Pedos want the same rights as gays (ART)

[GoddamnyamanProf]

LOL. There are a lot of idiots on here who apparently don't know what 'two consenting adults' means. If they did, they wouldn't waste time trying to compare it to pedophilia. You guys honestly think pedophilia is gonna be normalized in this country, just because a couple of delusional pedophiles are trying to justify raping kids?

I guess we'd better watch out....women are screwed because that means rape is gonna be legal, since some rapists say they feel compelled to do it. Murder and cannibalism will be acceptable too, since some serial killers/cannibals claim they can't help that behavior. But at least those things aren't as bad as trying to normalize two adult males minding their own business, getting married and having sex behind closed doors. Yeah, let's compare all those other things to that, since they're all equally as bad

No, they don't. If they have any grasp of common sense, (debatable, granted) they can plainly see that there's no correlation from homosexuality to legalizing the raping of children. All this is is a thinly-veiled Strawman attempt to -surprise, surprise- SCARE people into thinking there's somehow this "slippery slope" where if two gay adults are allowed to get married, soon people will be legally fukking children and marrying hamsters. Idiotic to say the least, but that's the Conservative agenda for you.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

until there is a worldwide or atleast american standard for what is the age of consent the line will forever be chopped and screwed and eventually used to push the pedophile agenda

your slippery slope argument is shyte.

 

[714562]

God damn it slim, the point of the analogy was not to dispute the fact "that Consumer choices are not analogous to human sexual relationships", do you not understand that?

...wait, so you just admitted that your analogy was NOT analogous? You realize that that's like, the point of an analogy, right? To be analogous? My god, is anyone else reading this?

It doesnt matter if incest is a sexual orientation or not, regardless of what incest is, it shouldn't be banned simply because incestuous couples "have other options", the availability of options alone is not a just reason to ban anything.

It matters quite a bit, actually. If incest were a genuine, immutable urge like homosexuality, then we'd be having a different conversation. As it stands, it isn't. It's just a niche-fantasy under a much broader sexual orientation. No, it doesn't have to be heterosexual. But the fact that it's literally narrowed down to immediate family members, does not give it the same kind of weight that homosexuality has. You can invert the order of the arguments if it makes more sense. Because incest creates a source of fission in the family where none exists and homosexuality eliminates a source of fission (I'll elaborate on this below), and whereas homosexuality is immutable and incest is merely a repressable preference, we have more grounds to ban incest.

Let me try and simplify this for you because either your trying to deflect the argument, or you're genuinely lost.

The fact that homosexuals may have no other choice in gender is irrelevant here, you labeled two separate reasons as of why incest should be banned, one of those reasons being that it may destroy ones family structure, therefore you were implying that the posibility of causing family fission should be a bannable offence.

I gave an example of how homosexuality may inadvertently cause a disruption in family structure as well, and suggested that because you implied that something with such potential is bannable you should also be for banning homosexuality too.

Now, I do not agree with that line of thinking at all, in fact, unlike you, I'm suggested that its stupid to ban something just because it may or may not have a negetive effect on ones family structure, remember?

Alright, I'll spell it out. Here's why you made my argument for me:

The only way homosexual relationships are "destructive" under your scenario is in a universe where the option for gay marriage and a homo-normative relationship doesn't exist -- basically, the current world, in most places. The "coming out of the closet" argument don't matter if gay people have the option of entering gay relationships in the first place. None of that drama ever happens. So if gay relationships are allowed, the fission you're talking about disappears. All of the hierarchical family roles are the same, even if the gender within them is different.

With incest, It's exactly the opposite. If incest is allowed, the actual ROLES of the family become blurred, as opposed to merely the genders. Fathers and mothers now double as lovers. Brother and sister can be married couples living under the same roof as their parents.

So in retard terms...allowing monogamous homosexual relationships vis-a-vis marriage ELIMINATES the source of fission you're talking about....whereas allowing incest CREATES a source of fission where none exists.

I suppose now you could try and make the argument that a person who wants incest will show their true colors in any given marital situation anyway. But aha! Incest is NOT an orientation because, again, incest is not an orientation. If incest is banned societally, a hetero incest perpetrator can just go, "Oh well!" and have sex with anyone else. Just because he PREFERS a direct relative, doesn't mean his orientation doesn't allow for other partners. He has a release, so it's not immutable like homosexuality. Not so for a blanket homosexuality ban. There is no release because the restriction is much more fundamental.

Get it now?

Probably not.

Again, both alchol and incest can have an indirectly adverse effect on ones families structure, as i've explained already, the diffrence in matter between the two is irrelevant in this case.

If you're fine with banning incest due to the the potential distabililsation effect it may have on families, you should be Ok with banning alchol as well, period.

If I may paraphrase your earlier point --- YOUR ANALOGY IS NOT ANALOGOUS.

I've already made the point that allowing gay marriage eliminates a source of fission whereas allowing incest creates one from thin air...so the idea of me having to ban gay marriage because I'm pro banning incest is already bunk.

Let's follow the alcohol analogy. "JJ, because you support banning incest due to its adverse affects on the family, you must also support banning alcohol. And hey, by the way JJ, you know what else can ruin families? fukking socket wrenches man. That's right. Socket wrenches. Because if you buy a socket wrench and get mad at your wife, then there's a chance you may throw it at her face and crack her fukking skull."

You get what I'm saying? Alcohol isn't sold for the sheer purpose of being misused or abused. It's not the alcohol itself that ruins families -- it's abuse and chemical dependency on alcohol. You misuse alcohol and fukk your life up. Use it properly and in moderation, and you don't ruin anything.

There's no "proper way" to use incest. It, by definition, destroys the family.

I can follow my argument just fine. It's not my fault that you can't. I'm done talking to this brick wall.

 

[Mountain]

...wait, so you just admitted that your analogy was NOT analogous? You realize that that's like, the point of an analogy, right? To be analogous? My god, is anyone else reading this?

My fault, I obviously misread your quote.

The sentence should have read something like this, “My point was not to illustrate human choice and sexual relationships as synonymous, my analogy was simply pointing that the availability of options alone does not justify legal prohibition.”.

It matters quite a bit, actually. If incest were a genuine, immutable urge like homosexuality, then we'd be having a different conversation. As it stands, it isn't. It's just a niche-fantasy under a much broader sexual orientation. No, it doesn't have to be heterosexual. But the fact that it's literally narrowed down to immediate family members, does not give it the same kind of weight that homosexuality has. You can invert the order of the arguments if it makes more sense. Because incest creates a source of fission in the family where none exists and homosexuality eliminates a source of fission (I'll elaborate on this below), and whereas homosexuality is immutable and incest is merely a repressable preference, we have more grounds to ban incest.



Alright, I'll spell it out. Here's why you made my argument for me:

The only way homosexual relationships are "destructive" under your scenario is in a universe where the option for gay marriage and a homo-normative relationship doesn't exist -- basically, the current world, in most places. The "coming out of the closet" argument don't matter if gay people have the option of entering gay relationships in the first place. None of that drama ever happens. So if gay relationships are allowed, the fission you're talking about disappears. All of the hierarchical family roles are the same, even if the gender within them is different.

With incest, It's exactly the opposite. If incest is allowed, the actual ROLES of the family become blurred, as opposed to merely the genders. Fathers and mothers now double as lovers. Brother and sister can be married couples living under the same roof as their parents.

So in retard terms...allowing monogamous homosexual relationships vis-a-vis marriage ELIMINATES the source of fission you're talking about....whereas allowing incest CREATES a source of fission where none exists.

I suppose now you could try and make the argument that a person who wants incest will show their true colors in any given marital situation anyway. But aha! Incest is NOT an orientation because, again, incest is not an orientation. If incest is banned societally, a hetero incest perpetrator can just go, "Oh well!" and have sex with anyone else. Just because he PREFERS a direct relative, doesn't mean his orientation doesn't allow for other partners. He has a release, so it's not immutable like homosexuality. Not so for a blanket homosexuality ban. There is no release because the restriction is much more fundamental.

Get it now?

Probably not.




If I may paraphrase your earlier point --- YOUR ANALOGY IS NOT ANALOGOUS.

I've already made the point that allowing gay marriage eliminates a source of fission whereas allowing incest creates one from thin air...so the idea of me having to ban gay marriage because I'm pro banning incest is already bunk.

Let's follow the alcohol analogy. "JJ, because you support banning incest due to its adverse affects on the family, you must also support banning alcohol. And hey, by the way JJ, you know what else can ruin families? fukking socket wrenches man. That's right. Socket wrenches. Because if you buy a socket wrench and get mad at your wife, then there's a chance you may throw it at her face and crack her fukking skull."

You get what I'm saying? Alcohol isn't sold for the sheer purpose of being misused or abused. It's not the alcohol itself that ruins families -- it's abuse and chemical dependency on alcohol. You misuse alcohol and fukk your life up. Use it properly and in moderation, and you don't ruin anything.

There's no "proper way" to use incest. It, by definition, destroys the family.

I can follow my argument just fine. It's not my fault that you can't. I'm done talking to this brick wall.

You're either attempting to deflect the argument, or you're being completely disingenuous. Let me rap this up.

If you weren’t so thick, you would understand that the two exceptions you listed are exclusive and separate, hence where my argument stems from. You listed two separate and exclusive "banable reasons", so I (and two other posters) attacked them both exclusively and separately.

Considering the latter, lets try this one more time; of the two separate and exclusive (read the latter very, very carefully) reasons you gave for banning incest, one of them was that incestuous couples have more sexual options than homosexuals, again, I simply pointed out that the availability of options alone does not justify the legal prohibition of anything, hence why i used the car analogy, it was to illustrate how foolish it would be to use the availability of options alone as the grounds of legal prohibition. Simple enough, well, perhaps not for you.

As for the alcohol analogy, again, your second separate and exclusive reason for banning incest was the fact that it may indirectly cause family disruption, so I sighted another example of a matter that may indirectly cause family disruption (alcohol) in order to illustrate how stupid your reasoning was. This really shouldn't be hard for you to understand slim.

You're to grown to be playing bullsht games like this, admit you made an error and keep it moving.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I don't think the comparison lies in the end result but the cause of said result. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality,etc are all deviant sexual desires from the norm. Society has decided which ones are worse than others but from a pure biological standpoint they are the same thing. These people can't help who they are attracted to. Just as gay dude can't decide to start being attracted to women, a pedophile can't just stop being attracted to children.

Society has a tendency to punish results rather than causes. For example two dudes get drunk at the bar. They both drive home drunk. On the way home one guy hits a tree the other guy hits a kid. The guy that hit the kid gets 10 years in prison. The guy that hits the tree gets a warning and is sent home. Why should their punishments be different? Their action/crime was the same.

Now I don't say all this to imply pedophilia, bestiality, insest, etc should/will become legal but i don't think we can on one hand fight for gay rights and acceptance while at the same time condemn pedophiles as vile rapists that should be thrown in jail. They can't help who they are attracted to.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

...wait, so you just admitted that your analogy was NOT analogous? You realize that that's like, the point of an analogy, right? To be analogous? My god, is anyone else reading this?



It matters quite a bit, actually. If incest were a genuine, immutable urge like homosexuality, then we'd be having a different conversation. As it stands, it isn't. It's just a niche-fantasy under a much broader sexual orientation. No, it doesn't have to be heterosexual. But the fact that it's literally narrowed down to immediate family members, does not give it the same kind of weight that homosexuality has. You can invert the order of the arguments if it makes more sense. Because incest creates a source of fission in the family where none exists and homosexuality eliminates a source of fission (I'll elaborate on this below), and whereas homosexuality is immutable and incest is merely a repressable preference, we have more grounds to ban incest.



Alright, I'll spell it out. Here's why you made my argument for me:

The only way homosexual relationships are "destructive" under your scenario is in a universe where the option for gay marriage and a homo-normative relationship doesn't exist -- basically, the current world, in most places. The "coming out of the closet" argument don't matter if gay people have the option of entering gay relationships in the first place. None of that drama ever happens. So if gay relationships are allowed, the fission you're talking about disappears. All of the hierarchical family roles are the same, even if the gender within them is different.

With incest, It's exactly the opposite. If incest is allowed, the actual ROLES of the family become blurred, as opposed to merely the genders. Fathers and mothers now double as lovers. Brother and sister can be married couples living under the same roof as their parents.

So in retard terms...allowing monogamous homosexual relationships vis-a-vis marriage ELIMINATES the source of fission you're talking about....whereas allowing incest CREATES a source of fission where none exists.

I suppose now you could try and make the argument that a person who wants incest will show their true colors in any given marital situation anyway. But aha! Incest is NOT an orientation because, again, incest is not an orientation. If incest is banned societally, a hetero incest perpetrator can just go, "Oh well!" and have sex with anyone else. Just because he PREFERS a direct relative, doesn't mean his orientation doesn't allow for other partners. He has a release, so it's not immutable like homosexuality. Not so for a blanket homosexuality ban. There is no release because the restriction is much more fundamental.

Get it now?

Probably not.




If I may paraphrase your earlier point --- YOUR ANALOGY IS NOT ANALOGOUS.

I've already made the point that allowing gay marriage eliminates a source of fission whereas allowing incest creates one from thin air...so the idea of me having to ban gay marriage because I'm pro banning incest is already bunk.

Let's follow the alcohol analogy. "JJ, because you support banning incest due to its adverse affects on the family, you must also support banning alcohol. And hey, by the way JJ, you know what else can ruin families? fukking socket wrenches man. That's right. Socket wrenches. Because if you buy a socket wrench and get mad at your wife, then there's a chance you may throw it at her face and crack her fukking skull."

You get what I'm saying? Alcohol isn't sold for the sheer purpose of being misused or abused. It's not the alcohol itself that ruins families -- it's abuse and chemical dependency on alcohol. You misuse alcohol and fukk your life up. Use it properly and in moderation, and you don't ruin anything.

There's no "proper way" to use incest. It, by definition, destroys the family.

I can follow my argument just fine. It's not my fault that you can't. I'm done talking to this brick wall.

Mountain Wolf is one of dumbest, most illogical posters the board has ever seen. He'll start with a bullshyt premise and dig in his heels and defend it til no end while butchering logic and facts. I remember there was this thread on the old site where dude argued for days that if I think Islam is a false and destructive, I am prejudiced and no different than a st0rmfr0nt poster. You can't help the condition of people like him.

 

[Black Hans]

LOL. There are a lot of idiots on here who apparently don't know what 'two consenting adults' means. If they did, they wouldn't waste time trying to compare it to pedophilia. You guys honestly think pedophilia is gonna be normalized in this country, just because a couple of delusional pedophiles are trying to justify raping kids?

I guess we'd better watch out....women are screwed because that means rape is gonna be legal, since some rapists say they feel compelled to do it. Murder and cannibalism will be acceptable too, since some serial killers/cannibals claim they can't help that behavior. But at least those things aren't as bad as trying to normalize two adult males minding their own business, getting married and having sex behind closed doors. Yeah, let's compare all those other things to that, since they're all equally as bad

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of inception. Do you really think someone is going to lobby in today's climate to make it legal for adults to fukk 9 year olds? No, it starts with something like reducing the age of consent to 16 b/c of the argument that a 16 year old is old enough to make their own decisions. Then it lowers to 15. Once that gets normalized, it's to anyone who hit puberty, etc. Don't believe this works? Tell me how America came to accepting homosexuality as not being a bad thing? *Waits for comparison to black people*

 

[Mountain]

Mountain Wolf is one of dumbest, most illogical posters the board has ever seen. He'll start with a bullshyt premise and dig in his heels and defend it til no end while butchering logic and facts.

Right, now where exactly in this thread did i "butcher logic and facts", go ahead, i'll wait.

I remember there was this thread on the old site where dude argued for days that if I think Islam is a false and destructive, I am prejudiced and no different than a st0rmfr0nt poster.

No one give a fukk what "you remember", If you're not trying to criticize my arguments in this thread constructively, don't quote me you lame fakkit. Catching feeling of a bullsht thread made, what, 1 year ago? Fck out of here hoe ass.

You can't help the condition of people like him.

You need to wory about your own condition you frail paki fukk, you look like you got aids.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Right, now where exactly in this thread did i "butcher logic and facts", go ahead, i'll wait.



No one give a fukk what "you remember", If you're not trying to criticize my arguments in this thread constructively, don't quote me you lame fakkit. Catching feeling of a bullsht thread made, what, 1 year ago? Fck out of here hoe ass.



You need to wory about your own condition you frail paki fukk, you look like you got aids.

Dude is furious as fukk.

 

[Metta World Movement]

It''s hilarious how dudes in here are complaining about the gay struggle being compared to the black struggle.....then they turn around compare this retarded 'pedo struggle' to the gay struggle

Neither having a dark skin color nor fukking ANY adult who consents to it, is a threat to society in any way. No one is getting hurt just because someone is black or because some guy is kissing another guy or sucking his dikk. fukking a child is CLEARLY wrong though, and is nowhere near being gay or being a certain race.

 

[714562]

My fault, I obviously misread your quote.

The sentence should have read something like this, “My point was not to illustrate human choice and sexual relationships as synonymous, my analogy was simply pointing that the availability of options alone does not justify legal prohibition.”.



You're either attempting to deflect the argument, or you're being completely disingenuous. Let me rap this up.

If you weren’t so thick, you would understand that the two exceptions you listed are exclusive and separate, hence where my argument stems from. You listed two separate and exclusive "banable reasons", so I (and two other posters) attacked them both exclusively and separately.

Considering the latter, lets try this one more time; of the two separate and exclusive (read the latter very, very carefully) reasons you gave for banning incest, one of them was that incestuous couples have more sexual options than homosexuals, again, I simply pointed out that the availability of options alone does not justify the legal prohibition of anything, hence why i used the car analogy, it was to illustrate how foolish it would be to use the availability of options alone as the grounds of legal prohibition. Simple enough, well, perhaps not for you.

As for the alcohol analogy, again, your second separate and exclusive reason for banning incest was the fact that it may indirectly cause family disruption, so I sighted another example of a matter that may indirectly cause family disruption (alcohol) in order to illustrate how stupid your reasoning was. This really shouldn't be hard for you to understand slim.

You're to grown to be playing bullsht games like this, admit you made an error and keep it moving.

...okay, so since you can't disprove my actual post, you decide to make up a condition that never existed.

Why are my reasons now mutually exclusive? Because you decided they were to make your argument convenient? I never said each reason existed in a vacuum. I just said there were two reasons.

I even clarified by saying, "If it's easier to understand, then you can reverse the order I listed them in." I posted the orientation one before the other because the thread was more about comparing the two at the time.

People who are smart enough to get it, got it immediately.

They understood that the reason I mentioned the "not an orientation" argument at all is to preempt the contention that people into incest will commit incest regardless of whether it's legal or not. Why? Because, once more, it's not an orientation. They can fukk other people. The opposite is true for gay people. They can't just "straighten up" if they're truly 100% gay.

The relative destructiveness of homosexuality and incest is another matter, but it finds strength in the fact that, if marriage is allowed, then gay people can actually FORM strong family units since there's no way for them to be in a healthy hetero marriage. Allowing incest does the opposite -- it creates fission where none existed. And whereas the gay fission will only exist if homosexual marriage is banned, because gay people have no other option but to be gay, the incestuous fission will only exist if incest is made explicitly legal and acceptable, because otherwise incest perpetrators can go out and have sex with just about anyone else.

That's why the two arguments are related and, like I said, people who were smart enough to pick up on this got it immediately.

I'm sorry that I had to spoon-feed it to you.

Now go take a lap. You're done here.

 

[Mountain]

Dude is furious as fukk.

No I ain't, just getting back at your ass for throwing shade my way for some hoe ass reason like a bytch

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

No I ain't, just getting back at your ass for throwing shade my way for some hoe ass reason like a bytch

 

[Mountain]

...okay, so since you can't disprove my actual post, you decide to make up a condition that never existed.

Stop there, "condition that never existed"? Are you saying that the the two reasons in the post bellow were not separate and exclusive, this your post, quote:

Except this argument is retarded for two reasons.

1) "Incest" is not a sexual orientation. If the law bans gay sex, gay people can't have sex lives. AT ALL. If the law says you can't bang your sister, you literally have millions of other options. All you need to do is leave the house.

2) Unlike monogamous homosexual relations, incest actually DOES destroy the family. If you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy hetero unit. So the best course of action is for them to marry each other and divide mommy/daddy roles between themselves. Now, think about all the bridges you've burned between yourself and your friends by having sex with them. I'll give you a minute. Got it? Okay. Now imagine doing that WITHIN YOUR FAMILY. Yeah. THAT'LL destroy a family unit really, really quickly.

Are the two reasons you gave in that post seprate and exclusive, or not?

Ya'll nikkas man

 

[714562]

Stop there, "condition that never existed"? Are you saying that the the two reasons in the post bellow were not separate and exclusive, this your post, quote:



Are the two reasons you gave in that post seprate and exclusive, or not?



Ya'll nikkas man

Does it say "for two MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE reasons?"

Hmm? Does it?

I'll wait.

Find it.