“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#1072 Feb 10, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerry Sandusky and many other's carried on their abuse for decades before discovery. So did Ted Bundy.
Deviates know how to control and cover.
Wait, so because these named straight identified men committed crimes in a context where gays have limited rights, we must do the moral thing and continue to deny gay and lesbian citizens rights in response to their actions?

I would love to hear more on this rather unusual line of reasoning!

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#1074 Feb 10, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, so because these named straight identified men committed crimes in a context where gays have limited rights, we must do the moral thing and continue to deny gay and lesbian citizens rights in response to their actions?
I would love to hear more on this rather unusual line of reasoning!
Homosexuals can become football coaches and law school students.
Adif understanding

United States

#1075 Feb 10, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding your first point, you're wrong. Go read the statutes..Chapter 2907.
Regarding your second point, that depends upon the statute.
Criminalizing sodomy...unconstitutional.
Criminalizing incest...constitutional.
woof
I hope what they say about you being a lawyer is a long running joke around here or something. 2907.03 section A(13) specifically makes it sexual battery if (13) The other person is a minor, the offender is a peace officer, and the offender is more than two years older than the other person.

As for your It depends part. That was the ruling by the supreme court on the Texas sodomy law. They the government has no right telling you what to do or not do in your own bedroom. Now the very same argument can be made for incest cases, teachers having affairs with students after they graduate and are of legal age and all that. Why is the court valid in saying it is unconstitutional in one instance with homosexuals and you saying it wouldn't be in cases of incest or mental health professionals and their adult patients or teachers and their legal aged students?
Adif understanding

United States

#1076 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest to you that many in our society set a different moral standard than have you. And perhaps the place to start is with yourself.
I think I would agree with you except with the rate of divorce, maybe their should examine their moral failings in absence of mine? I think the place to start is not defined to one degree or another.

I forget which one, but one of the supreme court justices in the past had said that he is alarmed at how society is changing from absolute morality to moral relativism and how that has rapidly deteriorated everything from the home to safety on the streets.
Adif understanding

United States

#1077 Feb 10, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, so because these named straight identified men committed crimes in a context where gays have limited rights, we must do the moral thing and continue to deny gay and lesbian citizens rights in response to their actions?
I would love to hear more on this rather unusual line of reasoning!
I do not think it is unusual at all. What she is saying is that when some who show no signs of sexual attraction to those boys turn out to be monsters, then it more important then ever to keep those who show signs of sexual attraction to boys away from them when positions of trust are combined with nakedness and vulnerability.

And don't say being gay doesn't make someone sexually attracted to a 19 year old boy in peak physical condition. While some gays chose to be that way because 60 year old men in depends turn them on, they are largely in the minority. The human body can be a very attractive and exciting thing to look at. It's how you chose to handle those feelings that makes a person gay or straight. When they are gay, they already have admitted they chose a way that is inconstant with traditional moral thought, evolutionary biology, and/or most religions.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#1078 Feb 10, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I do not think it is unusual at all. What she is saying is that when some who show no signs of sexual attraction to those boys turn out to be monsters, then it more important then ever to keep those who show signs of sexual attraction to boys away from them when positions of trust are combined with nakedness and vulnerability.
And don't say being gay doesn't make someone sexually attracted to a 19 year old boy in peak physical condition. While some gays chose to be that way because 60 year old men in depends turn them on, they are largely in the minority. The human body can be a very attractive and exciting thing to look at. It's how you chose to handle those feelings that makes a person gay or straight. When they are gay, they already have admitted they chose a way that is inconstant with traditional moral thought, evolutionary biology, and/or most religions.
So to list the arguments you've documented here,

-To preserve the safety of our children, though no reputable study has shown a higher rate of offences from gay or lesbians (as a side note, the Longitudinal Lesbian Study has shown a rather astounding 0% rate of abuse in their sample, entering their 17th year)

-Traditional morality, as defined, I assume by late 19th century to the mid 20th century, as going back or forward any further in this timeline shows some contradictory views!

-Evolutionary biology, which I assume is an argument that having non procreative members able to marry is counter productive. Understanding, as we both do that the evolutionary need to have a population reproduce itself is unchallenged by individuals failing to procreate, as evidenced by the continued existance of almost ever mammal despite homosexual activity and sterile individuals. On an individual level, I would hope, that as a women unable to have children, Seriouslady will echo my reminders that you don't need to be able to have children to have a family.

Religion, which is, as we've documented before, a personal issue. Arguing that my god (or our god) doesn't allow X,Y,Z and so you should be barred from X,Y,Z makes little sense in a limited context and even less sense in a diverse context.
Adif understanding

United States

#1079 Feb 10, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
So to list the arguments you've documented here,
-To preserve the safety of our children,
-Traditional morality, as defined,
-Evolutionary biology, which I assume is an argument that having non procreative members able to marry is counter productive.

I would hope, that as a women unable to have children, Seriouslady will echo my reminders that you don't need to be able to have children to have a family.
Religion, which is, as we've documented before, a personal issue. Arguing that my god (or our god) doesn't allow X,Y,Z and so you should be barred from X,Y,Z makes little sense in a limited context and even less sense in a diverse context.
Ok, First, you don't hire a crack head to work at a pharmacy for a reason right? No study needs to be done to determine that people predisposed to certain tendencies will have difficult refraining from those tendencies if you put the object of them in front of them. Sandusky was in charge of what most would consider adult males. While still considered teens, he took advantage of his position of authority as a coach at the university and molested 17-18-19- and 20 year old students who's fears ranged from not being able to play football and losing a scholarship to retaliation from the school among others. Sandusky is said to have had access to children younger and there have been claims that he molested them too, but the bulk of his criminal trial stemmed from behavior with what otherwise would be protected adult sexual behavior had it not been a teacher or coach imposing themselves onto them.

Second, traditional morality goes back a lot further then what you mention. Sodomy was an offense punishable by death in English law since King Henry the VIII in the 1500's. It had been a offense under Assyrian law for a thousand years before Christianity existed. While it wasn't always prosecuted, it had been illegal under roman laws since several hundred years before Christ. Now, you might note that the Lex Scantinia allowed sodomy with slaves and prostitutes, it did strictly forbid it between free born males. It also did not distinguish between sodomy between adult males and pederasty which was a common roman practice. In fact, some of the blood sacrifices during saturnalia which was later turned into what we celebrate as Christmas, was pagans who violated free born males during the run of lawlessness that was part of the celebration.

A Roman emperor (Nero) is often quoted as marrying his slave as proof of homosexual marriage being traditionally the norm, but his statement violated roman law as slaves were property and you couldn't marry property. He was making a facetious statement through ironic protest and the error is that his words are taken seriously. Nero who frequently raped young boys was powerless to change the laws concerning his perversion.

Also, you will note that the relaxing of the laws of Rome coincided with Rome's downfall.

Third, as you are correct that non procreational sex does not challenge the survival of the human race, limiting someone to a disposition of homosexual sex would from a biological evolutionary standpoint be the equivalent of natural mechanisms attempting to remove those defective genes from the gene pool. From a Darwinist standpoint, it is nature saying die off quietly, we don't want your defects any more.

Finally, while you will find the most vocal people objecting to homosexual lifestyles and marriage are strongly from religious camps, you will also find that throughout written history, religion had little influence on the illegality of it until more recently in history. Bringing up religious connections does not in any way change that. As for Serious lady, that really is non of my business unless she decides to share it with me and I care to listen. As for you being gay, it is really the same.
Adif understanding

United States

#1080 Feb 10, 2013
Correction, it appears that Sandusky was charged with his offenses against boys younger then what I said, in some cases as young as 10 years old.

However, I do not change my point that was made by it. When someone who isn't obvious about it can do such things, it is not wise to put someone who is obviously a sexual deviant in his place.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#1081 Feb 10, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
Correction, it appears that Sandusky was charged with his offenses against boys younger then what I said, in some cases as young as 10 years old.
However, I do not change my point that was made by it. When someone who isn't obvious about it can do such things, it is not wise to put someone who is obviously a sexual deviant in his place.
And, that brilliant fact aside...the BSA, as a private organization, enjoys freedom of association and may set its membership standards as it pleases.
Adif understanding

United States

#1082 Feb 10, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
And, that brilliant fact aside...the BSA, as a private organization, enjoys freedom of association and may set its membership standards as it pleases.
So very true.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#1083 Feb 10, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I hope what they say about you being a lawyer is a long running joke around here or something. 2907.03 section A(13) specifically makes it sexual battery if (13) The other person is a minor, the offender is a peace officer, and the offender is more than two years older than the other person.
As for your It depends part. That was the ruling by the supreme court on the Texas sodomy law. They the government has no right telling you what to do or not do in your own bedroom. Now the very same argument can be made for incest cases, teachers having affairs with students after they graduate and are of legal age and all that. Why is the court valid in saying it is unconstitutional in one instance with homosexuals and you saying it wouldn't be in cases of incest or mental health professionals and their adult patients or teachers and their legal aged students?
I never said that.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#1084 Feb 10, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>They don't care. If morality mattered, instead of 1.1 million people walking around with HIV in the US, the number would probably be around 10,000. If that.
But hey...it's more important to guarantee the right of men to use other men's colons as playthings.
It may disgust you, but that's the law Paco.

I can't possibly imagine that heterosexual sexual activity might also carry the risk of transmitting disease as well, can you?

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#1085 Feb 10, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
All laws comprise a moral code.
The only question is which morality ought to be legislated.
That is the issue, isn't it?

woof
Adif understanding

United States

#1086 Feb 10, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that.
woof
I know you didn't say that, the supreme court and ohio law did. You said the law didn't say what it says, I showed you it did. i also said the same argument made about sodomy can be made about any other sexual relation between consenting adults. Do you think it can't? Becuase homosexual sex until recently has largely been illegal just like incest and a number of other things.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#1087 Feb 10, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
It may disgust you, but that's the law Paco.
I can't possibly imagine that heterosexual sexual activity might also carry the risk of transmitting disease as well, can you?
woof
Not nearly as efficiently and destructively as homosexuals do.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1089 Feb 10, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>They don't care. If morality mattered, instead of 1.1 million people walking around with HIV in the US, the number would probably be around 10,000. If that.
But hey...it's more important to guarantee the right of men to use other men's colons as playthings.
I don't see a qualitative difference between unsafe male-to-male sex and Adif Understanding's practice of getting his rocks off via anonymous one-night-stands with women he doesn't like.

Just sayin'.

The issue for me (my sense of morality) has to do with respect and responsibility far more than what is inserted where.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1090 Feb 10, 2013
Particularly when it's a synthetic material.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1091 Feb 10, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I hope what they say about you being a lawyer is a long running joke around here or something. 2907.03 section A(13) specifically makes it sexual battery if (13) The other person is a minor, the offender is a peace officer, and the offender is more than two years older than the other person.
As for your It depends part. That was the ruling by the supreme court on the Texas sodomy law. They the government has no right telling you what to do or not do in your own bedroom. Now the very same argument can be made for incest cases, teachers having affairs with students after they graduate and are of legal age and all that. Why is the court valid in saying it is unconstitutional in one instance with homosexuals and you saying it wouldn't be in cases of incest or mental health professionals and their adult patients or teachers and their legal aged students?
Consent, in the case of minors.

Uneven influence in the case of professionals abusing their privilege.
Adif understanding

United States

#1092 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see a qualitative difference between unsafe male-to-male sex and Adif Understanding's practice of getting his rocks off via anonymous one-night-stands with women he doesn't like.
Just sayin'.
The issue for me (my sense of morality) has to do with respect and responsibility far more than what is inserted where.
The only real difference is that anal sex is a vector for the spread of aids and other diseases far greater then vaginal intercourse.

As for me catting around, there isn't much difference from a promiscuity perspective. I never claimed to be respectable either. I'm sure a lot of people find my behavior distasteful. But don't liken it to sticking something somewhere and how often. liken it more to waving a fork around in the air while walking through a crowded room compared to waving a sharp knife. People are going to get hurt a lot more in one then the other.
Adif understanding

United States

#1093 Feb 10, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Consent, in the case of minors.
Uneven influence in the case of professionals abusing their privilege.
I know researching things you speak about is not your strong point so I will just tell you. In Ohio, sex between close reletives, even if they are 50 years old, is illegal. In Ohio, marriage between brother and sister or mother and son, even if the son is 30 years old is illegal. In Ohio, even if professionals abusing their position of authority do it with a 20 or 40 year old, it is illegal.

Of course minors who are capable of consenting to sex between other minors should be illegal because they are not capable of consenting to sex with someone who is not a minor unless that person is within 4 years of age of them. I mean it is medically and scientifically proven that a switch flips and the otherwise responsible and capable person becomes an innocent child oblivious in some cases of whether the lights in the room flickered on and off once an adult more then four years older enters the bedroom and that switch is biologically deactivated on her 18th birthday.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 8 min Canton 31,468
Nationwide consolidating 10 regional underwriti... 49 min COW DUNG TOWN COL... 2
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 1 hr Old Timer 954
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 3,541
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 2 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 384
Early Voting VICTORY for Ohio! 2 hr Duke for Mayor 21
Connecticut: Democrat arrested Voter Fraud 2 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 6

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]