Religion vs Homosexuality

[jimboston]

in China, maybe. in any other developed nation, shit like that gets yer ass thrown in prison. food for thought. i hope you reach them to rubber up, at least...

Of course! If you had read my exchange with PLAYER you would probably be able to infer that any child of mine will be educated to the full, to allow them to make informed decisions.

.. and so this theoretical child would be "educated to the full" by what age? Birth?

because you propose no lower limit for fully-informed decision-making, hence your child must (by definition) pop-out with Ph.D in hand. Right?

... or would you like to admit that it might take some time for your child's brain to develop, to be able to understand the lessons you want to teach her/her, and then after that, allow for some period of time for the child to actually learn those lessons?

[mrswdk]

in China, maybe. in any other developed nation, shit like that gets yer ass thrown in prison. food for thought. i hope you reach them to rubber up, at least...

Of course! If you had read my exchange with PLAYER you would probably be able to infer that any child of mine will be educated to the full, to allow them to make informed decisions.

.. and so this theoretical child would be "educated to the full" by what age? Birth?

because you propose no lower limit for fully-informed decision-making, hence your child must (by definition) pop-out with Ph.D in hand. Right?

And how exactly does a baby that can't speak give consent?

[jimboston]

in China, maybe. in any other developed nation, shit like that gets yer ass thrown in prison. food for thought. i hope you reach them to rubber up, at least...

Of course! If you had read my exchange with PLAYER you would probably be able to infer that any child of mine will be educated to the full, to allow them to make informed decisions.

.. and so this theoretical child would be "educated to the full" by what age? Birth?

because you propose no lower limit for fully-informed decision-making, hence your child must (by definition) pop-out with Ph.D in hand. Right?

And how exactly does a baby that can't speak give consent?

I don't know. I'm not the one here who suggested there be no low-age-limit for children to consent.
That was you.

So now you are saying a child needs to verbally consent? So once a kid can speak... then they can be legally engaged in sexual act with an adult? Is that it... that's all they need? The ability to speak?

If a toddle says "Yes"... even if the yes is clearly meaningless babble... does that count as consent?

You realize that around age 12month-18months kids often say words they don't understand, or say the opposite of what they really want, just because they are still learning. You realize this, right?

... and again, even once a child reaches the age where they understand words, they still don't have complete cognitive abilities.

So, again your child will be "educated to the full" by what age???

At what age would you say a kid is "educated to the full"?
If it's not based on age, then on what criteria will society agree that a person is "educated to the full" such that their consent would be educated and fully-informed consent? Will there be some standardized test a person must take in order to be legally authorized to consent?

YOU KEEP AVOIDING THE QUESTION.

You say "no lower limit"... then you say your kids "would be educated to the full"... then you say "no kid will want to do it".
Which is it... because these all conflict. You can't have conflicting points.

(Well you can... but then you lose.)

[riskllama]

i think mrs expects her kids to spring from her noggin fully grown, shitting out wisdom ala athena/zeus...

[jimboston]

i think mrs expects her kids to spring from her noggin fully grown, shitting out wisdom ala athena/zeus...

and apparently fucking creepy 40yo dudes too

[JBlombier]

So now you are saying a child needs to verbally consent? So once a kid can speak... then they can be legally engaged in sexual act with an adult? Is that it... that's all they need? The ability to speak?

If a toddle says "Yes"... even if the yes is clearly meaningless babble... does that count as consent?

You realize that around age 12month-18months kids often say words they don't understand, or say the opposite of what they really want, just because they are still learning. You realize this, right?

... and again, even once a child reaches the age where they understand words, they still don't have complete cognitive abilities.

So, again your child will be "educated to the full" by what age???

At what age would you say a kid is "educated to the full"?

There are (too much to count) adults all around the world that say there's "consent" in a sexual act (meanwhile feeling raped or assaulted), just because they see no other way to be part of the group they want to belong to.

Of course, thinking a toddler can even comprehend the definition of consent is insane, I'm sure he realizes that as well.
But there are plenty of 20+ year olds out there that have to be protected against the evils that are inside a lot of human beings, as well. It's difficult...

------------------------------------------------
I read this topic title and decided to respond, because I was wondering if people from other countries were still in the (Dark Ageish, if you ask me) belief that homosexuality is a sin and something they (homosexuals) can change about themselves, or that the world has taken a turn for the better.

The first message I read is about babies giving consent to sex, so you can imagine how I feel. Pfff, I know this forum can be harsh and it's great if we all disagree, because that's our right. But when it gets to a disgusting level like this, I wonder if the people posting this garbage are really that awful or that they just can't help it.

Anyway, go to a Gay Pride anywhere around the world (really, you'll have the time of your life, I guarantee you!) and you'll notice heterosexuals can only wish they could party like the gays can

- JBlombier

[/]

Furthermore, you propose Greece as a "shining example" of a culture which freely accepted Pedophilia. That statement is simply not accurate. Parts of Greece practiced something better called Pederasty. I'm not going to say I support that either... but at least you could make an argument for this activity (as practiced in ancient Greece), as it is more limited and more clearly defined than the blank Pedophilia that you desire. Check this out.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
Even if you accept Pederasty as some "ideal", you will note that there is great potential for abuse... and it was not a sustained social norm outside some liberal upper-class populations.

Pfft, the reason it isn't mentioned is because it goes without mentioning. The only reason Pederasty is so mentioned as extraordinary is because of the homosexual aspect, not the age. What we consider pedophiliac interaction in modern days was the norm for societies for thousands of years. Childhood as a concept has only really been widely adopted in the last few centuries, and even then when the laws came into effect the typical norm was around 12 or so. Before the laws, globally you would hear tale of betrothal at around 12 or so; so arguably there is some normalization even without laws.

Anyways, we live in an age of technology, and it's clear the correct solution is not one of arbitrary numbers that change from border to border. There are two logical obstacles that should be addressed in determining the proper age of sexual activity.

The first is the physical. Humans are capable of procreation upon puberty, yet as we see from the ages past where such interactions were the norm, it is simply not a desirable option. Stillbirths and pregnancy related deaths were amazingly common in such times. Only significantly developed, healthy female bodies should ever attempt heterosexual mating. This age is different in each person, and for some it the stage does not appear at all. Rationally, a doctor should be consulted to determine this stage.

The second is mental, as Tzor pointed out, most human brains do not fully develop until 20. So as a lazy fix, 20 would be an acceptable age of consent (Also driving, I really hate that teen drivers exist}. For a more in depth rational and moral standpoint, there should be a bar of mental competence to pass before specific rights are bestowed. For the protection of themselves and others. Anyone who can not make rational decisions should not engage in activities that might result in the spread of disease or a child they would be unfit to take care of.

Cookie cutter solutions that rely on the number of candles on one's cake don't protect those that need to be protected.

[mrswdk]

Childhood as a concept has only really been widely adopted in the last few centuries

And even then not universally. Today there are still plenty of societies where someone will be working from the age of 13/14, and plenty of others where the girl will already be promised and maybe even married before she's even reached puberty.

[Phatscotty]

I'm gonna read this entire thread, and then you are ALL in big BIG trouble!

Save page 7 for me.... ALL of page 7!!!

[jimboston]

Cookie cutter solutions that rely on the number of candles on one's cake don't protect those that need to be protected.

Thanks for the input.

So clearly you agree that there should be some measure by which people are capable of consenting; and those who can't meet this measure... be it age or test or something... would not be considered "capable of consent".

You also see puberty as a possible starting point upon... that's fair.

Whereas mrs, thinks any kid can consent regardless of age... even prepubescent kids can consent in her New World.

[jimboston]

Childhood as a concept has only really been widely adopted in the last few centuries

And even then not universally. Today there are still plenty of societies where someone will be working from the age of 13/14, and plenty of others where the girl will already be promised and maybe even married before she's even reached puberty.

So because some societies do this... that means it's right?

That's the definition of what's right or wrong?

Some societies still have slavery... so slavery is right?
I just want to make sure I understand your position here.

Note... you talk about 13/14yo's... what societies are letting 5yo's have sex as a "norm".
That was fine according to you in your "New World".

Are you ever going to address my points?

[jimboston]

mrswdk...

Would it be ok, in the New World you propose, for the dalai lama to have sex with a 5yo Chinese boy?

(We are assuming the 5yo consented of course.)

[Bernie Sanders]

mrswdk...

Would it be ok, in the New World you propose, for the dalai lama to have sex with a 5yo Chinese boy?

(We are assuming the 5yo consented of course.)

This is the sickest thread and quite disturbing.

There's no defending what "mrswdk" is spouting off here.

[jgordon1111]

At what age were you traded or sold mrswdk, the profile that your thoughts judgements and views, highly suggest you know and believe these things from a first hand point of view,either as a victim or a perpetrator, which is it?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm gonna read this entire thread, and then you are ALL in big BIG trouble!

Save page 7 for me.... ALL of page 7!!!

good to see you Phat

[PLAYER57832]

first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

Most Theologians don't believe the Gospels where actually written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.
Rather they were verbally handed down, and then later consolidated.

This is partially true, however, much of Paul was apparently written by Paul, etc.

Furthermore, the Bible we have today is vastly different than the various bibles early Christians used.
The Bible was edited by the Council of Nicea, under the auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Many parts were edited or completely removed.

Very true. The Gnostic texts, in particular were quite popular. That is part of why the council was set to establish the criteria for what would be considered accepted and what would not. Even then, of course most Protestant Bibles differ from Roman Catholic Bibles.

Anyway, my point was not to debate the Bible... that belongs in another thread. Its just that the claim that all the Bible is just unproven fiction is often made, but not provable.

[PLAYER57832]

Lmao, player wow, nice try you tactic of attacking is an indicator of your hypocrisy, you said I didn't believe in religion in a previous statement, and again when I pointed out the flaw in your statement, you disassemble , and go on the attack,AGAIN HOW VERY UN-CHRISTIAN OF YOU. And that when you are very very close to your judgement day. Do you think that you can disassemble with him and be forgiven?

ah.. now you are saying religion, instead of God.. lol.
At least you are consistent, You are free to believe what you wish, but your claims of fact were plain false. As for the rest... There is no condemnation in saying that you disbelieve in Christianity right after you call the Bible fiction. If you feeling condemned, it is not by me.

[jgordon1111]

Player, again false accusations, seem to be all you have, you use what you claim to be your faith as a sheild and proof of forwarding your own personal dogma in the name of religion. What a fool you are, be silent now while you still have some dignity. I challenge you to prove one iota of anything I have said as being untrue, or a iota of anything you have said to be truth, so instead of disassembling just stick to facts if you can, all that anyone has to do is read what you have said and claimed, and what I have said and they will recognize you to be a liar and heretic blasphemer.

[tzor]

Most Theologians don't believe the Gospels where actually written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.
Rather they were verbally handed down, and then later consolidated.

Furthermore, the Bible we have today is vastly different than the various bibles early Christians used.
The Bible was edited by the Council of Nicea, under the auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Many parts were edited or completely removed.

I just love the conspiracy theory weed you are smoking. Good thing I don't smoke. We have plenty of texts prior to Constantine to show that he neither edited nor removed parts of the scripture. There are some scriptures in his list that were not in the previous lists, but most of the rare items removed from the very early lists (such as the Didache) were removed long before Constantine. See list by Eusebius, in his Church History (c. 330).

Now for the first question, let's take a random Gospel (oops my RNG is broke so let's take the first one on the list) ... NABRE - Introduction notes to Matthew

show

[PLAYER57832]

I challenge you to prove one iota of anything I have said as being untrue, or a iota of anything you have said to be truth,.

Already did. And, I admit my beliefs are beliefs. That is not the same as proving me false, which is where we began. For your accusations to be true, you would have to prove the Bible and those who read it false. You have not done that, and your claims of me somehow persecuting you are ridiculous.

If you care to engage in discourse, I am happy to engage, but this claiming I am insulting you because I don't agree with you, well.. yes, that does make you unworthy of debate.

[jgordon1111]

K player, will you agree that if something taught is wrong it puts all of the teachings in question? Will you agree?

[PLAYER57832]

K player, will you agree that if something taught is wrong it puts all of the teachings in question? Will you agree?

All teachings are ALWAYS able to be questioned, but error in one area does not mean all information is in err. Science is the classic example. That there have been mistakes in Evolutionary theory in no way means that everything to do with Evolution is wrong.

Also, when it comes to the Bible (and Evolution, for that matter), a lot of people will claim "error" when what they really mean is "I don't believe this". They are not at all the same.

[mrswdk]

All teachings are ALWAYS able to be questioned, but error in one area does not mean all information is in err. Science is the classic example. That there have been mistakes in Evolutionary theory in no way means that everything to do with Evolution is wrong.

Nor can we disregard the entirety of the Old Testament just because we've decided we prefer Jesus's Confucius-inspired brand of Christianity.