son comes out of the closet to his religous parents

[SC kid]

So if someone believes african americans are an inferior race theyre not racist until they act on it lol

 

[am1x90xnike]

Master..like seriously man? I know it doesn't matter, but I used to have respect for you, but the pot shots and lack of reading/comtemplation you are slowly, slowly losing my respect.

Racisms =/= sex, as sex is something defined by the physical act and racisms is defined by a mental disposition. Which is why I framed the argument in the cloth of pedophiles, a very similiar taboo act.  It was never actually illegal to be a racists, but acting on it is illegal.  However, we can only punish the act and not the thought, we shouldn't be punishing people for whats in their heads.

 

[Master Zik]

This strawman of pedophile v sex offender is all but useless. I'm talking about 14/15/16 year olds, which, if you told your friends that you slept with one, would call you a pedophile, even though, technically you are not, but colloquially you are.  Walk outside, right now, tell the first person you see that you are attracted to a 15 year old, I'm all but certain they will call you a pedophile, as sex offender is kind of a "higher level" term.

Now you not even using colloquially properly. If you a grown *** man in your 30s or late 20s having sex with 14 yr olds you a pedophile technically and colloquially and legally.

 

[am1x90xnike]

Wait, I though pedophilia was defined by having sex with a prepubescent...14 is in puberty... so a 14 year old is outside of the traditional scope of pedohilia right? ....like thats your definition, not mine, I think it's all the same, but according to you a few pages back.  but....again, you strawman, strawman, strawman.

 

[keko jones]

I know you feel ganged up on (I guess by the both of us) but regardless it doesn't change the truth of what's being said. This is just deflecting
Listen, you can believe what you want but it doesn't make it right or true or a fact. You are wrong if you think a person can't believe in GOD if they don't believe in some "holy" text. This is evidenced by the millions of ppl that believe in a GOD of a different religion that has no holy text that comes with it or the scores of individuals that have abandoned religion and any reading requirements that come with it but still believe in a higher power. It doesn't matter what other "billions" of ppl say on the matter because they have no authority on what a person chooses to believe and how they believe and how they practice their beliefs. Those ppl are simply just advocating their religion and "holy" text not objectively addressing that to believe in a higher power all you need is to believe in it not a book telling you how and made up man written scriptures with fictional stories.

I'm not saying you're wrong because I think you're wrong. You're wrong because you're factually wrong. You can't tell other ppl what they can believe in and what they can't believe in. You can't tell a person they have to believe in a "holy" book if they want to believe in GOD.

Like I said before you don't want to accept that, go educate yourself. or wallow in that specific kind of ignorance.

show me how is fact my dude? feel ganged up??? buahahaha dude you nor him make me feel any type of way ... its funny that you are trying to impose your will or believes on me and calling it fact .. the only fact is that you think one way and I think another one .. until you can prove me wrong keep it moving ..

just because millions believe in what higher power is not a religious higher power ... just a higher power .. in order to believe in Allah, Buddhism, Christianity, God - they have to believe in the scripture ... your argument ... there are millions that believe in a higher power = god ... sure - Im wrong .... ***** ....

educate myself???, but I went to a catholic based school and took multiple courses on the theology of god and other religions ... buahahaha ok my dude!

 

[Master Zik]

Master..like seriously man? I know it doesn't matter, but I used to have respect for you, but the pot shots and lack of reading/comtemplation you are slowly, slowly losing my respect.

I don't care if you have respect for me or not. So whether you still have it for me or not as you just said doesn't matter.

You constantly going down this path in numerous threads long ago made me not think highly of you at the least.

I'm calling a spade a spade here. I've read, you just don't like my response to it or that I'm not gonna play your game and engage you the way you want me to. Whether that's you trolling on a different or level or not I'd say get use to this any time I choose to engage you in these sorts of topics if I disagree with your stance. Basically the same way I treat everybody else. You don't have to like it.

 

[keko jones]

double

 

[am1x90xnike]

I don't care if you disagree with me, but you have yet to provide a single argument. Like, you say "I don't understand" but then sum it up perfectly, you say "I don't agree" but never point out flaws...and now, you are changing your own definitions. I also love how I say 15, you quote 15, but then say 14...isn't that you changing the argument?

Ya'll are trying to get me to break my argument, but I have been saying the same thing since my last sexuality class about five years ago, I'm glad ya'll are questioning it, forces me to tighten up my stance. And, honestly, I feel like I've come up with an acceptable rebuttal to every counterpoint.

 

[keko jones]

 

I understand your argument, but society determines what socially acceptable ....

Example a 17 y/o can join the armed forces but he can't drink nor buy smokes - but yet he can be given a firearm and permission to kill defend.

Example a 14 y/o can commit a crime like kill (extreme) and be prosecuted on the fact that he knows right from wrong but if the same child has consensual sex with an adult is a crime because he doesn't know any better ....

Come on ......

I don't agree or disagree - it's just funny how we as a society dictate what's acceptable and what's not ....

I think maturity comes with life experiences and not age ... that's just what I believe.

 

[timcity2000]

ultimately, yes... society determines what is morally/legally acceptable.

and that's one reason i usually dismiss the old "what's next... bestiality? incest? polygamy? pedophilia/underage sex?" argument.

they're all COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. homosexuality is closer to heterosexuality than to any of those other things i just listed. both are relationships between two adults with complete consent, neither of which harms either of the two parties involved.

look, if there are people out there that want to fight for the legalization of bestiality, underage sex, polygamy, etc... go for it! i'm fairly confident that our society at large will continue to oppose these ideas for various reasons. and if an argument presents itself for the legalization of one of them... great! guess we were wrong.

in the meantime, homosexuality will continue to be more and more accepted as society slowly realizes there was never a reason to oppose it.

 

[swendro]

Why do you all entertain his rambling fool? He's the worst.

 

[am1x90xnike]

Once again, what society? Thats a very American centered thinking, as posted, in Mexico the age of consent is like 12, of course, you can dismiss it as a third world country, but Spain is 12, Germany's is 13, Italy 13 etc. I'm not saying we got it wrong, but to say "society" is a loaded term.

I think a female 20 year old having sex with a male 15 year old is...in fact...heterosexuality.

I'm not fighting for pedophile rights, I've actually said in this thread that I'm a huge proponent of homosexual rights. I've said it ten times in this thread, I just want people to admit homosexuality is a choice, no different than the choice to sleep with someone 15. I kept it at pedophilia because it is heterosexual, because a lot of us did have sex before we were legally suppose to. I'm not arguing besatiality, or incests (even though it wouldn't be a bad argument) or any of that, I kept my argument narrow for a reason. 

Ya'll are accusing me of "moving the ball" but I haven't wavered, look at my first post in this thread, it is in fact you guys bringing up beastiality, going on pedophile v sex offender arguments etc.

It's just frustrating when people just make stuff up, despite there being an easily accessible record.

 

[htg designs]

You know what I always wondered, why is there always a male and a female acting male in gay relationships? Like no matter how manly they are, theres always one that got the most feminine tendancies/ attitude.

 

[dutchroyalt]

ultimately, yes... society determines what is morally/legally acceptable.

and that's one reason i usually dismiss the old "what's next... bestiality? incest? polygamy? pedophilia/underage sex?" argument.

they're all COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. homosexuality is closer to heterosexuality than to any of those other things i just listed. both are relationships between two adults with complete consent, neither of which harms either of the two parties involved.

look, if there are people out there that want to fight for the legalization of bestiality, underage sex, polygamy, etc... go for it! i'm fairly confident that our society at large will continue to oppose these ideas for various reasons. and if an argument presents itself for the legalization of one of them... great! guess we were wrong.

in the meantime, homosexuality will continue to be more and more accepted as society slowly realizes there was never a reason to oppose it.

yea i agree with the exception (even tho i personally dont want it) having multiple wives... In fact one could argue that this has been a practice faaaar longer then our typical americanized marriage and also this isnt even practiced worldwide.

Tbh honest the biggest reason homosexuality has been accepted is 1. the vast amount of ppl who have came out. 2.. The amount of powerful, influential and wealthy ppl who have came out. 3. The large uproar and stand to which homosexuals have had in terms of being accepted and fighting for equal/civil rights... Although one could argue they kinda put them in jeopardy by being overtly stereotypical gay...(cause how else would someone discriminate against you on sexual orientation unless you were overt and over the top about it) 

If enough ppl. especially rich and powerful ppl wanted polygamy... it would be accepted. It wouldnt surprise me at all if any of them could be society norms if enough ppl were behind it and had the power influence and money and uproaor to support it.

 

[Master Zik]

I know you feel ganged up on (I guess by the both of us) but regardless it doesn't change the truth of what's being said. This is just deflecting

Listen, you can believe what you want but it doesn't make it right or true or a fact. You are wrong if you think a person can't believe in GOD if they don't believe in some "holy" text. This is evidenced by the millions of ppl that believe in a GOD of a different religion that has no holy text that comes with it or the scores of individuals that have abandoned religion and any reading requirements that come with it but still believe in a higher power. It doesn't matter what other "billions" of ppl say on the matter because they have no authority on what a person chooses to believe and how they believe and how they practice their beliefs. Those ppl are simply just advocating their religion and "holy" text not objectively addressing that to believe in a higher power all you need is to believe in it not a book telling you how and made up man written scriptures with fictional stories.


I'm not saying you're wrong because I think you're wrong. You're wrong because you're factually wrong. You can't tell other ppl what they can believe in and what they can't believe in. You can't tell a person they have to believe in a "holy" book if they want to believe in GOD.


Like I said before you don't want to accept that, go educate yourself. or wallow in that specific kind of ignorance.

show me how is fact my dude?

Google deist to start with. There's plenty of those ppl. Believe in GOD but not any of the "holy" texts. Then there are some religions that do not even have a holy text but believe in GOD

Bottom line, you can not tell a person how to believe in GOD. You can't tell someone if you believe in GOD you also have to believe in this "holy" text that comes with it. I get the feeling you're also not thinking about any religion other than the 3 Abrahamic religions which would at least explain your close minded approach to this simple notion that you can't understand.

feel ganged up??? buahahaha dude you nor him make me feel any type of way

The way you've been acting makes me think you feel that way. Every other post is you commenting about me defending Couplet88 or him defending me when I already told you I'm defending what was said, you got some weak *** slick comment about more than one person responding to you. You seem hurt by it so you're lashing out by calling things cute. It really has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, it seems more like you're just trying to go on a tangent.

... its funny that you are trying to impose your will or believes on me and calling it fact .. the only fact is that you think one way and I think another one .. until you can prove me wrong keep it moving ..

Like I said before you can think what you want or believe what you want all I'm saying is in this case it's wrong.

These ppl exist. Plenty of them on NT. for you to say they can't believe in GOD because of a book is wrong. By these ppl simply existing you are wrong.

just because millions believe in what higher power is not a religious higher power

I never said it was a religious higher power though. Not that it matters but even it if it was my argument doesn't change..

.. just a higher power

I'm not gonna play semantics

in order to believe in Allah, Buddhism, Christianity, God - they have to believe in the scripture ... your argument ... there are millions that believe in a higher power = god ... sure - Im wrong .... ***** ....

No they don't.

educate myself???, but I went to a catholic based school and took multiple courses on the theology of god and other religions ... buahahaha ok my dude!

Now instead of focusing solely on catholic school and your theology course actually research what you're arguing against. Instead of just parroting what you've been told.

I really can't help you more than I already have. It's up to you now.

 

[boris]

 
I'm not fighting for pedophile rights, I've actually said in this thread that I'm a huge proponent of homosexual rights. I've said it ten times in this thread, I just want people to admit homosexuality is a choice, no different than the choice to sleep with someone 15. I kept it at pedophilia because it is heterosexual, because a lot of us did have sex before we were legally suppose to. I'm not arguing besatiality, or incests (even though it wouldn't be a bad argument) or any of that, I kept my argument narrow for a reason. 

Ya'll are accusing me of "moving the ball" but I haven't wavered, look at my first post in this thread, it is in fact you guys bringing up beastiality, going on pedophile v sex offender arguments etc.

It's just frustrating when people just make stuff up, despite there being an easily accessible record.

Here's this issue that I see you having. Your argument is that homosexuality is a choice and you're basing that on the assumption that everyone agrees one cannot be homosexual unless they engage in homosexual intercourse. 

 

 
being a pedophile is not against the law. acting on it is.

i'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore..

Thats my point, being attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay, acting on it does.

I don't think everyone agrees with this. I'd be willing to bet that most people would consider a person homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same sex. 

 

To ME, your not gay until you have sex, I mean, it's in the name homoSEXuality. It's all about sex.

straight from webster's:

1 ho·mo·sex·u·al adjective \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\

: sexually attracted to people of the same sex

: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex

As pointed out with this definition, one is considered a homosexual when they are attracted to someone of the same sex. 

I wouldn't say you're moving the goal posts or anything, but you seem to be trying to brut force your argument without people actually agreeing on the premise. To be honest, I haven't followed every post, so maybe I'm not speaking for everyone here. 

 

[am1x90xnike]

I've been trying to address that premise. We've talked about that definition and how it is inaccurate.

For that preposition, I posed the question, is a 20 year old who is attracted to a 15 year old a pedophile (or sex offender, whatever, we've covered this definition)?

At what point do you draw the thought v act line? Are we ridiculing people for their thoughts? I don't think homosexuals are being prosecuted for being attracted to the same sex, as if they are only attracted to another person but keep it to themselves than no one will know, thus they can't be prosecuted. They are prosecuted because they commit various acts, from wearing flamboyent shirts (which is complete bs to me) to actually having sex.

I'm having trouble with this distinction. I've drawn a hard line at act, because thoughts without action (even if the act is just writing) should not be prosecuted/labeled because they are nothing but that, just thoughts.

 

[offbad]

 

[deleted]

I kept my argument narrow for a reason. 

Because it's a narrow-minded argument. That's the reason.

You don't understand that sexuality is not determined by intercourse and you don't understand that "sex offender" is not a sexual identity.

 

[am1x90xnike]

What is narrow minded about it? I"m not excluding people, it was very well researched and logically thought out...unless I don't understand the meaning of "narrow minded"

I don't believe in the "gender identity" because its completely based on stereotypes. After reading a whole lot a bout the subject, it's so shallow. It's people who like to dress a certain way but happen to have sex with the same sex. Like I've said before, you don't need to be gay to love a nice broadway play, or to enjoy wearing silver hot pants....it's queer, but doesn't make one gay.

I can dig your frustrations though, My ideals are completely different from what the interwebz and the tv have told us to believe, in fact, they are almost contrary to the interwebz and whats worse, the logic is pretty damn tight, as I've thought about this ever sense I realized my Uncle was gay. He didn't act like those other gay dudes, he just liked having sex with Uncle Junior. In fact, he used to call those super gay dudes [derogatory terms] all the time, he'd be on his "why do they have to act that way? Like why did that dude change his voice?"  He was a very interesting and intelligent man, but he had no handle on the whole "gay thing" himself, and he was gay himself...ended up dying of HIV...but you know what they say, "you're not gay until you're dying of ____, gay."  RIP Unc.

 

[Coupé It]

Those states may have higher atheist or agnostic populations, but the majority of the time, the percentage of people who are in a religion or believe in a higher power(not even talking about religious people) trumps those who are atheists or agnostics. So that point was irrelevant. The fact that you attributed low education to belief in religion shows your ignorance. Maybe you should be blaming education or the lack of education when talking about prejudice, but that has nothing to do with belief in God. With or without religion, these people would be prejudiced. Religion statistics are flawed a lot of the time anyways. You say that people with higher educations and economies have high atheist populations, but I would say that the majority of kids in the hood like Chicago for example are atheists or agnostics. Now would you say those kids are uneducated because of their belief or would you say that their lack of education and support system. Also what does Europe failing as a country because they unwisely combined church and state have to do with anything? I can show you plenty of countries that had the church and state completely separate and were horrible so it makes no sense to use that example.

Also show me your statistics, I can easily show stats that show certain races are superior in the same way you find atheism superior to religion. You see what's wrong with that way of thinking?

"Maybe I should be blaming education or the lack of education when talking about prejudice.." - This is an example of spinning ladies and gentlemen, just in case people weren't aware what "spinning" was.

And no I don't think their is anything wrong with bringing up the fact that the percentage of atheists/agnostic people grow within the communities with higher levels of education. You can attribute those numbers to common sense, if you're indeed objective enough to do so. And no that has absolutely does not compare to racism, another ridiculously stupid way to spin things.

 

[boris]

 
I've been trying to address that premise. We've talked about that definition and how it is inaccurate.

For that preposition, I posed the question, is a 20 year old who is attracted to a 15 year old a pedophile (or sex offender, whatever, we've covered this definition)?

At what point do you draw the thought v act line? Are we ridiculing people for their thoughts? I don't think homosexuals are being prosecuted for being attracted to the same sex, as if they are only attracted to another person but keep it to themselves than no one will know, thus they can't be prosecuted. They are prosecuted because they commit various acts, from wearing flamboyent shirts (which is complete bs to me) to actually having sex.

I'm having trouble with this distinction. I've drawn a hard line at act, because thoughts without action (even if the act is just writing) should not be prosecuted/labeled because they are nothing but that, just thoughts.

According to who is it inaccurate? You? Again, you're trying to convince your audience that your position is correct, so you need them to be in agreement with what you're saying. 

As for pedophile:

pe·do·phile

ˈpedəˌfīl/

noun

1. 
   a person who is sexually attracted to children.

 

[deleted]

What is narrow minded about it? I"m not excluding people, it was very well researched and logically thought out...unless I don't understand the meaning of "narrow minded"

I don't believe in the "gender identity" because its completely based on stereotypes. After reading a whole lot a bout the subject, it's so shallow. It's people who like to dress a certain way but happen to have sex with the same sex. Like I've said before, you don't need to be gay to love a nice broadway play, or to enjoy wearing silver hot pants....it's queer, but doesn't make one gay.

Sexual identity isn't the same as gender identity.

I would think you would know that after "reading a whole lot about the subject".

 

[am1x90xnike]

Here you go man, just in case you had questions. I think it's all bs, but some smart people really have some smart things to say on the subject.

 

[deleted]

Cool, but I'm not the one who needs that.