's a sin, I don't condone it.

And because you are a Christian, and this is a Christian country, we should make rules for all Americans that conform to Christian views. How many problems are there with this statement. Your opinion is yours and as valid (or invalid) as the next guys, but gives you no right whatsoever to cast generalizations from your limited POV.

In a strange way though, this guy is sort of right. It's a long shot, but once gay marriage is legalized, who knows what could be next? The times they are a'changin, so you never know: children and adults could someday fornicate (legally).

Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

'Nuff said. Apparently, Varsity, you missed the whole slippery slope thing? You restated it in as about a textbook example as I have ever seen.

 

Please people, feel free to have opinions about what others should or should not do. But do not should on people, it is not nice, not to mention messy and potential a real stinker.

 

I am not gay, I am not Christian, I am as American as apple pie, and I say Christian morality is expressly prohibited from informing the law of this country (so does the constitution), and that the conclusion that having sex with children will be deemed ok as a result of allowing gay consenting adults to marry is the most preposterously retarded and small minded concept I can imagine. Offensive, and just plain ignorant/uneducated.

 

[machievelli]

The problem is definition of what is a child. I have met many a woman between my age and majority who have less capable brains than my own 20 year old Niece. I have also met children who know and understand a lot more of the world than their own parents. Setting a line, I.E. 18 as legal for that, or 21 for drinking is a palliative, it only satisfies the average joe.

 

As for leading to other 'perversions', as the old saying goes, use a chicken feather, it's kinky. use the whole chicken, it's pervereted.

 

And among the ones that should have a right to complain, you forgot the victims of necrophiles. After all if a corpse sat up complaining, it would be nationwide news.

[Ztalker]

The problem is definition of what is a child. I have met many a woman between my age and majority who have less capable brains than my own 20 year old Niece. I have also met children who know and understand a lot more of the world than their own parents. Setting a line, I.E. 18 as legal for that, or 21 for drinking is a palliative, it only satisfies the average joe.

 

My argument exactly. The limit of 'child' is put at 18 because it is believed people at 18 can make rational decisions. But, like you say, that is not always the case.

But satisfying the average Joe is already better then satisfying the perverts by not holding that age line.

[machievelli]

My argument exactly. The limit of 'child' is put at 18 because it is believed people at 18 can make rational decisions. But, like you say, that is not always the case.

But satisfying the average Joe is already better then satisfying the perverts by not holding that age line.

 

My favorite comment about parenting is from Robert Lynn Asprin. 'No matter how incompetent you are in society, it's automatically assumed you will be a good parent'.

 

And because you are a Christian, and this is a Christian country, we should make rules for all Americans that conform to Christian views. How many problems are there with this statement. Your opinion is yours and as valid (or invalid) as the next guys, but gives you no right whatsoever to cast generalizations from your limited POV.

 

'The United States is not a Christian Jewish or Moslem country. It is a country of laws' A Whatever prize to whomever can name the Famous American who made that statement.

[Q]

Well, with same-sex marriage, it's still between two consenting adults.

It's a fantastic example of the slippery slope fallacy, i'll give him that much.

I tend to find same sex "icky" BUT "icky" is not a valid reason to treat someone differently under the law.

Well, these quotes pretty much cover how I feel about the issue, so I guess I have nothing to add, except...

Ah, the American South.

You shouldn't generalize. This country's a melting pot of all types of cretinism.

[VarsityPuppet]

'Nuff said. Apparently, Varsity, you missed the whole slippery slope thing? You restated it in as about a textbook example as I have ever seen.

 

I saw the slippery slope fallacy earlier but did not stop to take a look at it, figuring since I wasn't really arguing anything, that it wasn't necessary to look up. Thanks for calling me out on it though, and I'll have to watch that in the future.

 

I'm not arguing that we should ban gay marriage because of such reasons, just that I understand where he's coming from, but I guess either way, I fell into that fallacy.

 

Lesson learned.

 

EDIT:

 

Please people, feel free to have opinions about what others should or should not do. But do not should on people, it is not nice, not to mention messy and potential a real stinker.

 

I don't recall pushing anything I believed on anyone?

[Working Class Hero]

Oh, so his argument by analogy, which CAN be fallacious, is unacceptable to you, while ad populum and slippery slope and probably ad infinitum are all perfectly acceptable. Consistency.

Thank you for calling me out on this. I made a statement and didn't back it up with a real argument. Lesson learned!

 

And because you are a Christian, and this is a Christian country, we should make rules for all Americans that conform to Christian views. How many problems are there with this statement.

When did I ever say I wanted to push my views on other people? My exact statement was:

I feel everyone has their own line to draw on this issue. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd be perfectly fine with it. But, because the Bible says it's a sin, I don't condone it.

All I did was state my opinion because of my religion. To clarify: I feel that 'marriage' should be applied only to a heterosexual couple, I can't agree that a gay couple should be able to receive that term.

 

My personal feelings on Marriage are that it SHOULD be only between a man and a woman, IF the church deems it so. All marriages should only be the religious concept. We should have ONLY civil unions accepted by the government. Civil unions should guarantee the same rights as Marriage currently grants.

^This is basically my position. I do understand that America was not founded as a Christian nation and Christianity has no 'legal' authority.

 

As an American, it does make me feel somewhat guilty that a segment of the population feels they are being discriminated against.

But, as a Christian, it would make me feel guilty that as a country we are tolerating something explicitly spoken against in the Bible.

 

Your opinion is yours and as valid (or invalid) as the next guys, but gives you no right whatsoever to cast generalizations from your limited POV.

I wasn't intending to cast generalizations. I understand that it's unrealistic for me to expect anyone to follow my religion, or for anyone to expect me to follow their religion. This just my personal opinion on this subject. Others are completely free to disregard it.

 

If I came off as judgmental, or preachy, I’m deeply sorry.

[True_Avery]

Just to put my small bit of input into this thread before avoiding it again:

 

Marriage, in the United States, is not strictly religious and cannot be due to Separation of Church and State. It -does- have religious connotation. It -does- have Religious roots. You -can- get married in a church. I will not argue any of these points. What I will add, however, is that you can also be married by a Ship's Captain, or a specific Federal Official. Meaning, that if I wanted to marry a girlfriend at some point I, personally, would go to the court house and get legally married without a ceremony. The important fact here is that marriage is, at its base in this country, a federal slip of paper two people sign. The church, priest, ceremony, party, etc are all traditional side effects of this slip of paper. Nothing more, nothing less. This can be backed up by the fact that atheists can and are married in this country.

 

The compromise here is that "marriage" should no longer be the legal term if it carries that much religious overtone.

 

Marriage itself is limited to a religious construct independent of government(or at least that's how it SHOULD be). Whereas the civil union is the government recognized formation of cooperative linking for the purposes of rights.

This.

 

Religious folk can have the word "marriage" and "married" if they like, and they can choke on it. At this point I hate both of the terms anyway, as well as all tradition and meaning behind them and the less I can associate with them the better. All I'm interested in is the legal rights the words give me since I don't need a ****ing word to know I love someone.

[machievelli]

Marriage is linked to therelgions because the early Christian church (Pre Catholic) made marriages not only religious but legal ceremonies. That meant they could control dynasties by limiting their right to the franchise. The English break away came not because Henry wanted a divorce, but because the church, which was the only body allowed to grant one, refused because it would have removed the daughter of a Spanish nobleman they did control form his bed.

 

That is why in most cases, a divorce ends up in court with every legalistic leech that can battening off them.

 

As my ex said when asked about same sex marriage, 'Why not, they have as much right to be miserable as any hetero couple'.

 

And regarding 'civil union' instead of marriage, for about 50 years her in the US the only way an interracial couple could get married was this way, because the various churches refused to accept that such unions were allowed 'under god'.