SkinsNumberOne Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Art So, you appreciate that what once may have been deemed illegal may soon change. This appears to be a strong theme in what you've been saying here. Fear of change or slippery slopes, ideally should not dissuade us from doing what we believe is right. Societies evolve. We learn more as we develop. It's natural for our laws to evolve and develop at the same time, and they historically have. We shouldn't simply fear legalizing what was once illegal or even the other way around. We just have to prove why it should be the other way around (and typically, changing the status quo does require more evidence than any defense of the status quo). That's where I personally think talking about slippery slopes all the time does sound like fear mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Art Code, Can you imagine screwing a 10-year-old girl? I hope not. But, for those who can, by your logic, they are born that way. As long as your consistent and happy with the results of your consistency. You always bring this up and there's one big problem and you know what it is... A 10 year old girl is a minor, she isn't of age for a person above 18 to legally have sex with her. Once she is 18, she can have sex with a 90 year old man if she really wants to, but until then, she isn't an adult. We are talking about adults, making decisions with both adults in agreement. No one's rights are being violated. Comparing a gay person to a pedophile is pretty weak. I understand what you mean in the sense that they may be born a pedophile, but in their case, what they want compromises someone elses rights, just like a murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfanjoe Actually the Bible( The Word) itself does condemn the practice of homosexuality numerous times. Jesus being the Word (John 1:1-3) ie. God. Condemns homosexuality through his inspired Word through the Prophets and Apostles many times in Scripture. As for the uproar about homosexuality, if you actually read my posts in this thread I said that if this were a debate about adultry or besteality being legalized then I would being saying the same exact thing. Well, I think the government should step in an intervene with adultry, IMO, it's worse than homosexuality. People's trust is violated, kids are often hurt etc... BTW, the new testament is a secondhand account of Jesus' words, I don't believe he left any of his own writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama Comparing a gay person to a pedophile is pretty weak. I agree. It's incredibly weak becuase there is not a consenting partner in pedophilia, or beastiality. The people that argue that people will want to marry trees or guinea pigs in 50 years are just using that same slippery slope fallicy of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 The age of consent is an issue but it is also a "moral" judgement by society on when an individual has sound enough reasoning to make decisions for him or herself. Why can't that "moral" judgement be challenged as well? After all in some societies a 14 year old would be an "adult". Where is the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanjoe Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama BTW, the new testament is a secondhand account of Jesus' words, I don't believe he left any of his own writings. :ot: Did you even see my last post? I posted a verse that said Jesus was (is) God. If he's God than every word in the Bible was inspired by him. Henceforth, the whole Bible is His writing spoken through men. If you don't believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word or that Jesus is God then fine we'll leave it at that. There is no point in going round and round about something that's way off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Stu The age of consent is an issue but it is also a "moral" judgement by society on when an individual has sound enough reasoning to make decisions for him or herself. Why can't that "moral" judgement be challenged as well? After all in some societies a 14 year old would be an "adult". Where is the line? Do you think that societies evolve and develop? Do you believe that they *should* evolve and develop? If you do, it seems that the line is defined and redefined; fear of a "slippery slope" shouldn't stop us from evolving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Stu The age of consent is an issue but it is also a "moral" judgement by society on when an individual has sound enough reasoning to make decisions for him or herself. Why can't that "moral" judgement be challenged as well? After all in some societies a 14 year old would be an "adult". Where is the line? Well it should be based on an individual basis, some 14 year olds are mature enough to consent some aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama Well, I think the government should step in an intervene with adultry, IMO, it's worse than homosexuality. People's trust is violated, kids are often hurt etc... BTW, the new testament is a secondhand account of Jesus' words, I don't believe he left any of his own writings. I believe the goverment used to punish adultry ,at least untill they loosened the moral code.In a way they still do punish adultry thru divorce courts. As far as comparing gays to pedophiles,a person is only breaking what society has set as a moral code when they have sex with a minor. While most rational people find that abhorant,there is a large segment of people that do not. IE: the kiddie porn business and the customers. Anyone see a trend here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Do you think that societies evolve and develop? Do you believe that they *should* evolve and develop? If you do, it seems that the line is defined and redefined; fear of a "slippery slope" shouldn't stop us from evolving. Or devolving as well. Where is your line or does anything go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflagg215 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Well it should be based on an individual basis, some 14 year olds are mature enough to consent some aren't. I see what you are trying to say here. But I am going to have to disagree. A 14 year old has no idea what the impact of his/her decision has. I know 23 year olds that don't know what they want. Also if you wanna put it on an individual basis, how are you gonna set that up. Add a branch to the courts that are already months behind. Instate sex consent licenses like drivers licensces. How will an individual basis work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeydont Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 :helmet: this is a redskins football site not a site for perverted lifestyle endorsments lets talk catching footballs not catching aids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Stu Or devolving as well. Where is your line or does anything go? Evolving, devolving, that's a matter of opinion. Society's "line" moves over time, that's my point. Fear of a slippery slope shouldn't prevent us from using any awareness or knowledge that we develop over time in the application of our laws. The line should not be defined by fear of change. That's why talking about slippery slopes and the like puts me off a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 honeydon't..... don't you think that maybe as a newbie to the site you should just look around a bit before criticizing what we talk about here, I mean, take a look at the post totals of the people you're lecturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Evolving, devolving, that's a matter of opinion. Society's "line" moves over time, that's my point. Fear of a slippery slope shouldn't prevent us from using any awareness or knowledge that we develop over time in the application of our laws. The line should not be defined by fear of change. That's why talking about slippery slopes and the like puts me off a bit. Certainly the line has and will continue to be adjusted. My point is the gay community has not shown that they are being harmed by not granting them privileges that traditionaly are for the benefit of the family unit.[Which is what society evolved from] The need to grant them has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction.[And the Majority of society ,judging from the last election] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by twa Certainly the line has and will continue to be adjusted. My point is the gay community has not shown that they are being harmed by not granting them privileges that traditionaly are for the benefit of the family unit.[Which is what society evolved from] The need to grant them has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction.[And the Majority of society ,judging from the last election] I'm not currently arguing that point. I'm trying to move people from talking about slippery slopes. The status quo isn't right because it's the status quo. It's right because ___insert argument here___. That's how I'd prefer we argue societal values. That said, would you be against removing marriage from the legal vernacular and having it be strictly a religious term (replacing marriage in the legal sense with a more generic term like "civil union")? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Evolving, devolving, that's a matter of opinion. Society's "line" moves over time, that's my point. Fear of a slippery slope shouldn't prevent us from using any awareness or knowledge that we develop over time in the application of our laws. The line should not be defined by fear of change. That's why talking about slippery slopes and the like puts me off a bit. So you would be in favor of making the legal age of consent say 12 years old? How about 14? 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Stu So you would be in favor of making the legal age of consent say 12 years old? How about 14? 10? Either I don't get the point you're making, or you don't get mine. How would allowing gay marriage automatically lead to lowering the age of consent? I'm not specifically arguing for the allowance of gay marriage, but it seems like you're implying something like that. For the record, I'm fine with 18, even though it would seem to have nothing to do with what I thought the point of the discussion was (whether fear of a slippery slope was a valid reason to avoid the modification of laws). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne I'm not currently arguing that point. I'm trying to move people from talking about slippery slopes. The status quo isn't right because it's the status quo. It's right because ___insert argument here___. That's how I'd prefer we argue societal values. That said, would you be against removing marriage from the legal vernacular and having it be strictly a religious term (replacing marriage in the legal sense with a more generic term like "civil union")? I already feel marriage is more a religous state than a civil matter. As far as civil unions IMO it goes back to the need for the gay community to demonstrate a true need for it. I personaly do not care what a persons sexual preferences are as long as they are not harming someone else. But to get back to gay marriage, Why change what we have now. IMO this is nothing but a attempt to legislate acceptance . While I have gay friends and family members the NEED has not been demonstated.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 It hurts those who hate to see gays, and who are hopeing that they disapear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Either I don't get the point you're making, or you don't get mine. How would allowing gay marriage automatically lead to lowering the age of consent? I'm not specifically arguing for the allowance of gay marriage, but it seems like you're implying something like that. For the record, I'm fine with 18, even though it would seem to have nothing to do with what I thought the point of the discussion was (whether fear of a slippery slope was a valid reason to avoid the modification of laws). Because society has made its decision based upon the collective morality that 18 is the age of consent just like gay "marriage" is has been deemed unacceptable since it is not in the best interest of the community. I guarantee that the same arguments used to support gay "marriage" will be used to support other more extreme lifestyles and sooner or later you will find yourself on the same side of the fence as me but with little leg to stand on. After all, if it's good for the gays then why can't we entertain a 14 year old getting married. Who are we to judge? There is a line which many seem to suggest that there isn't. I prefer to keep the line where it is. Just because you don't like the notion of a "slippery slope" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Either I don't get the point you're making, or you don't get mine. How would allowing gay marriage automatically lead to lowering the age of consent? I'm not specifically arguing for the allowance of gay marriage, but it seems like you're implying something like that. For the record, I'm fine with 18, even though it would seem to have nothing to do with what I thought the point of the discussion was (whether fear of a slippery slope was a valid reason to avoid the modification of laws). IMO what stu is saying if you change the moral line that society has made be it gay marriage,age of consent..or what ever...It becomes easier for others to change it also........I have to agree with him.....Show me the compelling NEED to change:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Stu Because society has made its decision based upon the collective morality that 18 is the age of consent just like gay "marriage" is has been deemed unacceptable since it is not in the best interest of the community. I guarantee that the same arguments used to support gay "marriage" will be used to support other more extreme lifestyles and sooner or later you will find yourself on the same side of the fence as me but with little leg to stand on. After all, if it's good for the gays then why can't we entertain a 14 year old getting married. Who are we to judge? There is a line which many seem to suggest that there isn't. I prefer to keep the line where it is. Just because you don't like the notion of a "slippery slope" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm fine with the notion of a slippery slope. It has merit in some arguments. All I'm saying is that if we're arguing "What rights should homosexuals have?" I don't particularly like "I don't want 14 years of age to be the age of consent" to be a reason you would want homosexuals not be allowed to marry. Do you see what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by twa I already feel marriage is more a religous state than a civil matter. As far as civil unions IMO it goes back to the need for the gay community to demonstrate a true need for it. I personaly do not care what a persons sexual preferences are as long as they are not harming someone else. But to get back to gay marriage, Why change what we have now. IMO this is nothing but a attempt to legislate acceptance . While I have gay friends and family members the NEED has not been demonstated.:2cents: How, in your opinion, does one demonstrate the need for heterosexual marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne I'm fine with the notion of a slippery slope. It has merit in some arguments. All I'm saying is that if we're arguing "What rights should homosexuals have?" I don't particularly like "I don't want 14 years of age to be the age of consent" to be a reason you would want homosexuals not be allowed to marry. Do you see what I mean? I understand your point. My point is that we all make moral judgements. The age of consent is one that we have made because we believe it is good for society as a whole. Just the same, society has determined that marriage is to be defined as between a man and a woman for moral reasons and thus the good of society. We all pronounce moral judgements, its just a matter of where we draw the line. I just believe once we allow the line to be moved it is easier to then continue to do so. (The age of consent is just an example of where I think a similiar argument will be used in the future. It's not necessarily an "if-then" proposition as you inferred.) We should therefore, think long and hard about doing so to begin with. I stand against the notion of gay "marriage". There has yet to be a compelling reason given for the need aside from "touch-feely" type arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.