sexual orientation/preference/perversion

[Mia]

now everyone come here and quit hijacking other threads.

NAMBLA as an organization cannot be shut down do to it's members committing illegal acts. If that were the case, the KKK would have been gone a long time ago. Not to mention the CIA.

Conservative, did you have pre-marital sex? If so, throw yourself in as the same sinner as gays. Or do you want me to compare you to a rapist instead?

Do you really not get the difference between consensual acts in which no laws are broken or harm inflicted and acts in which both of those do take place?

Just because NAMBLA says it's a way of life as legitimate as homosexuality doesn't make them comparable. The KKK gets biblical support, supposedly, for killing black people. Are they correct?

Mia, I really don't see the comparison between NAMBLA and hetero or gay sex between consentual adults. NAMBLA, allegedly since I've not been to their site, educates men on how to pick up underage boys, have sex with them, and avoid going to jail.
This is pedephelia and statutory rape along with pointer on how to not get caught by the law and how to avoid prosecution if caught.
Whether it is legal to have such an organization is not relevant in my opinion these guys should get their asses kicked, literally, and thrown in jail with guys named Bubba. I would advocate the same treatment to rapers of little girls too.
I don't like the clan either and those guys should also get their asses kicked until they start playing nice with others.

[SVMc]

The whole NABLMA thing was a topic that got a little off topic in the Gay straight alliance thread... that's how it came up. Some ppl were comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia.

Forum link

[ConservativeX]

No, I wasn't; it would be nice for you if I were, because then you can call names instead of addressing the issue.

However, the point there was that EVERYONE uses their morality to dictate their political stances on what actions are or are not illegal.

I demonstrated that even those who wish "sexual equality" for homosexuals use their own morality to support the outlawing of pedophilia and other sexual preferences.

Mia, yes, I am a sinner saved by Grace. That doesn't mean I want my own sins legalized though.

And for the record, if there were an "Adulterer's Group" I would be saying the same exact thing.

The KKK has no Biblical support for killing black people.

Do you really not get the difference between consensual acts in which no laws are broken or harm inflicted and acts in which both of those do take place?

Consent is a moral qualifier that you have introduced into the equation, which leads me to ask how you can justify using your own morality as a basis for outlawing a sexual preference?

Just because NAMBLA says it's a way of life as legitimate as homosexuality doesn't make them comparable

You are using your morals to come to that conclusion.

NAMBLA supposedly doesn't support rape, but "sexual education and liberation" for all ages.

Don't get me wrong; I view NAMBLA as a dangerous organization, but you have yet to show me, without YOUR moral qualifiers of consent and age why their sexual preference shouldn't be equal.

Since I admittedly use my morality, I have no problem in supporting the outlawing of pedophilia.

[Mia]

I'm not using my own morals - in this country we are (supposed to be) free to do as we please until it infringes on the rights of others - that is the standard I am applying here.

Here we go again with ConservativeX comparing gays to pedophiles.

[argonak]

compare them to polygmists then. its really the same issue, the slippery slope of alternative life styles. have to draw the line somewhere and someone is always going to be unhappy. if homosexual marriage is legalized, then polygmay lawsuits will most likely be brought up again within the year.

while polygamy sometimes brings in issues of pedophilia, assume for the moment that it is merely between 4 consenting adults. who is to say they shouldn't have the same right to marry as only 2 consenting adults? one man can provide children to those 3 women, and there's plenty of religions that support multiple spouses, so if anything I think he's got a better case than homosexual couples who can't procreate (i don't feel this is a valid argument against them either, as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot or do not procreate).

if you support one alternative life style, you're going to end up supporting all of them. or else you're discriminating against someone for no reason other than your own morality. and if you're basing your discrimination on YOUR morality, then whats wrong with somoene else basing their discrimantion on THEIR morality.

and then you end up with jimmy married to ten socks, just because he could.

<shrug> its a hard choice to make.

So I can be compared to polygamists when I only have one partner? I do not see how that works. Slippery slope of alternative life style? It is not a lifestyle. It is an orientation. Homosexual couples just have as valid reasons for love to be together as heterosexual couples. And don't drive in the same circles conservativeX does, I'm not supporting polygamy, or incestous relationships. You are dead wrong.

[argonak]

I'm not supporting polygamy, or incestous relationships

don't bring up pedophilia and incest, because the same sort of thing occurs in homosexual relationships.

Why don't you support polygamy? Its a relationship between several consenting adults, who merely number more than 2. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as other people do?

EDIT and clarification: I consider heterosexual a lifestyle, just as I consider homosexual or polygmist or any other, btw.

Originally posted by argonak, don't bring up pedophilia and incest, because the same sort of thing occurs in homosexual relationships.

Most sex crimes are committed by heterosexuals.

Why don't you support polygamy? Its a relationship between several consenting adults, who merely number more than 2. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as other people do?

Why is polygamy relevant when I'm only talking about a relationship between 2 consenting adults?

[argonak]

Most sex crimes are committed by heterosexuals.

Not relevent.

Why is polygamy relevant when I'm only talking about a relationship between 2 consenting adults?

And marriage started as a relationship between a man and a woman. Some people wish to extend that to be non heterosexual based. other people are going to wish to extend it via number. Is one less relavent than the other?

An extension is an extension, and I fail to see any difference conceptually in either. And my opinion in supporting either isn't fully decided yet. But I believe that to defend the one without defending the other is blatantly discriminatory, and I desire to see how you differentiate between the two.

What's wrong with me getting married to my boyfriend if I so wanted to? Why is homosexuality relevant to polygamy when homosexuality is between two adults?

[argonak]

I did not say it was wrong. Please do not feel you are being attacked, it is not my intention.

Homesexual MARRIAGE is an EXTENSION to the CURRENT concept of MARRIAGE. So is POLYGAMY. In one you extend the type of people included. In other you extend the number.

My questions is basically do you support Polygamists in their quest for the same legalization that homosexuals are seeking, and hetero sexuals have. Because I do not see the difference between the two.

No I don't support polygamists as that is between more then two people.

[argonak]

What do you base your definition of marriage on, that defines it as between TWO people?

[Mia]

good point. Giancarlo, what is your basis for restricting marriage between one man and three women?

Originally posted by Mia, good point. Giancarlo, what is your basis for restricting marriage between one man and three women?

Because it is not between two people. And it is not a good point. Failure at best. Don't make me run in circles like ConservativeX.

[Mia]

There's no circles here. Just you promoting one type of alternate lifestyle that most disapprove of but not allowing tolerance for another.

That doesn't make sense.

[argonak]

Mia saw my point, so at least I know I wasn't blowing smoke. :)

Because it is not between two people. And it is not a good point. Failure at best. Don't make me run in circles like ConservativeX.

aren't there heterosexuals saying the EXACT same thing about homesexual marraige? "its not marriage because its not between a man and a woman."

is that a valid argument?

EDIT: bedtime by the way for argo.

Originally posted by Mia, There's no circles here. Just you promoting one type of alternate lifestyle that most disapprove of but not allowing tolerance for another. That doesn't make sense.

Most in the US don't disapprove of homosexuality according to recent polls. You don't make sense. Polygamy is not relevant. And lifestyle? DAMN IT... it is an orientation, not a lifestyle.