Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CT GAMER wrote:Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia?



Last I checked Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Pedophila is not and thus is child abuse.

So how are they even remotely the same?

Don't answer that, I understand perfectly well why people try to play the "fear card" when they have run out ways to defend an irrational position...

They are both the same in that they are both considered forms of sexual deviance.

It isn't that they're playing the fear card, it's that certain people do believe that as Gay Marriage is considered a social deviance, which was once frowned upon, that in time society will come to view Pederasty (not pedophilia, they are subtely different concepts) as reasonably as we now see gay marriage.

micahaphone wrote:separation of church and state. Bible should not determine our laws. is marriage covered under the pursuit of happiness? (cue cheesy joke about marriage being horrible by some guy)

hemingway wrote:slippery slope fallacy and totally illogical. by that rationale, since people have been getting married for thousands of years, there have been lobbies for thousands of years supporting multiple marriage, right? wrong.

who are you to say they can't get married? you just agreed it's none of your business. the constitution of the US provides for the pursuit of happiness. full stop.

Please stop quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it were the Constitution. Also, just because you have the "right" to go after what you want doesn't always mean you can or will get what you want.

CT GAMER wrote:Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia?

Last I checked Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Pedophila is not and thus is child abuse.

So how are they even remotely the same?

Don't answer that, I understand perfectly well why people try to play the "fear card" when they have run out ways to defend an irrational position...

It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.

Red9 wrote:Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.

By that reasoning, the Sodomy Laws(which made pretty much anything but good old fashioned heterosexual missionary position illegal to practice) should never have been repealed.

I'm sorry, but your argument is specious at best.

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.

By that reasoning, the Sodomy Laws(which made pretty much anything but good old fashioned heterosexual missionary position illegal to practice) should never have been repealed.

I'm sorry, but your argument is specious at best.

Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!

Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.

OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".

It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. T

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.

Red9 wrote:Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.

This only follows from an understanding of morality, and the laws set to govern it, which is necessarily linear. Given the large changes that occurred regarding marriage, the aforementioned sodomy laws, the age of majority, and even social standards of propriety in romantic relationships it must follow from any slippery slope that homosexual marriage is inevitable.

Put more simply, if any case in which a former perversion was made legal begins the inevitable descent into decadence, then its either far too late for us to do anything about it, or the argument is false.

Seriously, it boggles my mind how otherwise rational people can act as though the slippery slope is anything other than a logical fallacy. It has some merit as a rhetorical device whereby certain things that one group might not like could come to pass if an opposing group is able to accomplish a goal which demonstrably indicates that it possesses greater power. But in that instance the 'slope' is defined by the beliefs of the latter group, and not by the category of things which the former group does not like. That pretty much leaves us at a point where, in order for the conservative ideas pertaining to a slippery slope to hold water, it must be speculated that not only will liberals gain power in the aftermath of the legalization of gay marriage, but that liberals widely support thing like pederasty. I suppose its a nice talking point for firing up the base, but it really doesn't have any basis in reality.

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. T

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

That and, let's face it, your not having any fun.

Ahtman wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. T

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

That and, let's face it, your not having any fun.

I know! And two guys couldn't even... n/m, I guess that was the point.

I don't care if gays get married or not. It deosn't effect me one bit and although I disagree with their lifestyle, I also believe it's not my place to judge them for it. What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?

Oh and the judge should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interests.

Tyras wrote: What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?

So if people voted on a law that said all Warhammer players were to be executed on sight you'd be ok with it just because it was voted on? Just voting for something illegal doesn't not make it legal. They could all vote to ban any type of firearm period and it would be struck down because you would have to repeal the Second Amendment first for it to be legal.

It's fortunate that the USA is not a democracy, but a republic...

I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on when we could all be watching hot lesbian porn instead for free on the internet.

Ahtman wrote:I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on when we could all be watching hot lesbian porn instead for free on the internet.

Wait...you mean your not watching hot lesbian porn?...

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.

Dictionary.com wrote:
Perversion
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

^tell me anywhere in the definition that it refers to morality or that different races of the same species copulating is perverted.

Pedopilia, homosexuality and polygamy are normal if you have no morals.

Interracial marriage is not related to the discussion, nor was it a perversion. It was frowned (or lynched pending locale) upon based on racism and bigotry, it had nothing to do with sexual perversion because it wasn't a perversion.

CT GAMER wrote:

Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.

OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".

It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.

There is no implication, and making up implied statements just makes you look foolish. Read the bolded part again and think about what that means before you spout off rubbish.

It isn't a coincidence that most supporters of homosexuality call everyone else a homophobe. I don't fear homosexuality, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. Just as you missunderstand what I'm saying, you don't even understand what you are saying.

Red9 wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.

Dictionary.com wrote:
Perversion
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

^tell me anywhere in the definition that it refers to morality or that different races of the same species copulating is perverted.

Pedopilia, homosexuality and polygamy are normal if you have no morals.

Interracial marriage is not related to the discussion, nor was it a perversion. It was frowned (or lynched pending locale) upon based on racism and bigotry, it had nothing to do with sexual perversion because it wasn't a perversion.

Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.

Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?

As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.

Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.

Women who won't wear a burqa are a perversion of societies morals. They must be chaste and pure such as the example below.

Platuan4th wrote:
Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.

A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )

Platuan4th wrote:
Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?

Social standards and morals has nothing to do with perversion.

Platuan4th wrote:
As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.

No. What is socially acceptable is not the same as unatural perversion.

Platuan4th wrote:
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.

Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own [lack of] morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.

Dictionary.com wrote:
Perversion
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

^tell me anywhere in the definition that it refers to morality or that different races of the same species copulating is perverted.

Pedopilia, homosexuality and polygamy are normal if you have no morals.

Interracial marriage is not related to the discussion, nor was it a perversion. It was frowned (or lynched pending locale) upon based on racism and bigotry, it had nothing to do with sexual perversion because it wasn't a perversion.

Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.

Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?

As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.

Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.

It makes me said that I know exactly how he is going to reply to this. Internet ennui is settling deeply upon me.

It would be great if people would stop comparing the gays and their marriages to the problems that African-Americans have had in The past, since that community clearly doesn't see it that way if Prop 8 is any indication.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. T

Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.

That and, let's face it, your not having any fun.

I know! And two guys couldn't even... n/m, I guess that was the point.

I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I'm sure it would be excruciatingly painful...

Frazzled wrote:No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.

And, as I pointed out to you then (and will likely point out to you the next time we have this debate) the NAMBLA efforts were immediately and completely dismissed, because people can see a difference between consenting adults and children.

Tyras wrote:I don't care if gays get married or not. It deosn't effect me one bit and although I disagree with their lifestyle, I also believe it's not my place to judge them for it. What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?

Oh and the judge should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interests.

Are you similarly bothered by Loving v Virginia? That case overturned the Virginian law banning interracial marriage. Was that judicial activism?

Monster Rain wrote:It makes me said that I know exactly how he is going to reply to this. Internet ennui is settling deeply upon me.

It would be great if people would stop comparing the gays and their marriages to the problems that African-Americans have had in The past, since that community clearly doesn't see it that way if Prop 8 is any indication.

No group owns its history. If it is relevant to the discussion, then it is fair to raise the point. And marginalised groups will frequently turn around and marginalise others. There is a lot of misogyny in the gay community, does that mean women can't compare their issues to similar incidents in the gay community?

Meanwhile, it blows my mind that that's the comparison that bothers you. People have been comparing homosexual issues to paedophile issues, but it's the comparison to black issues that bothers you?

On an inetresting side note, there was recently a small debate on the matter on Australian morning TV between reps from two minor parties (one right wing one left)

Basically it came down to:
Right: "The marriage act states marriage is between a man and a woman"
Left: "Well we should amend that"
Right: "But theres no reason to! Theres nothing wrong with how it is already"
Left: "Except the fact that many people want it changed"
Right: "Nuh-uh!"

Red9 wrote:
A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )

Homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Bonobos, our closest genetic relative, engage in various acts of homosexual behavior (Such as rubbing genitals together, males 'rump rubbing and smacking', etc). That it does not lead to pregnancy is not an argument against its behavior, else that thought train will end up at a rather illogical conclusion. Anyways, good thread chap;

Ahtman wrote:Women who won't wear a burqa are a perversion of societies morals. They must be chaste and pure such as the example below.

Hot.....

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It makes me said that I know exactly how he is going to reply to this. Internet ennui is settling deeply upon me.

It would be great if people would stop comparing the gays and their marriages to the problems that African-Americans have had in The past, since that community clearly doesn't see it that way if Prop 8 is any indication.

No group owns its history. If it is relevant to the discussion, then it is fair to raise the point. And marginalised groups will frequently turn around and marginalise others. There is a lot of misogyny in the gay community, does that mean women can't compare their issues to similar incidents in the gay community?

Meanwhile, it blows my mind that that's the comparison that bothers you. People have been comparing homosexual issues to paedophile issues, but it's the comparison to black issues that bothers you?

I may have already addressed the pedophile issue, friend. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relevance of African-American issues to this.

Oh crap, oh crap, we're all fethed! GET TO THE PANIC SHELTERS!

Red9 wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.

A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )

Platuan4th wrote:
Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?

Social standards and morals has nothing to do with perversion.

Platuan4th wrote:
As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.

No. What is socially acceptable is not the same as unatural perversion.

Platuan4th wrote:
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.

Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own [lack of] morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.

Using your definition argument, how do you define what is normal an abnormal:

# conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events"
# in accordance with scientific laws
# being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
# convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors"
# forming a right angle

Oh, look, the first one has to do with Social norms. What is a Social norm:
Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group.

What determines social norms? The Mores and morals of a society.

And before you incorrectly state once again that Society and morals have nothing to do with this, look at your own posted definition and how is depends on something being abnormal.

Stop being obtuse.

I'm out, because, like all people like you, you're entrenched in your own ignorance.

Ahtman wrote:I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on when we could all be watching hot lesbian porn instead for free on the internet.

There's lesbian porn on the internet? Well, as long as they're not married.....

I'm glad it was overturned. I don't see how two consenting adults doing something that harms no one (including themselves) can be illegal. Feel free to provide a good example otherwise, but I can't think of any.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Can't argue that, but consider how much of that is used as establishing dominance or for actuall mating benefits like the flour beetle that gets rid of bad sperm, or the female whiptail lizard that does it to make its eggs more fertile and resistent to outside factors while it incubates? Is it perverse in those contexts? Nope, because that is how nature intended it. Bugs can't jerk off so a little help from the bro's might be necessary ;D

AgeOfEgos wrote:Bonobos, our closest genetic relative, engage in various acts of homosexual behavior (Such as rubbing genitals together, males 'rump rubbing and smacking', etc).

I see homosexual behaviour everyday that doesn't nullify the fact that it is perverse behaviour, so whats your point?

AgeOfEgos wrote:That it does not lead to pregnancy is not an argument against its behavior, else that thought train will end up at a rather illogical conclusion.

That is an argument against it's behaviour, because perverting an act designed to allow reproduction into a recreational behaviour is illogical as well.

What conclusion is that pray tell? Is it the obviousness of "gay sex doesn't make babies?"

Anyways, good thread chap;

dietrich wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on when we could all be watching hot lesbian porn instead for free on the internet.

There's lesbian porn on the internet? Well, as long as they're not married.....

I'm glad it was overturned. I don't see how two consenting adults doing something that harms no one (including themselves) can be illegal. Feel free to provide a good example otherwise, but I can't think of any.

I think smoking pot is probably more healthy than getting pounded in the Ass on a regular basis. Particularly when you factor in the increased risk of HIV infection.