Congrats Ireland

[YoUDeeMan]

Neither myself nor the author of the book claimed that culture shouldn't forbid anything that's natural. Cultures forbid pedophilia because it has an adverse impact on a vulnerable and unwilling individual. Some cultures forbid homosexuality because God said it's naughty.

You seem to be drifting away from your own argument.

To be clear...are you actually saying that the specific act of pedophilia results in a measurable adverse effect on all individuals, or just a few...and across all of nature's spectrum? And you are saying that all of the victims are accurately defined as, "unwilling" (<-- your word)?

[89Hen]

Neither myself nor the author of the book claimed that culture shouldn't forbid anything that's natural. Cultures forbid pedophilia because it has an adverse impact on a vulnerable and unwilling individual. Some cultures forbid homosexuality because God said it's naughty.

You seem to be drifting away from your own argument.

To be clear...are you actually saying that the specific act of pedophilia results in a measurable adverse effect on all individuals, or just a few...and across all of nature's spectrum? And you are saying that all of the victims are accurately defined as, "unwilling" (<-- your word)?

I don't expect much of a reply from GATW at this point. Maybe he's now understanding and he's too embarrassed to admit it.

[Grizalltheway]

You seem to be drifting away from your own argument.

To be clear...are you actually saying that the specific act of pedophilia results in a measurable adverse effect on all individuals, or just a few...and across all of nature's spectrum? And you are saying that all of the victims are accurately defined as, "unwilling" (<-- your word)?

I don't expect much of a reply from GATW at this point. Maybe he's now understanding and he's too embarrassed to admit it.

The only ones who should be embarrassed here are the ones comparing pedophilia with homosexuality to try to make some inane point.

[89Hen]

I don't expect much of a reply from GATW at this point. Maybe he's now understanding and he's too embarrassed to admit it.

The only ones who should be embarrassed here are the ones comparing pedophilia with homosexuality to try to make some inane point.

I take it back. He doesn't understand and maybe that's why he's embarrassed.

[YoUDeeMan]

The only ones who should be embarrassed here are the ones comparing pedophilia with homosexuality to try to make some inane point.

I take it back. He doesn't understand and maybe that's why he's embarrassed.

I may have to rename him GrizQuarterWit.

[kalm]

You seem to be drifting away from your own argument.

To be clear...are you actually saying that the specific act of pedophilia results in a measurable adverse effect on all individuals, or just a few...and across all of nature's spectrum? And you are saying that all of the victims are accurately defined as, "unwilling" (<-- your word)?

I don't expect much of a reply from GATW at this point. Maybe he's now understanding and he's too embarrassed to admit it.

You guys actually think you've won a victory here?

[andy7171]

WTAG - "Anything that happens in nature is natural, the Bible doesn't matter."
Cluck - What about pedophilia
WTAG - Thats culture! Against the law.
Cluck - So culture/laws matter, even in nature?
WTAG - I win!
89 - huh?

[Ibanez]

WTAG - "Anything that happens in nature is natural, the Bible doesn't matter."
Cluck - What about pedophilia
WTAG - Thats culture! Against the law.
Cluck - So culture/laws matter, even in nature?
WTAG - I win!
89 - huh?

Thanks for the recap. I was forgetting WTAGs arguement.

[kalm]

WTAG - "Anything that happens in nature is natural, the Bible doesn't matter."
Cluck - What about pedophilia
WTAG - Thats culture! Against the law.
Cluck - So culture/laws matter, even in nature?
WTAG - I win!
89 - huh?

I'm quite sure that's how it sounded to you three.

[Ibanez]

WTAG - "Anything that happens in nature is natural, the Bible doesn't matter."
Cluck - What about pedophilia
WTAG - Thats culture! Against the law.
Cluck - So culture/laws matter, even in nature?
WTAG - I win!
89 - huh?

I'm quite sure that's how it sounded to you three.

That's how it sounded. Penis' and Vagina's go together, it's science. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some unknown genetic mutation that's confusing the brain or something and that creates homosexual feelings.

[kalm]

I'm quite sure that's how it sounded to you three.

That's how it sounded. Penis' and Vagina's go together, it's science. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some unknown genetic mutation that's confusing the brain or something and that creates homosexual feelings.

OK, JSO.

[Grizalltheway]

I'm quite sure that's how it sounded to you three.

That's how it sounded. Penis' and Vagina's go together, it's science. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some unknown genetic mutation that's confusing the brain or something and that creates homosexual feelings.

One man is physically capable of having sex with another, and there's no legitimate reason for society to forbid it. A man is also capable of having sex with an underage girl, but there are plenty of legitimate , non-religious reasons to forbid that.

Again, no one ever said that people's natural urges shouldn't be subject to the rule of law.

[Ibanez]

That's how it sounded. Penis' and Vagina's go together, it's science. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some unknown genetic mutation that's confusing the brain or something and that creates homosexual feelings.

One man is physically capable of having sex with another, and there's no legitimate reason for society to forbid it. A man is also capable of having sex with an underage girl, but there are plenty of legitimate , non-religious reasons to forbid that.

Again, no one ever said that people's natural urges shouldn't be subject to the rule of law.

I have no problem with two men or two women being in love with one another. It isn't any of my business and I don't feel like it's a threat to society or heterosexuals. There is no reason for society to say it's illegal ( would you agree that society should stay away from legalizing/forbidding the sexual activities of consenting adults?)

[Ibanez]

That's how it sounded. Penis' and Vagina's go together, it's science. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some unknown genetic mutation that's confusing the brain or something and that creates homosexual feelings.

OK, JSO.

I'm far from JSO. You have to admit that biologically, our reproductive organs are the way they are for a reason. Sex isn't just recreation. It has a purpose which is to continue the species.

Having said that, if two girls or two guys want to have sex then why not? It's not my business who you love or how you express it with your partner.

[Grizalltheway]

One man is physically capable of having sex with another, and there's no legitimate reason for society to forbid it. A man is also capable of having sex with an underage girl, but there are plenty of legitimate , non-religious reasons to forbid that.

Again, no one ever said that people's natural urges shouldn't be subject to the rule of law.

I have no problem with two men or two women being in love with one another. It isn't any of my business and I don't feel like it's a threat to society or heterosexuals. There is no reason for society to say it's illegal ( would you agree that society should stay away from legalizing/forbidding the sexual activities of consenting adults?)

Uhh, yeah. That was kind of the whole point. 89redherrings and Cuck U were the dipshits who couldn't comprehend a simple concept and took this thing off the rails.

[andy7171]

Well, I do believe that is what WTAG intended his point was. But the article he posted said "What can happen in nature is natural."
A mature human can have sexual relations with an immature human. Much like other animals.
ANYTHING can happen in nature and thus ANYTHING can be declared "natural" by that articles arguement.

It was fun watching him flipflop while claiming victory.

[93henfan]

Can we get back to talking about McFaggots? That's what this thread is about.

[kalm]

OK, JSO.

I'm far from JSO. You have to admit that biologically, our reproductive organs are the way they are for a reason. Sex isn't just recreation. It has a purpose which is to continue the species.

Having said that, if two girls or two guys want to have sex then why not? It's not my business who you love or how you express it with your partner.

I agree.

[Ibanez]

Well, I do believe that is what WTAG intended his point was. But the article he posted said "What can happen in nature is natural."
A mature human can have sexual relations with an immature human. Much like other animals.
ANYTHING can happen in nature and thus ANYTHING can be declared "natural" by that articles arguement.

It was fun watching him flipflop while claiming victory.

Right. That is what I suspected GATW meant.

[93henfan]

I'm far from JSO. You have to admit that biologically, our reproductive organs are the way they are for a reason. Sex isn't just recreation. It has a purpose which is to continue the species.

Having said that, if two girls or two guys want to have sex then why not? It's not my business who you love or how you express it with your partner.

I agree.

Catholic priests also secretly agree.

[89Hen]

Uhh, yeah. That was kind of the whole point. 89redherrings and Cuck U were the dipshits who couldn't comprehend a simple concept and took this thing off the rails.

GATW, it is a simple concept. You are OK with the government passing laws based on culture...

an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing

but it's clear that applies only to the laws with which you agree. As I mentioned before, I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage. It doesn't impact me. Hell, I voted for it when it came up last election.

You seem to be hung up on pedophelia being right or wrong. Nowhere did I (or anyone else here) say it was right. What I did show you was that the definition of pedophelia is different from state to state. You don't seem to take issue to the states having different rules on that issue, but you do think they should not be able to define marriage.

Similarly, state laws for related, consenting adults getting married vary. That defines marriage differently in each state.

Kalm, I'm surprised you don't get this.

[kalm]

Uhh, yeah. That was kind of the whole point. 89redherrings and Cuck U were the dipshits who couldn't comprehend a simple concept and took this thing off the rails.

GATW, it is a simple concept. You are OK with the government passing laws based on culture...

an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing

but it's clear that applies only to the laws with which you agree. As I mentioned before, I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage. It doesn't impact me. Hell, I voted for it when it came up last election.

You seem to be hung up on pedophelia being right or wrong. Nowhere did I (or anyone else here) say it was right. What I did show you was that the definition of pedophelia is different from state to state. You don't seem to take issue to the states having different rules on that issue, but you do think they should not be able to define marriage.

Similarly, state laws for related, consenting adults getting married vary. That defines marriage differently in each state.

Kalm, I'm surprised you don't get this.

I'm still not sure what your disagreement with GATW's article is.

[89Hen]

I'm still not sure what your disagreement with GATW's article is.

I didn't read or reference his article.

[Grizalltheway]

I'm still not sure what your disagreement with GATW's article is.

I didn't read or reference his article.

[Ibanez]

I'm still not sure what your disagreement with GATW's article is.

I didn't read or reference his article.

Then how can you argue with him?