Dissapointed in North Carolina law
Forums › General Discussion › Dissapointed in North Carolina law-
Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
They mean FULL equality. Marriage, adoption, protected under the law. To loose the fear of being fired, and so on.Tonytlj add:TLJ wrote:
No it doesn't. They do receive equality.I used to work in a movie theatre where almost 1/4 of the employees were gay. Two childhood friends of mine are gay. They were not raised to be gay. They just are. Why does it matter what caused it? It doesn't make them any less eligible for equality.
-
"The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration. The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights..."
-
"To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse. Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church..."
-
". A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things." (Skillen, 2004)
So this author's argument is you aren't losing a civil right because it is by definition not marriage. What do you think of that perspective? -
I see it this way. I don't want to offend anyone, buy I'm going to put my opinion out there because everyone is entitled. So please don't ER me or my turfs. I don't want any trouble.
Ok, if homosexuality is natural like people say, then is it safe to assume that they are born with the natural attraction to children?
I know that there are people out there attracted to items like walls, furniture, and even animals. Is that natural too?
People call these things disgusting, criminal, and creepy. How do you know it's not natural to be sexually attracted to a child, just as it's "natural" to be attracted to the same sex? It's all based on our moral perception. As a society, we have accepted gays and criminalized pedophiles. When you look at it from a "born-with-it" view, you see that all forms of sexual attraction must be accepted. Not just three. (bi/gay/straight).
Sure, this country is free, but freedom does not entitle us to accept all lifestyles. Just as you don't accept creepers. -
In all honesty though, none of our opinions matter in the end. People will always have different opinions.
This is not a place to fight about our opinions. It's a safe, fun, and enjoyable community. Sure, we might not all get along, but our ideas and concepts about contraversial subjects should be reserved for forums that a specifically designed for these things.
😊 -
༄Løsτ☣☠Bφy༄ wrote:
Yes but children cannot consent to it. Animals cannot either. Adults can and it doesn't harm others.I see it this way. I don't want to offend anyone, buy I'm going to put my opinion out there because everyone is entitled. So please don't ER me or my turfs. I don't want any trouble.
Ok, if homosexuality is natural like people say, then is it safe to assume that they are born with the natural attraction to children?
People call these things disgusting, It's all based on our moral perception. As a society, we have accepted gays and criminalized pedophiles. When you look at it from a "born-with-it" view, you see that all forms of sexual attraction must be accepted. Not just three. (bi/gay/straight).
Sure, this country is free, but freedom does not entitle us to accept all lifestyles. Just as you don't accept creepers. -
Creepers lmao
-
Kevster 🇺🇸💀🔫 wrote:
👆I agree with Kevster that is two entirely different subjects. Plus I don't feel homosexuals should be punished in any way for their actions. But I feel pedophiles should get their balls chopped off shoved down their throats and then slit their throat to put it mildly.༄Løsτ☣☠Bφy༄ wrote:
Yes but children cannot consent to it. Animals cannot either. Adults can and it doesn't harm others.I see it this way. I don't want to offend anyone, buy I'm going to put my opinion out there because everyone is entitled. So please don't ER me or my turfs. I don't want any trouble.
Ok, if homosexuality is natural like people say, then is it safe to assume that they are born with the natural attraction to children?
.
-
I think the death penalty should be warranted in cases of pedophilia. I wouldn't even mind if that meant I was their executioner.
-
Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
Kevster 🇺🇸💀🔫 wrote:
༄Løsτ☣☠Bφy༄ wrote:
See? Just as I have stated. Exactly what I'm saying.👆I agree with Kevster that is two entirely different subjects. Plus I don't feel homosexuals should be punished
"Plus I don't feel homosexuals should be punished in any way for their actions. But I feel pedophiles should get their balls chopped off..."
It's moral perception. What we view as right and wrong as a society.
So what I'm saying is, that if homosexuality is acceptable, then why aren't all other forms of sexuality acceptable? Because we view them as wrong and harmful. And that's why some people don't support gay rights. Because of our moral understanding. -
Is it just me or have some of these quotes been tampered with during this discussion
-
I don't mean to diverge from the topic but some of these quotes seem out of their place.
-
⌖🔥DEV@STATOR🔥⌖ wrote:
I don't know what you are talkin about. 😜Is it just me or does everyone believe unicorns would make great pets?
-
⌖🔥DEV@STATOR🔥⌖ wrote:
Ya I saw that. I was like "what, I didnt write that" then it hit me lol. But they didn't understand what I wrote. About consenting to it. Children cannot do it is wrong. Animals cannot do it is wrong. Two adults can so what's the big deal?I don't mean to diverge from the topic but some of these quotes seem out of their place.
-
Ugh why the F&@K does my phone keep changing so to do? 😔
-
YOU says:
You missed his point. Children cannot consent, therefore it is not just a moral perception of it being wrong, it is tantamount to comparing an adult consensual sexual relationship with pedophilia rape. I also think that if one of the adults (whether homosexual or heterosexual) did not consent to sex that it is morally wrong because it is rape as well. You are comparing apples to oranges. I see what you are trying to do, but it is illogical, the relativistic theory and approach you are using doesn't work because you are not using consenting persons in your hypothetical scenarios.3 sec agoDELETE
This is what I wrote to him regarding his scenarios. I definitely agree with Kevster on this topic.
-
Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
What if it is just a natural occurrence and yet can't help it?I think the death penalty should be warranted in cases of pedophilia. I wouldn't even mind if that meant I was their executioner.
-
Carpenter wrote:
Rape is a natural occurrence? Get real. I have no sympathy for pedophiles, if they are having those thoughts they should go get castrated. Or chemical castrated. They are still responsible for their actions. Everyone is responsible for their actions.Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
What if it is just a natural occurrence and yet can't help it?I think the death penalty should be warranted in cases of pedophilia. I wouldn't even mind if that meant I was their executioner.
-
I would still hang, shoot, electric shock, cut their balls off whatever it took. "it would be better for them to be thrown in the depths of the sea"
-
I'm not saying pedophiles are good at all. I'm saying that pedophilia, being describes as a physical attraction to prepubescent or otherwise young children should not be acted on. You are 100% right when you say they are responsible for what they do. But if they don't act on their thoughts, what is the problem?
-
Also, I'm not defending pedophilia in any way, simply trying to say that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right.
-
Carpenter wrote:
I thought you were a Christian? If so, by your own moral standard just the thought and desire of it would be sin. It's not a "natural" occurrence. There is more argument for homosexuality to be natural and I doubt you'll find any sound valid arguments for pedophilia to be "natural" it disgusts me that you think it would be. There DSM doesn't have homosexuality as a mental disorder, but it does have pedophilia. It is considering a paraphilia, which is considered not have a "normative" or "NATURAL" desire!!I'm not saying pedophiles are good at all. I'm saying that pedophilia, being describes as a physical attraction to prepubescent or otherwise young children should not be acted on. You are 100% right when you say they are responsible for what they do. But if they don't act on their thoughts, what is the problem?
-
Carpenter wrote:
Exactly true. BUT you are trying to use that against homosexuals. What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is no ones business. If they wish to marry why deny them that? Did you know that you saying know means neither can see each other on there death bed? Neither gains the rights over their partners property upon death. Two men or women being married has no affect on any straight couples marriage. Marriage is not a religious right, or just for over populating the earth. It is a bond between two adults that love each other. Atleast that's the way it is in Canada.Also, I'm not defending pedophilia in any way, simply trying to say that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right.
-
Carpenter although I'm not a homosexual, if you keep arguing and trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality which is apples to oranges, it will start to make me wonder about you. There is nothing "natural" about pedophilia. Look up the DSM category of what accounts for a pedophile so you know by definition that which I'm speaking of, I think you'll find some pissed off people here if you keep drawing comparisons to homosexuals and pedophiles it is a very ignorant form of thinking, and it's grasping at straws although I see where you are TRYING to go you're failing miserably.
-
I wonder what this would be like if belial were here??
-
What does it make you wonder? And I'm simply comparing the facts that both have considerable evidence to show that they can appear through both nurture and nature elements. Also, when I say natural, I don't mean normal at all. If we come to the conclusion that heterosexuality is natural and accepted, them we can say homosexuality is natural and accepted, cant we can continue to say pedosexuality and necrosexuality are natural and accepted? Where do we draw the line?
-
Carpenter wrote:
My belief is that hetero or homo doesn't matter, cuz it doesn't hurt anyone. Pedo, however can almost ALWAYS be classified as child rapeWhat does it make you wonder? And I'm simply comparing the facts that both have considerable evidence to show that they can appear through both nurture and nature elements. Also, when I say natural, I don't mean normal at all. If we come to the conclusion that heterosexuality is natural and accepted, them we can say homosexuality is natural and accepted, cant we can continue to say pedosexuality and necrosexuality are natural and accepted? Where do we draw the line?
-
Carpenter wrote:
We draw the line at consent. you're trying to draw it someplace completely past where consent lies.What does it make you wonder? And I'm simply comparing the facts that both have considerable evidence to show that they can appear through both nurture and nature elements. Also, when I say natural, I don't mean normal at all. If we come to the conclusion that heterosexuality is natural and accepted, them we can say homosexuality is natural and accepted, cant we can continue to say pedosexuality and necrosexuality are natural and accepted? Where do we draw the line?
-
Ojibwe wrote:
takedownCarpenter wrote:
We draw the line at consent. you're trying to draw it someplace completely past where consent lies.What does it make you wonder? And I'm simply comparing the facts that both have considerable evidence to show that they can appear through both nurture and nature elements. Also, when I say natural, I don't mean normal at all. If we come to the conclusion that heterosexuality is natural and accepted, them we can say homosexuality is natural and accepted, cant we can continue to say pedosexuality and necrosexuality are natural and accepted? Where do we draw the line?
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC