Mina #fundie

Mina #fundie wnd.com

If we let homosexuality slide because it is a sexual orientation that a person doesn't choose, then obviously the next step is to acknowledge that pedophilia is also a sexual orientation (because pedophiles don't choose who they are attracted to, they just are). You can't pick and choose which disorder is okay and which isn't. Then you have all of these people talking about lowering the age of consent. If a two year old can somehow understand what it means to be a male or female (obviously they cannot), then why couldn't a 12 year old choose to have sex? To a person with a halfway decent understanding of right and wrong, this is obviously not okay. It's a slippery slope whether people want to admit it or not. You tell two men they can get married, and you're eventually going to make exceptions for the throuple that wants to get married. It's ridiculous, and it isn't going to get better any time soon. We wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feeeeeelings.... I hope you can read the disgust and sarcasm in my words.

26 comments

old comment by Swede

Slide? Where? Pedophilia is classified as a sexual paraphilia. They do indeed not choose whom to be attracted to, but they can't act on that attraction with informed consent. That is the issue that you Wing-Nuts fail to grasp; informed consent. We don't pick and choose; we say all forms of sex between consenting adults is no-one else’s business.

A 2-year-old doesn't even have a language, and a 12-year-old can't grasp all the consequences of his/her own actions. Which is why neither of them are allowed to enter into legal contracts.
The slippery slope only exist in your mind, dearie. Consenting adults are consenting adults. A legal contract can only be closed between legal adults. No-one should therefore be allowed to marry until that age (which, in civilized countries, is around 18-21).
I'd say the slope (if it exists) is in the other direction. If a man can marry a woman, a woman ought to have that right too. That is all that same-sex marriage is, really.
No-one is allowed to marry two people, or have s-e-x with minors, so no-one is treated differently.

Polygamy carries with it lots of new complications that need to be solved first. Are they all married to each other? If not; do “first” and “second” spouse have equal rights and responsibilities? Who inherits who? Who is to get what in a divorce? What about parenthood; are they all mothers/fathers to all the kids born in the marriage? For example

old comment by Dr. Razark

"You can't pick and choose which disorder is okay and which isn't."

But you can choose which actions are illegal.

"Then you have all of these people talking about lowering the age of consent."

Oh your god! Not... TALKING! Look, if the evidence supports it, why not lower the age of consent? If the supports it, why not raise the age of consent? But to be so fucking afraid of people talking? Sheesh.

"...you're eventually going to make exceptions for the throuple that wants to get married."

What is morally wrong with it?

"We wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feeeeeelings...."

The only feelings you give a damn about are your own. Why should we protect your pwecious widdle feewings if you don't have the decency to care about others?

old comment by JGC

"If we let homosexuality slide because it is a sexual orientation that a person doesn't choose..."

That isn't why we're letting it slide, however: we're letting it slide because it's unconstitutional to deny same sex couples recognition as partners in civil matrimony whether they possess a homosexual orientation or not.

If it could be established that being oriented to partners of your own gender were in all cases an exercise of free choice, we'd STILL have to recognize same sex marriages.

After all, even though electing to marry someone who is of a different racial ancestry than your own is entirely a act of free choice anti-miscegenation laws are still unconstitutional.

old comment by Dizzy Dripping

"If we let homosexuality slide because it is a sexual orientation that a person doesn't choose, then obviously the next step is to acknowledge that pedophilia is also a sexual orientation (because pedophiles don't choose who they are attracted to, they just are)."

Informed Consent. I don't think you've heard of it. Children cannot give informed consent. Even if a child did know what sex was, they still could not consent to sex with an adult because of power dynamics (ie: it's easier for them to be manipulated or coerced).

"You can't pick and choose which disorder is okay and which isn't."

Homosexuality isn't a disorder. Two men or two women having a consensual sexual relationship is not the same thing as someone masturbating to child porn.

"Then you have all of these people talking about lowering the age of consent"

Usually these people are MRAs, not LGBT activists (aside from NAMBLA of course).

"If a two year old can somehow understand what it means to be a male or female (obviously they cannot), then why couldn't a 12 year old choose to have sex?"

Most twelve year olds aren't mature enough to understand what having sex means. A good number of twelve year olds may not even have experience sexual awakening. That is why a 12 year old cannot choose to have sex.

"You tell two men they can get married, and you're eventually going to make exceptions for the throuple that wants to get married."

What is wrong with three or more people wanting to marry each other? Once again you clearly have not heard about informed consent or even keeping your nose out of other people's sex lives.

“If we let homosexuality slide because it is a sexual orientation that a person doesn't choose, then obviously the next step is to acknowledge that pedophilia is also a sexual orientation (because pedophiles don't choose who they are attracted to, they just are). You can't pick and choose which disorder is okay and which isn't.”
If their sexuality involves consensual sex with other adults, it doesn’t cause harm.
If their sexuality involves sex with non-adults who cannot consent, it’s at the very least a risk of harm.
So we CAN pick harm/no-harm as a distinction.

“Then you have all of these people talking about lowering the age of consent. If a two year old can somehow understand what it means to be a male or female (obviously they cannot), then why couldn't a 12 year old choose to have sex?"
How in the name of fuck do you connect those dots?
There’s a reason we don’t let 12-year olds sign contracts to buy a car or get a mortgage. They’re not ready for those. And no one is supporting sex-change surgery on minors, either. You just lump everything together and think it’s progressive, don’t you?

“To a person with a halfway decent understanding of right and wrong, this is obviously not okay.”
UNDERSTANDING? THat takes out most Christains. The Bible doesn’t really explain morals as much as just list prohibited actions. Tells you how to keep slaves, but not how to know it’s okay or not.

“It's a slippery slope whether people want to admit it or not.”
You’re in a parking lot crying about the slope. It’s not a slope.

“You tell two men they can get married, and you're eventually going to make exceptions for the throuple that wants to get married.”
Same sort of arguments were offered for why we shouldn’t allow interracial marriage. But note that the existance of such marriages did not in any way make same-sex marriages easier to legislate.

“It's ridiculous, and it isn't going to get better any time soon.”
Whine away, chicken little.

“We wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feeeeeelings.... I hope you can read the disgust and sarcasm in my words.”
Just pathetic self-importance and watching your position erode into irrelevance.