Don't Say Gay Bill :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#77 Apr 25 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Almalieque wrote:

This is just going to open a can of worms of other topics that you'll just be biased against. You'll respond with "love is not defined by sex" and then I'll respond with "Either or, As an adult, I can't date a 16 year old and say 'we're in love with each other, we aren't having sex, so it's ok'". Then you'll respond with "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults". I respond with the fact that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement. You'll respond that you're giving up and that it's a waste of time to argue with me. Pages later, we'll rinse and repeat.

Sorry to butt in, but if you don't do anything physical, is there a law against "dating" an under-aged person? I don't believe there is. Even kissing them could be illegal, but simply saying "We're dating and in love" isn't against the law. Arranged marriages, for example, still do happen in the US and are very common around the rest of the world. Sometimes children are promised even before birth. These people would be "dating" even if they've never met.

The consent issue, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid point. That you seem not to believe consent matters in these situations (or at least you're writing it off as hypocrisy... which honestly makes no sense... can gays not consent?), is another matter entirely.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#78 Apr 25 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good

Ailitardif

Sage

2,069 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Locked,

Quote:

that the revolutions in the Middle East and the Wisconsin teacher unions were all connected through a shadowy international, government-sponsored Marxist movement

It's not some shadowy international syndicate doing this; it's the US govn under the lead of Obama. And it's happening in broad daylight.

Obama gave Egypt to the radical muslims. He's assisting the radical muslims in Lybia. He assisted the govn unions in Wisc in their attempt to overthrow the duly elected state govn. I hate to upset your sad little existence but Obama's doing exactly what he means to. He's setting up and supporting as many islamic states as he possibly can. The muslims know this which has directly led to the increased violence in the ME over the last 2yrs.

If this makes sense to you, the terrorist have won.

____________________________

http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#79 Apr 25 2011 at 12:12 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Quote:

It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?

I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.

If it is not science it does not even earn mention in passing, not even so much as a "intelligent design is not science, this however is:" disclaimer. NONE.

There are other classes for discussion of religion. Science is not one of them.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#80 Apr 25 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

bsphil wrote:

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Quote:

It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?

I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.

If it is not science it does not even earn mention in passing, not even so much as a "intelligent design is not science, this however is:" disclaimer. NONE.

There are other classes for discussion of religion. Science is not one of them.

So long as its a widely used dispute to a theory, it has a valid place being pointed out as so. You can scream and cry about it all you want, doesn't remove the reality that as a widely (and sadly) accepted alternative, it should be mentioned. You want to pull a black and white, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that the world exists in the grey.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 3:22pm by Uglysasquatch

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#81 Apr 25 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

bsphil wrote:

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Quote:

It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?

I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.

If it is not science it does not even earn mention in passing, not even so much as a "intelligent design is not science, this however is:" disclaimer. NONE.

There are other classes for discussion of religion. Science is not one of them.

So long as its a widely used dispute to a theory, it has a valid place being pointed out as so. You can scream and cry about it all you want, doesn't remove the reality that as a widely (and sadly) accepted alternative, it should be mentioned. You want to pull a black and white, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that the world exists in the grey.

In an English or history class? Absolutely.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#82 Apr 25 2011 at 12:33 PM Rating: Excellent

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

Ok, fair enough. I guess I wasn't giving enough weight specifically to "in a science class."

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#83 Apr 25 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

For something to be taught in Science, it should abide by the Scientific Method. I think that's simple enough.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#84 Apr 25 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.

Just how messed up is your cousin? Smiley: confused

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#86 Apr 25 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

But, I'll answer your question anyway.

First, I responded earlier to Nali (I don't know which thread now that they have blended) that Christians have their own personal reasons against homosexuality. The one's that say "It's a sin" are simply using religion as a scapegoat for their reasons. That is unless, they are not purposely "sinning" in any other area.

But to answer your question in the least amount of words, "The ***** goes in the ******".

So, what you're saying is, you've got nothing? You're going to say that there are reasons other than religion then when asked to back it up, you don't have anything? Because "the ***** goes in the ******" isn't an answer. Men put their *****'s into a woman's asshole all the time. There is nothing that a homosexual couple does sexually that a man and a woman can't do. Somethings might require a special adaption, but it's all been done.

The problem is, I can't think of any reason that someone would be against homosexuality that isn't religious in nature. So please provide me with an example.

Almalieque wrote:

To orient you to your sex, hence "Sex Ed". In Biology, you're going over the body parts from more of a natural science point of view. In a sex Ed class, you're talking about your body from a more social science point of view. You can discuss the stages of puberty and how the body works. That doesn't mean you have to talk about the difference between and a BJ and a HJ.

So from one extreme to the other, eh? Social science, as in, who you're attracted to and why your bodies react thus towards those you are attracted to? Yeah, I can't see why sexual orientation wouldn't come up there... /rolleyes

Almalieque wrote:

I'm not denying that stuff happens. My point is at that age, I don't want a teacher giving my child their opinions on sex. I admit that society changes throughout time and we become more and more sexual, but you can't assume that everyone or the majority of the children are having sexual relations before the 8th grade.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything, really.

Almalieque wrote:

So what if they had a full-blown sex class (everything you would want to know)in the 8th grade? What help does that do if your children are having sex in the 7th grade? This is why parents have to be involved. Unless you start teaching students Sex Ed from Pre-k, waiting till your local schools systematically teach your children about sex may be too late.

Who said 8th grade? I believe I said our sex-ed class was in the sixth grade... And when did I say parents shouldn't be involved?

Almalieque wrote:

I've already said that the bill was silly, but I would have to read the whole bill in order to have a fair judgement.

So, if you want to focus purely on the bill, then I think the bill is incomplete and should include all sexuality.

I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#87 Apr 25 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

This is just going to open a can of worms of other topics that you'll just be biased against. You'll respond with "love is not defined by sex" and then I'll respond with "Either or, As an adult, I can't date a 16 year old and say 'we're in love with each other, we aren't having sex, so it's ok'". Then you'll respond with "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults". I respond with the fact that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement. You'll respond that you're giving up and that it's a waste of time to argue with me. Pages later, we'll rinse and repeat.

Sorry to butt in, but if you don't do anything physical, is there a law against "dating" an under-aged person? I don't believe there is. Even kissing them could be illegal, but simply saying "We're dating and in love" isn't against the law. Arranged marriages, for example, still do happen in the US and are very common around the rest of the world. Sometimes children are promised even before birth. These people would be "dating" even if they've never met.

.

You could be absolutely correct. I'm not sure if it is or it isn't. You would have to define "dating" and what part of that is actually illegal? In any case, I would wager that it would be frowned upon by society regardless.

Locke wrote:

The consent issue, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid point. That you seem not to believe consent matters in these situations (or at least you're writing it off as hypocrisy... which honestly makes no sense... can gays not consent?), is another matter entirely

You lost me there...

The hypocrisy statement was in reference to the hypothetical response in regards to "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse" to "the ***** goes in the ******" statement. I presented a relationship (an adult and a minor) and my assumption was that she would say that is "against the law". The reason why she would probably say that is because she would make the assumption that they are having sexual relations. That is a fair assumption because that's what couples do. So the hypocrisy would be, why would you assume homosexuals don't do the same, given "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse"? How is it that you can make the assumption with a minor, but not with the homosexual?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#88 Apr 25 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.

Just how messed up is your cousin? Smiley: confused

On a scale of one to Varus, she's Varus's right-wing cousin as well. Here's part of our conversation:

Cousin wrote:

I tried to explain it to you but you don't seem to understand it the same way. I could explain it again, but I really don't see the point. I could actually give you examples right here on my facebook friend list of people that are working on this all over the world but I really don't win anything with that.

My great uncle used to say "in the business you don't win anything, you'll lose for sure" I posted this as I post everything else I find interesting, like the Marxist School in Morrocco. You don't want to understand it, you seem to prefer to distorted and mock me because of the way I see politics, I really don't care. As a matter of fact you are just proving my point of how close minded and unable to understand other points of view some people are. So keep going, it's working great for my research on how people on the left are so much more inclined to react and "scream" to something they don't agree with. The people on the right just read it, maybe comment and keep going. For some reason you guys can't do that.

Me wrote:

Of course I don't understand it the same way. I think that's obvious? I'm attempting to point out how your thoughts on this seem, for lack of a better term, paranoid. I'm sorry if my ribbing upset you - I'm trying to get you to see how you're appearing to others. Even in your response, you paint over half of the population as "screamers" and the other half as rational... just a sentence after saying how some people are close-minded and unable to understand other points of view.

I understand that you think Marxism is responsible for these revolutions and the Wisconsin teacher unions. I just don't understand how you can, as there seems to be no evidence of it (if anything, I'd think you'd argue it's a fundamentalist Islamic uprising in the ME).

What followed were 5 youtube video links from her with self-avowed Marxists claiming that the working man is rising up all over the world and we'll soon all be brothers in communism. All of them are white, shiny-eyed, kinda grungy, and likely have no idea where the ME revolutions actually happened. Smiley: oyvey

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#89 Apr 25 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

I presented a relationship (an adult and a minor) and my assumption was that she would say that is "against the law". The reason why she would probably say that is because she would make the assumption that they are having sexual relations. That is a fair assumption because that's what couples do.

Actually, the reason it's illegal is because it is feared that the adult would take advantage of the child. Sex is where the law draws the line, because otherwise it's a rather ambiguous law.

Not that any of this matters, because your statement about vanilla sexual relations between a man and a woman did not garner (and would not have garnered) the response you expected.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#90 Apr 25 2011 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Almalieque wrote:

So the hypocrisy would be, why would you assume homosexuals don't do the same, given "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse"? How is it that you can make the assumption with a minor, but not with the homosexual?

Ah, gotcha. I saw "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults" and wondered why your issue was with the subject of consent between the two parties. I don't think many people would use "it's against the law," but rather, "a child is not able to give legal consent," hence me assuming your issue was with consent as opposed to a weak argument. My bad.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#91 Apr 25 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

Belkira wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

I presented a relationship (an adult and a minor) and my assumption was that she would say that is "against the law". The reason why she would probably say that is because she would make the assumption that they are having sexual relations. That is a fair assumption because that's what couples do.

Actually, the reason it's illegal is because it is feared that the adult would take advantage of the child. Sex is where the law draws the line, because otherwise it's a rather ambiguous law.

Not that any of this matters, because your statement about vanilla sexual relations between a man and a woman did not garner (and would not have garnered) the response you expected.

Alma wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

#92 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 1:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No one is terrified of sex. People are terrified of the outcomes of sex and the responsibility that comes along with it.

#93 REDACTED, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 1:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,

Quote Reply

#94 Apr 25 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

So the hypocrisy would be, why would you assume homosexuals don't do the same, given "homosexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse"? How is it that you can make the assumption with a minor, but not with the homosexual?

Ah, gotcha. I saw "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults" and wondered why your issue was with the subject of consent between the two parties. I don't think many people would use "it's against the law," but rather, "a child is not able to give legal consent," hence me assuming your issue was with consent as opposed to a weak argument. My bad.

Wouldn't not being able to give legal consent be considered illegal if done?

Belkira wrote:

Actually, the reason it's illegal is because it is feared that the adult would take advantage of the child. Sex is where the law draws the line, because otherwise it's a rather ambiguous law.

Not that any of this matters, because your statement about vanilla sexual relations between a man and a woman did not garner (and would not have garnered) the response you expected.

If it's consensual, how is "taking advantage" weighing more in that relationship than in any other relationship? So, the girl just turned 18. Is she really that much different than a year and some days ago?

▲ Page top

#95 REDACTED, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 1:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,

Quote Reply

#96 Apr 25 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.

They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Bull ****. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#97 Apr 25 2011 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

varusword75 wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.

They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.

Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#98 Apr 25 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

I don't get why people are so terrified of sex. It boggles my mind.

They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Except for the "harmful" part - it's not. Before you even start digging, don't bother posting your link from some conservative and/or christian website detailing with no empirical research how being gay is somehow a health risk. Been down that road before, and like anything else that comes out of your head, it's stupid and factually incorrect.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#99 Apr 25 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

LockeColeMA wrote:

Cousin wrote:

As a matter of fact you are just proving my point of how close minded and unable to understand other points of view some people are. So keep going, it's working great for my research on how people on the left are so much more inclined to react and "scream" to something they don't agree with.

People try to use that lame shit on Facebook too, huh?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#100 Apr 25 2011 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Jophiel wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Cousin wrote:

As a matter of fact you are just proving my point of how close minded and unable to understand other points of view some people are. So keep going, it's working great for my research on how people on the left are so much more inclined to react and "scream" to something they don't agree with.

People try to use that lame shit on Facebook too, huh?

I thought the exact same thing Smiley: laugh

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#101 Apr 25 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

According to my cousin, the entire thing is run by Lal Khan and Alan Woods.

Just how messed up is your cousin? Smiley: confused

On a scale of one to Varus, she's Varus's right-wing cousin as well.

Have you tried smacking her round the head with some heavy books? Maybe it'll make her smarter and at the very least it can't make her any dumber.

▲ Page top

Don't Say Gay BillFollow