Agreed. My issue was with what seemed him linking gay marriage to other things that aren’t related to it. Which has LONG been an attack line against it and it’s as weak as saying “if we let people who aren’t the same religion get married people what’s next? If we let a black person marry a white one what’s next?”
Those are stupid attack lines, and really irk me. It’s not my right to make those decisions for someone else, and they don’t have to believe what I do. It’s a god-given (I believe this) right to decide for yourself. We each pay the consequences for the decisions, but they are ours individually to make and live with.
Sure. If Chris comes back and says he was just making a point about opinions changing on things, and his post has nothing to do with the morality of the acts then I will apologize for reading too far into his post. At the same time, I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider a person’s past posts (on multiple threads) that clearly lay out an opinion about these things.
I am of the opinion that debate is great. I have no issues talking with people of different opinions than myself. I find my opinions often shift some with debate, and I think other’s opinions have shifted a bit too.
We should be free to tell other’s why we think their opinion is not rational, and try to convince them otherwise. I don’t think this is the same as saying that their divergent opinion isn’t permissible.
Don’t want to spur this into a massive thing but @chris_ottawa has a history of voicing his disdain towards homosexuality. Making comparisons between gay people and child rapists, people who have sex with animals etc alongside the “where does it stop” argument… As if gay marriage is gateway to legalised pedophilia…
@mnben87
This is far from the first time he’s done this. Though other times he’s been far more direct about it.
I’m not even trying to get into a debate with you on this, I was using that as an example to make a point. Of course it set off those left-wing alarm bells in your head, but that’s not my problem.
As for anal sex, there was never any public outcry against the inequality of which age which orifice can take a dick. This is just the sort of stuff that Trudeau sees as a priority and takes initiative on.
So what if I am? It’s not even the topic being discussed here.
Obviously I was talking about opinions and laws changing, that is what I stated straight out. But who cares what someone else thinks about moral issues on a subject that is not the main focus of the discussion? Or do I have to have the right politics to talk in front of leftists?
You’re just holding a grudge because I told you I didn’t want to hear about you fucking another man.
1 Like
Based on the direction this thread has turned, it seems that many left wingers see pedophilia as a comparably small issue compared to someone who might see homosexuality as immoral. No wonder Joe Biden is the Democrat candidate.
1 Like
That’s fairly rich. I could give a shit what you think about homosexuality provided the basis for disliking homosexuality has basis within reason. If you had been raised religious and thus found it immoral I’d understand (albeit not agree with your ideology). I’m friendly with a few orthodox Jews who view homosexuality as sinful. I can understand how they’d come to harbour such an opinion given the societal paridigm they encase themselves within.
Also I’ve never had penetrative sex with a man… So… There’s that out the way. I’ve kissed a man (not that it matters), that’s innocent in the grand scheme of things
Thinking homosexuality is bad because it’s a gateway to pedophilia is just stupid. Laws shouldn’t be put in place upon the basis of an individualistic sense of morality. Laws should be imposed based upon harm induced by certain actions. Having sex with a child irreversibly scars the victim. Two consenting men having sex doesn’t harm anyone. Even though you might find it gross, it’s not harmful in any way. Some people like being defecated on… I think that’s disgusting, but it shouldn’t be illigal just because I think it’s gross. There needs to be basis within reason.
This is one of my many arguements for the legalisation of certain substances. It applies to homosexuality too.
This is exactly what happened last time. When people showed up to challenge your notion of immorality without the inclusion of a legitimate explanation you threw a tantrum and left.
I do, and it has pretty much been determined that this is a silly thread. I care, because I think those opinions hurt others. They are hurt when people of the opinion that their attraction is immoral vote for people who restrict their rights. They are hurt when they are ostracized from their families.
These are both important things IMO. Child rape is a serious issue. People thinking gay people are immoral is also an issue. Child rape is immoral. Being gay isn’t. Thinking less of gay people and voting to restrict their rights is immoral.
3 Likes
So changing laws that make more sense requires a public outcry? You didn’t really argue against any of my points? What makes this bad and why is it a “sick fuck” move? Seems like the changed law makes vastly more sense than the status quo.
I don’t care and have said that multiple times. What I do care about is the utterly predictable and incredibly weak arguments that are typical of homophobic people. “What’s next” is one of the weakest lines in political debate.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with pedophiles period flat.
Some heterosexual people are into anal sex. Imo it seems stupid there would be a law stating “you can have vaginal sex at 16, but you’ve gotta wait til 18 for anal”.
The age of consent exists to weed out disparity within relation to maturity associated with age. It shouldn’t pertain to specific sex acts lol.
Oh I forgot that whiny little moment. “I don’t want to read about things that I don’t like on a message board!”
For someone opposed to anal sex you sure enjoy pulling things out of your ass.
I never said anything of the sort, but since you mention it I don’t hear of straight men molesting boys. Seems impossible, no?
You are full of shit. I told you I didn’t want to hear about your gay experiences because they were not relevant to the topic and because I find it distasteful. You’re the one pulling some moral bullshit argument here, it’s like you’re accusing me of blasphemy.
It didn’t need to be. The first post was not well thought out or researched, but there is something to this. Look at Epstein, look at all the British pedo politicians like the former PM and their friends (Jimmy Savile, Prince Andrew). It’s a serious discussion that has been hijacked and ran into the ground by gay lobbyists.
So I’m accused of a thought crime? People say that places like Iran and Saudi Arabia are terrible and backwards because they prosecute people for blasphemy, but this is the western leftist equivalent.
So you are in favor of laws against thought crimes? Should everyone be forced to take a lie detector test to prove their allegiance to the LGBTs? I’m starting to wonder if you are a closet homophobe.
It was just unnecessary. And there was nothing unequal about it, straight people were subject to the same restrictions for anal sex. I don’t know what the reasoning was when that law came into existence, maybe that is something that should have been revisited.
So if anal sex and sex between members of the same sex were still crimes you think that gay marriage could have still become legal?
Just like when you whine about something that might imply that someone isn’t 100% on board with the gay agenda.
Sure, we can talk about this stuff. I don’t think tangents are the worst thing in these type of threads though.
I am in no way in support of punishing people for thoughts. That should be clear, and I have been consistent on that. I am for respectful debate. I am hoping that I can at least shift your opinion on the matter a little bit, since I believe my position is rational.
For the record, I’ll detail my position here… I don’t think laws should be set up to allow certain activities, but should be in place to restrict activities for good reasons. Good reasons are things like this activity impacts others in a negative way. I feel the same about morality. An act is immoral if it is impacting others in a negative way. A negative impact on others has to be a quantifiable thing. It isn’t “I don’t like that activity, so it should be illegal / immoral”.
Child rape impacts the child in a very negative way. Engaging in a homosexual relationship does not impact others in a negative way. It doesn’t hurt me if my neighbor likes dudes. I have thought about this a bit, and I can’t find anything with homosexual relationships that has negatives on others.
That is backwards. Punishing people for a lack of belief (lack of belief does not have negative impacts on others) is immoral.
No, you are still free to your opinions. It is my opinion that we should never have had to vote for gay marriage. It should have been legal as soon as the first gay couple said they wanted to be married.
The fact that one can vote to limit someone else’s rights is pretty terrible. I am all for you being able to hold your views, but I am against you being able to vote to limit other’s rights.
This is just ridiculous. I don’t know what made you come to that conclusion.
1 Like
no, that’s definitely not ‘impossible’. In fact it’s common. Most child abuse occurs within families. Gay men are not more likely to molest children than straight men, and straight men can also molest little boys. Without getting into ANY details for obvious reasons, I’ll say that I know at least one straight male who molested a young boy repeatedly. He had his own kids, was married, etc. Child abuse in general is actually significantly higher for male victims than females. It would be quite silly to think it’s all gay men doing the abusing.
I can answer this for him. The thing you quoted from him says specifically that it’s immoral, NOT that it should be illegal. Sooooo not sure why you went there.
So you actually have no argument for why changing it was bad? You just wish it hadn’t happened and that he was a sick fuck for changing it? I mean you’re pretty well stuck here I looked you up on something I knew nothing about and said well that sounds reasonable and now your argument is “well we didn’t need to do that.” A dumb law is a dumb law even if everyone is equal under it.
I have no idea where you are going with this. What’s next is as weak as it gets because it’s impossible to argue with. “Oh they are making me put my daughter in a car seat? What’s next they are going to make me murder puppies?”
Lol you were crying about having to read words on a message board. Big difference. It’s all good that just reminded me of that.
Pisses me off when people say that the priests that are molesting little boys just went into the priesthood because they were gay and it was to avoid questions about not being interested in women.
For some people the blame skipped the Catholic Church and the sick priests they employed, and went to gay people. Seems logical.
Technically they would be bisexual at this point, no?
1 Like
Chris is making a valid point here. There is very much a current public pressure that it is not okay to be personally against homosexuality and all other facets of the LBGTQ movement. This intolerance of differing belief is in fact no different than the thing being fought against. People in the US and Canada are constitutionally guaranteed to believe whatever they want, and the rest of us technically agree to fight to defend that right. Even if we disagree with it. It’s totally okay for anyone to not believe that homsexuality or gay marriage or any of the other stuff is okay. And it is constitutionally protected for them to believe that it is. debating a belief is one thing, trying to deny the right to hold it is not, and yet that is a very common element of public pressure through the media and others.
2 Likes
I’ve said multiple times I don’t have a problem with that. My issue is with the if this then that mentality which is demonstrably weak. Gay marriage doesn’t have anything to do with harming straight marriage, bestiality, or pedophilia.
This is true. I will say that you are free to be against it, but also I don’t think you should be able to limit the rights of LGBTQ people. We should have never had laws preventing gay marriage.
I agree with this. I do think it is okay to ridicule on some views. Flat earthers are deserving of ridicule IMO.
I understand why so many people are against homosexuality (religion), so I don’t think it is a view worthy of ridicule. I do think it is worth trying to convince people to change their views.
1 Like