2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

I can't believe you're putting pedophilia (or the others, but this just struck me the most) in the same ballpark as homosexuality. There's a distinct difference: the three that you mentioned are a crime. Those sexual urges are inappropriate by most people's standards, where as homosexuality is generally not. So there may be cases where someone flirts with someone of the same sex and it's not wanted, but that's not committing a crime.

Rape, on the other hand, regardless of sexuality, is a crime.

Most of the things you listed for Pedophilia is the exact same thing people said about Homosexuality in the 1950s. "Crime" "Inappropriate by most people's standards" etc etc.

You are pushing wildly off-topic. The issue is that remarks were made which classify the promotion of basic human rights as something special.

This topic basically went off topic the moment after you agreed the ad wasn't necessarily anti gay. My view is that for those who have sexual urges outside the two or three main groups, they look upon what Homosexuality gets as a "Special Right".

[ChobiChibi]

Yes, but that's the 1950's Roy, not now. Last time I checked it's 2011, where homosexuality is something not to be ashamed of.

I just find this all rich from someone who is apparently supportive of my own sexuality. And the pedophilia comments coming from someone who likes lolita... Just doesn't really sit that well with me.

[kurai]

This topic basically went off topic the moment after you agreed the ad wasn't necessarily anti gay. My view is that for those who have sexual urges outside the two or three main groups, they look upon what Homosexuality gets as a "Special Right".

Is Rick Perry arguing for pedophile justice in his remarks against Obama's diplomatic initiative?

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, but that's the 1950's Roy, not now. Last time I checked it's 2011, where homosexuality is something not to be ashamed of.

I just find this all rich from someone who is apparently supportive of my own sexuality. And the pedophilia comments coming from someone who likes lolita... Just doesn't really sit that well with me.

Hey lets not make any accusations here, I am not saying homosexuality is anything to be ashamed of, I say a person should embrace it. But the comparison can be made, and for people who do suffer from various other sexualities they are treated as if it were the 1950s still.

Is Rick Perry arguing for pedophile justice in his remarks against Obama's diplomatic initiative?

Seeing how my view on Sexuality is incredibly progressive, I doubt so, then again I believe I started out by saying that my view on Sexuality was extremely progressive.

[ChobiChibi]

Well, you're currently saying that I suffer from my sexuality. How is that the case? If it is something, as you said, that I should embrace, in what way does that make me suffer?

Personally, it is not an inconvenience. It has never become an issue with my boyfriend, since those "urges" I apparently have don't ever present a problem.

If anything, you're just making yourself sound more homophobic than you are.

[Roy Karrde]

Well, you're currently saying that I suffer from my sexuality. How is that the case? If it is something, as you said, that I should embrace, in what way does that make me suffer?

Personally, it is not an inconvenience. It has never become an issue with my boyfriend, since those "urges" I apparently have don't ever present a problem.

If anything, you're just making yourself sound more homophobic than you are.

Maybe I am mistyping it, I am not saying Homosexuals suffer ( except for those who sadly remain in the closet out of fear of reprisal, or who are still attacked by bigots ), I am saying those outside of the main three "Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Heterosexuality" suffer, they do not have support groups, they do not have pride parades, the mere mention of their sexuality is enough to ban them from jobs or get them arrested or even killed. That is what I am talking about when I say suffering.

[ChobiChibi]

The things that people "suffer" from aren't sexuality, not in that definition. Pedophilia, bestiality and whatever that last one was are sexual, but can't be defined as sexuality. It is more of an illness, in the loosest of terms, if you were to say that they suffer with these things.

To be honest, if a teacher turned out to have committed a sexual act on a child previously, no matter how long ago, I would certainly be very skeptical of hiring them. Wouldn't you? Would you want your child to be taught by someone who has been arrested/jailed for pedophilia? That's what criminal record checks are for. I've never heard of someone being refused a job for being caught doing the whole bestiality thing.

[Roy Karrde]

The things that people "suffer" from aren't sexuality, not in that definition. Pedophilia, bestiality and whatever that last one was are sexual, but can't be defined as sexuality. It is more of an illness, in the loosest of terms, if you were to say that they suffer with these things.

I say suffer because they have sexual urges that they cannot fix other than chemical means, and little to no support group in society. Its not a illness anymore than homosexuality is a illness or bisexuality is a illness, it is actual sexual urges that are no different than the urges anyone else feels.

To be honest, if a teacher turned out to have committed a sexual act on a child previously, no matter how long ago, I would certainly be very skeptical of hiring them. Wouldn't you? Would you want your child to be taught by someone who has been arrested/jailed for pedophilia? That's what criminal record checks are for. I've never heard of someone being refused a job for being caught doing the whole bestiality thing.

Of course, but if you were told a person had zoophilia would you hire that person at a zoo or a farm even if he had never engaged in the act? Same with pedophilia and what ever else? If they had come out and admitted it, or viewed a site on their computer or what ever it is, should they be hired for that job?

[kurai]

Seeing how my view on Sexuality is incredibly progressive, I doubt so, then again I believe I started out by saying that my view on Sexuality was extremely progressive.

You are actually presenting a viewpoint that is extremely regressive and offensive. This sort of equation is the same argument used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality in the first place - differing from heteronormativity as crime. The other sexualities you mention only remain justified as crime because they necessitate the removal of consent from sexual intercourse. This is why the equation is offensive. LGBT identity and action is not crime as it does not seek to remove consent.

Despite this, some states accept your contention and issue capital punishment for all manner of alternative sexualities without differentiating in this crucial manner. As I provided earlier, some of your examples do not even make sense, where states are typically more harsh on the LGBT than zoophiles...

Regardless, if you doubt that Rick Perry was as "progressive" as the approach you think you are taking, why do you insist on accepting and defending his characterization of human rights for LGBT as "special"? Either you are being intentionally disingenuous, or you have failed to connect your "progressive" interpretation of his remarks with their real world consequences (the remaining explanation is only the viciously heteronormative mandate for 'traditional values').

[Roy Karrde]

You are actually presenting a viewpoint that is extremely regressive and offensive.

Funny I was about to say the same about you.

This sort of equation is the same argument used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality in the first place - differing from heteronormativity as crime. The other sexualities you mention only remain justified as crime because they necessitate the removal of consent from sexual intercourse. This is why the equation is offensive. LGBT identity and action is not crime as it does not seek to remove consent.

You do realize as I have mentioned that those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person. That is unless you believe drawn images suddenly should first give consent.

Despite this, some states accept your contention and issue capital punishment for all manner of alternative sexualities without differentiating in this crucial manner. As I provided earlier, some of your examples do not even make sense, where states are typically more harsh on the LGBT than zoophiles...

You seem to have become fairly ignorant of what I am saying, I will repeat it once. I am not saying that other sexualities outside of heterosexuality should be punished. But understood, helped within the manner that does not revolve around actual sexual acts.

Regardless, if you doubt that Rick Perry was as "progressive" as the approach you think you are taking, why do you insist on accepting and defending his characterization of human rights for LGBT as "special"? Either you are being intentionally disingenuous, or you have failed to connect your "progressive" interpretation of his remarks with their real world consequences (the remaining explanation is only the viciously heteronormative mandate for 'traditional values').

I am not accepting his view of it as special, I see it as special in the view of those who have other sexualities and remain on the outside looking in, just as I believe that transsexuals would see it as special if they were not given the same rights or treatment as Gays.

[kurai]

I am not accepting his view of it as special, I see it as special in the view of those who have other sexualities and remain on the outside looking in, just as I believe that transsexuals would see it as special if they were not given the same rights or treatment as Gays.

You have selected disingenuous naivete! Congratulations!

As you reject the concept introduced by Rick Perry, "special rights for gays", you can also set aside concerns over homosexuals receiving treatment above that of other sexualities - you provide confirmation that this is not what he means.

No one appears to be arguing against equal treatment for any alternative identity. Indeed, you write that "those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person" - the same is true for your examples as is present in the group targeted by the original diplomatic policy (LGBT).

You might then ask, why not defend the pedophile's right to a fair trial? Such is not a systematic problem. This is a systematic problem. As such, it is being addressed by policy, the criticism of which (by Perry) you set out to defend from the offset, on which you now have wavered (you support it after your own reinterpretation).

Of course, the finest self-contradiction can be observed now that we have come full circle. Early on, you engaged the critique that "it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace[sic] it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is." You have extensively sought to make Rick Perry's remarks on "special rights" out to be more than they are (a plea for justice rather than horrible discrimination).

[Roy Karrde]

As you reject the concept introduced by Rick Perry, "special rights for gays", you can also set aside concerns over homosexuals receiving treatment above that of other sexualities - you provide confirmation that this is not what he means.

So people will not be arrested for viewing drawn images of children? They will not be fired at the mere suspicion that they are a Zoophilie or Pedophile? Great to hear.

No one appears to be arguing against equal treatment for any alternative identity. Indeed, you write that "those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person" - the same is true for your examples as is present in the group targeted by the original diplomatic policy (LGBT).

And yet by and large the LGBT community has advanced in leaps and bounds over the last thirty years in their treatment, and their protection. Same cannot be said for others.

You might then ask, why not defend the pedophile's right to a fair trial? Such is not a systematic problem. This is a systematic problem. As such, it is being addressed by policy, the criticism of which (by Perry) you set out to defend from the offset, on which you now have wavered (you support it after your own reinterpretation).

Really that is not a systemic problem? Last time I checked 18 USC 1466A was still on the books and people were still imprisoned from it. How many Gays are currently imprisoned in the United States based on viewing Gay Porn?

I am not arguing that there are still places in the world that put out horrible Homosexual laws. However do not be ignorant enough to believe that the LGBT community has made large leaps and bounds in most if not all First World countries. While those with other Sexualities have not.

Of course, the finest self-contradiction can be observed now that we have come full circle. Early on, you engaged the critique that "it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace[sic] it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is." You have extensively sought to make Rick Perry's remarks on "special rights" out to be more than they are (a plea for justice rather than horrible discrimination).

I am not adopting it any where near the context Perry has. And so far you have provided no defense to the fact that those who have not had the luxury of being inside the LGBT bubble are still forced to live in the shadows and do not enjoy the Special Rights bestowed upon the LGBT community

Since you seem to not only be pathetically ignorant but also engage in personal attacks, I am going to act like the Mod here and step out until we do return to the Presidential Election discussion.

[kurai]

It is surely a personal attack to maintain the current discourse using the words of the very same debate.

In any event, we find an interesting, yet off-topic refocus on domestic issues. Luckily, the opening subject was a comment on international diplomatic relations. The issue is not whether injustice is only present for those in the LGBT community, to the exclusion of others (and consequently, whether redress is only available for the same group). This is your personal reinterpretation of what "special rights" would mean in some nebulous context. The so-called "LGBT bubble" and the "leaps and bounds in most if not all First World countries" have nothing to do with the diplomatic initiative towards areas where these are not present:

I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation. That is why I declared before heads of state gathered at the United Nations, "no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere." Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere.

The issue was always whether or not it was right for Rick Perry to criticize a policy aimed at the improvement of existing abrogations of human rights. Certainly, a single approach to removing a particular kind of injustice will not provide universal justice. Who would ever claim this?

Pray we do not forget so soon the transcendent words:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

Why not praise the corollary: a threat to injustice anywhere is the provision of justice everywhere? It is difficult to comprehend the vigor with which you stand allied to the side of monstrous tyranny - under the guise of "traditional values". Let progress stand, even if it is only incremental.

[Blademaster]

my view on Sexuality is incredibly progressive

[Roy Karrde]

Not every Conservative is straight Conservative across the board.

[Gavin Luper]

Ahh I see Godwin's law rears its ugly head.

Yes, but it's a pretty clear similarity between the two in terms of the exclusion of groups of human beings from human rights. The fact that this comparison happens often doesn't make it any less relevant and telling to the point at hand, and I notice you didn't deny the similarity between Perry and Hitler either. Both are abject, though obviously to different degrees. (Although, hey, who knows what Perry would do with a bit of power? He doesn't seem to have a problem that these homosexuals who live their "offensive lifestyle" are killed and imprisoned internationally, maybe he'd cut out their pesky "special" rights in the US, too, and recriminalise homosexuality? It's offensive, after all.)

I'd argue the rest but it's clear from the enormous debate between you and kurai that even trying to slowly reason with you and rationally investigate your points still yields nothing but blind ignorance. I'm far from the kind of person who wants everyone to agree with his point of view (I enjoy a good debate and I am strongly supportive of people being free to articulate their views) but when the point of view being argued is basic human rights (i.e. not being killed by your government) and you're still essentially defending Perry on that issue, I just can't fathom it and I've lost all respect for your intellectual position, which is highly unintellectual and immoral. So reasoning with you is clearly futile; there is no reason or human compassion in your position.

My sentiments exactly.

[Dark Sage]

I was dredging up some news stories from last year... Sarah Palin was very popular then. So many GOP voters were putting their support behind her. I said she didn't have a snowball's chance, but everyone laughed at me.

Despite the chance that it was two weeks before Christmas then too, and she had just shot a reindeer and made it public. I still can't believe she did that.

Now she's the subject of a made-for-TV movie, and possibly a reality show; my prediction is that both will flop.

I hope people take me seriously this time.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, but it's a pretty clear similarity between the two in terms of the exclusion of groups of human beings from human rights. The fact that this comparison happens often doesn't make it any less relevant and telling to the point at hand, and I notice you didn't deny the similarity between Perry and Hitler either. Both are abject, though obviously to different degrees. (Although, hey, who knows what Perry would do with a bit of power? He doesn't seem to have a problem that these homosexuals who live their "offensive lifestyle" are killed and imprisoned internationally, maybe he'd cut out their pesky "special" rights in the US, too, and recriminalise homosexuality? It's offensive, after all.)

The reason I did not argue against it is because the argument between Hitler and anyone is so inane, so over the top, that it does not deserve to be argued with. The point deserves to be shunned and moved on with, and that is exactly what I did.

I'd argue the rest but it's clear from the enormous debate between you and kurai that even trying to slowly reason with you and rationally investigate your points still yields nothing but blind ignorance. I'm far from the kind of person who wants everyone to agree with his point of view (I enjoy a good debate and I am strongly supportive of people being free to articulate their views) but when the point of view being argued is basic human rights (i.e. not being killed by your government) and you're still essentially defending Perry on that issue, I just can't fathom it and I've lost all respect for your intellectual position, which is highly unintellectual and immoral. So reasoning with you is clearly futile; there is no reason or human compassion in your position.

So now you are arguing that Perry wants to actually kill Gays, and... you call me ignorant? Wow just... wow.

[Asilynne]

What's wrong with shooting a reindeer? o.o are they sacred or something? Now if she didn't eat it that would be a problem lol

[ChobiChibi]

He's not arguing that Perry wants to kill homosexuals. The comparison to Hitler is more that they segregate (sp? Phone doesn't flag it up) a certain type of people (Hitler, the Jews, those with disabilities and homosexuals; certain current politicians homosexuals) and effectively punishing them. Alright, so in the US it hasn't gone as far as genocide, but like Gavin said, they're quite happy to sit back and let it happen in other countries.

[Roy Karrde]

He's not arguing that Perry wants to kill homosexuals. The comparison to Hitler is more that they segregate (sp? Phone doesn't flag it up) a certain type of people (Hitler, the Jews, those with disabilities and homosexuals; certain current politicians homosexuals) and effectively punishing them. Alright, so in the US it hasn't gone as far as genocide, but like Gavin said, they're quite happy to sit back and let it happen in other countries.

I believe the line "but when the point of view being argued is basic human rights (i.e. not being killed by your government)" heavily suggests that he believes that Perry wants to kill Homosexuals.

Anyway the argument in and of itself is such a politically bigoted argument that it really does not deserve to be argued with. Any politician can be compared to Hitler, I remember the outrage around here a few years back when some one had Obama's face on Hitler's body for a signature. The thing is, that the argument is so atrocious so outside the realm of reality, that it does not deserve recognition.

[Dark Sage]

What's wrong with shooting a reindeer? o.o are they sacred or something? Now if she didn't eat it that would be a problem lol

Technically, it was an elk. But when you publically kill something that's a symbol of Christmas two weeks before the holiday, it isn't good for your PR.

[Gavin Luper]

What's wrong with shooting a reindeer? o.o are they sacred or something? Now if she didn't eat it that would be a problem lol

I'm inclined to agree. As long as it was hunted for food and not for sport, and it wasn't protected, I don't see what the problem is. I mean, Palin is still a rampaging moron, but I don't see the ethical problem with it.

He's not arguing that Perry wants to kill homosexuals. The comparison to Hitler is more that they segregate (sp? Phone doesn't flag it up) a certain type of people (Hitler, the Jews, those with disabilities and homosexuals; certain current politicians homosexuals) and effectively punishing them. Alright, so in the US it hasn't gone as far as genocide, but like Gavin said, they're quite happy to sit back and let it happen in other countries.

Yes, exactly.

I believe the line "but when the point of view being argued is basic human rights (i.e. not being killed by your government)" heavily suggests that he believes that Perry wants to kill Homosexuals.

Anyway the argument in and of itself is such a politically bigoted argument that it really does not deserve to be argued with. Any politician can be compared to Hitler, I remember the outrage around here a few years back when some one had Obama's face on Hitler's body for a signature. The thing is, that the argument is so atrocious so outside the realm of reality, that it does not deserve recognition.

It's a valid point. The legalised murder of homosexuals in about half the countries in the world is not systematic like Hitler's regime, but it still denies basic human rights (i.e. the right to live) to a group based on a single trait of their identity. Comparisons to Hitler can be hyperbolic and hysterical at times; however, this is a pretty direct correlation. Forget comparisons of scope and scale; and I'm not saying Perry wants to exterminate homosexuals ... or at least, that he has any real intention of ever doing that. Nor have I seen any signs that the number of homosexuals murdered overseas resembles anything near what happened under the Third Reich. What I AM comparing is the disregard of human rights for a group of people: he is essentially saying he is not troubled by this, which makes him contemptible in my book (and most decent human beings').

[Roy Karrde]

It's a valid point. The legalised murder of homosexuals in about half the countries in the world is not systematic like Hitler's regime, but it still denies basic human rights (i.e. the right to live) to a group based on a single trait of their identity. Comparisons to Hitler can be hyperbolic and hysterical at times; however, this is a pretty direct correlation. Forget comparisons of scope and scale; and I'm not saying Perry wants to exterminate homosexuals ... or at least, that he has any real intention of ever doing that. Nor have I seen any signs that the number of homosexuals murdered overseas resembles anything near what happened under the Third Reich. What I AM comparing is the disregard of human rights for a group of people: he is essentially saying he is not troubled by this, which makes him contemptible in my book (and most decent human beings').

The thing is, when it comes to sexuality we all disregard human rights to a extent, comparisons to anyone on that level is rather absurd. Yes he probably wants to deny homosexuals the ability to marry. But it is hard to argue that is a human right, as we deny that to so many other sexualities, that it really ceases to become a "Human right" and more a privileged that you gain after reaching certain conditions.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I'm sick of that excuse.

"If gay marriage is acceptable, how long before pedophilia and bestiality is accepted as well?"

It's a ludicrous excuse if you ask me.

[Roy Karrde]

You, I'm sick of that excuse.

"If gay marriage is acceptable, how long before pedophilia and bestiality is accepted as well?"

It's a ludicrous excuse if you ask me.

I am more thinking of Incest Marriage, but the others work, if we are to believe that Marriage is a human right, and that it cannot be based on what you are attracted to, then we must and should extend human rights to everyone.

[Gavin Luper]

The thing is, when it comes to sexuality we all disregard human rights to a extent, comparisons to anyone on that level is rather absurd. Yes he probably wants to deny homosexuals the ability to marry. But it is hard to argue that is a human right, as we deny that to so many other sexualities, that it really ceases to become a "Human right" and more a privileged that you gain after reaching certain conditions.

The types you are referring to are non-consensual and are legally considered rape. That is a crime. Consensual sexual relationships between adults is not a crime, be it heterosexual or homosexual or between transgendered or intersex people. Stop comparing homosexuality to crimes because it's extremely offensive, not to mention really, really stupid.

Roy, I'm sick of that excuse.

"If gay marriage is acceptable, how long before pedophilia and bestiality is accepted as well?"

It's a ludicrous excuse if you ask me.

Precisely. I do not understand why people's brains cannot wrap themselves around the idea of consensual sex between adults being okay.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I'm going to quote from someone, but I'm not sure who originally said it.

"Homosexuality is present in all species, but homophobia is only present in humans."

Incest is not. It is a crime that is present only in humans. The same goes for those other two crimes I mentioned.

[Roy Karrde]

The types you are referring to are non-consensual and are legally considered rape. That is a crime. Consensual sexual relationships between adults is not a crime, be it heterosexual or homosexual or between transgendered or intersex people. Stop comparing homosexuality to crimes because it's extremely offensive, not to mention really, really stupid.

Again more thinking of incest marriage...

But even by adding the consensual and rape addition, all you are doing is placing legal definitions on them. I'll remind you that it wasnt too long before that Gay Sex was considered a crime as well.

Incest is not. It is a crime that is present only in humans. The same goes for those other two crimes I mentioned.

Incest is not present in Animals? I would suggest that you go read up on animals.

http://www.livescience.com/2226-ince...oo-nature.html

[Gavin Luper]

I am more thinking of Incest Marriage, but the others work, if we are to believe that Marriage is a human right, and that it cannot be based on what you are attracted to, then we must and should extend human rights to everyone.

Again more thinking of incest marriage...

But human beings are not born incestuous. That is not an innate identity that people have. Conversely, being gay is not a choice that one arbitrarily makes; it is something that one just is. That's what makes the argument all the more compelling for same-sex marriage as opposed to, say, polyamorous or incestuous marriages.

[Gavin Luper]

But even by adding the consensual and rape addition, all you are doing is placing legal definitions on them. I'll remind you that it wasnt too long before that Gay Sex was considered a crime as well.

Are you seriously insane enough to suggest that rape is actually okay and, eventually, the law will just "catch up"? Are you for real? Are you actually thinking about these words before you type them?

Conversely, homosexual sex between adults is consensual in nature and was simply demonised and discriminated against by society (unless, again, it is RAPE, which is and should be ILLEGAL).

[Roy Karrde]

But human beings are not born incestuous. That is not an innate identity that people have. Conversely, being gay is not a choice that one arbitrarily makes; it is something that one just is. That's what makes the argument all the more compelling for same-sex marriage as opposed to, say, polyamorous or incestuous marriages.

It really doesn't matter if a person is born or not born with it, which really is something I don't think any one of us can actually define. The fact is, is that if we believe that people should marry who they want to marry, and that it is a human right. It is in effect denying people their human rights by limiting it to just straights and gays.

Are you seriously insane enough to suggest that rape is actually okay and, eventually, the law will just "catch up"? Are you for real? Are you actually thinking about these words before you type them?]

You are defining something as rape and against the law for now because the person is not of age, or cannot give what we define as consent, do you honestly believe that will remain the same forever?

Conversely, homosexual sex between adults is mostly consensual in nature and was simply demonised and discriminated against by society (unless, again, it is RAPE, which is and should be ILLEGAL).

By that logic Pedophile sex and rape is consensual in nature.

[Gavin Luper]

It really doesn't matter if a person is born or not born with it, which really is something I don't think any one of us can actually define. The fact is, is that if we believe that people should marry who they want to marry, and that it is a human right. It is in effect denying people their human rights by limiting it to just straights and gays.

In your belief, who else should be able to get married and to whom?

You are defining something as rape and against the law for now because the person is not of age, or cannot give what we define as consent, do you honestly believe that will remain the same forever?

I sure as hell hope it remains against the law forever.

By that logic Pedophile sex and rape is consensual in nature.

No it isn't, and I can't believe you are actually arguing for that. Anyone who is not an adult cannot legally give consent. If they do, it's still statutory and it's still illegal.

I cannot believe the sheer idiocy that you are typing, it's beyond me.

[Roy Karrde]

In your belief, who else should be able to get married and to whom?

Personally I am willing to allow anyone to get married to some one else in which some one can certify on a one or one basis the belief that both understand what marriage ensues. Or in terms of say marriage to a object and not a living thing, in which marriage would not physically harm the living person.

[Gavin Luper]

Personally I am willing to allow anyone to get married to some one else in which some one can certify on a one or one basis the belief that both understand what marriage ensues. Or in terms of say marriage to a object and not a living thing, in which marriage would not physically harm the living person.

So if a man wants to marry his toaster, the sole provision should be that he doesn't stick his dick into it and electrocute himself? Am I following your brand of logic correctly?

[Roy Karrde]

So if a man wants to marry his toaster, the sole provision should be that he doesn't stick his dick into it and electrocute himself? Am I following your brand of logic correctly?

Pretty much, as in reality there are many people out there who are in complete and utter love with objects. Hell I believe a year ago a person was married to a video game character. And in reality as A.I. evolve, such a thing would pave the way for future marriages between a A.I. character and a human.

[Dark Sage]

Boy, this is turning into a funny thread.

Keep it up, Roy, you keep making me laugh.

[Gavin Luper]

Pretty much, as in reality there are many people out there who are in complete and utter love with objects. Hell I believe a year ago a person was married to a video game character. And in reality as A.I. evolve, such a thing would pave the way for future marriages between a A.I. character and a human.

Okay, I'm going to have to disengage on debating marriage with you any further, because I genuinely won't be able to keep going with a straight face and/or being able to take you remotely seriously.

Let's agree to disagree on this and on the political side of things. I think Perry's a bigoted dick and not fit for the candidacy, and you have a whole lot of conflicting views on him that have descended so far into the theoretical and slightly removed-from-reality realm that they don't seem to have any bearing whatsoever in the actual debate anymore.

[Dark Sage]

And I'm gonna have to agree with Gavin.

[Roy Karrde]

And I'm gonna have to agree with Gavin.

Here is the thing both of you may find it laughable, but that is what you get into in the realm of defining something as a Human Right, you must extend it in some way to all people and all sexualities. You may not like it, you may find it laughable, but for some people that is their life and their love.