so you wouldn't. Who is a parent in a right mind would allow this? Now apply the law.

fact that your hypothetical daughter HAS a 30 years old boyfriend, meaning she consented on this. If this is not acceptable by the law, they'll do the same movements gay people do-crying for acceptance and tolerance.

If we give way to homosexuals, other people (like the one mentioned above) would call for the same treatment. Your hypothetical daughter may be in the streets holding a sign during rally too

Maybe this is not about homosexuals at all. Maybe it is on a grand scale of stopping things considered immoral by society.

Our line of thinking maybe different-i'm from the far east and you are probably in the west. I, personally wouldn't care what the west wants to do with themselves however, we from the east are alarmed because your way of thinking is slowly creeping in our mentality. It's a matter of time how our nation would be screwed up too.

edit: i am speaking out of culture.

Since you wanna debate about culture then you can't do so without discussing its unrealistically ideological influence. And this is where I draw the line with sociological analytic induction on your cultural influence and ideology of totalitarianism that violates basic human rights, in the form of authoritarianism within Confucianism.

Furthermore, when it's obviously your unreasonable fear of human sexuality, not homosexuality that you're reacting upon. You're being irrational when you claimed that something "hypothetical" as a matter of "fact".

Finally, when pedophilia is a mental disorder according to academic science, you're not going to convince anyone in a court of law that your unreasonable fear of a hypothetical situation is sufficiently justified.

The law does not deem her capable of giving consent. They have every right to create a movement for whatever cause it is that they wish to champion. Decent countries allow this.

They can call for it, and if their situation, using the principle of harm, is similar to that of homosexuals, the legislature in a decent country will consider their pleas and determine whether they are reasonable. Pushing the age required to consent down would hardly be able to pass the filter of the principle of harm, but this doesn't mean my hypothetical daughter has no right to hold a sign and express her views as a national of the state.

Maybe, just maybe this is about moralistic people enacting arbitrary laws to feed their prude aesthetic needs.

I am, ethnicity-wise, half eastern and half western and I've seen both worlds and met people from both the east and the west, and to tell the truth, eastern society is far more oppressive. It is far more moralistic and far, far less concerned with the needs and the good of people. I've lived in both the east and the west and now I wouldn't even want to think of going east. I like my human rights and liberties.

BTW...

all you homophobes won't be happy if you visit my hometown this week. It's the annual PRIDE celebration week. and THIS year Toronto is hosting World Pride.

Downtown is about as straight as a rainbow.

agreed...

Do people not understand the Marin core has the highest gay male population in it and combat arms is what most goes into? I think their trying to prove something to them self's. No wimps allowed in that group. How sad people do not thing a gay male can be a mean F.M. in a fight.

you said it. The legislature may consider their pleas (even if the certainty of getting it approve is not sure) but in politics always changes. Just like America, first it was all white. Then, it black takes a share of politics. Then some gay people. Who knows who will sit next?

my point is, the law is dynamic, what is illegal today maybe legal tomorrow (people wants marijuana to be legalize. i think it is a matter of time it will happen. Netherlands took the first step already)

maybe that is the case. moralistic people enacting arbitrary laws to feed their prude aesthetic needs. Maybe that is not the case also.

Maybe they just see the side effect of accepting homosexuals in the society.

what is wrong with being moral? and what are the needs are we talking about here? (if it is sexual needs, sex is a method of procreation and not recreation. Gay people do the recreation)

(emphasis mine)

What side effect? exactly what do you think is going to happen because members of the LGBT community no longer have to hide for fear of being burned at the stake or stoned to death. What possible interest does the community have in what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom.


Moral? Morality is the rules a society or culture makes for it's members to follow for the sake of the Society's perceived interests. Ethics are the rules you make for yourself to protect those around you from your strengths or powers.

of the two, I'd rather be Ethical than Moral.

Yeah, it's a possibility. So what?



Again, yeah. So what?



That is the case, just take a look at pressure groups for... anything. There's people everywhere wanting to bad everything they find unpleasant or depraved or immoral.



Side effects? I'd call them effects. You went and branded them undesired.



The problem with being moral is that I don't want some inbred cretin to tell me that I can't wank, watch porn, laugh at dead baby jokes, swear, enable abortion and so on and so forth, unless it is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that these activities are dangerous to people and the risk is not worth it.

Sexual intercourse serves procreational as well as recreational purposes. People partake in sexual acts for the latter purpose too, which in itself proves that it has a recreational element to it, which is also part of its nature. And tell you what, if you come and tell humanity that it is 'unnatural' to f*ck for pleasure, well, who gives a toss? If it is unnatural then fine, people will perform unnatural acts. Unnatural =/= undesirable, wrongous, evil, etc.

Also, it would be certainly for the health of your argument if you could finally get rid of that slippery slope fallacy Cuddlebuns pointed out.



I'd rather not make excuses for why I do what I do.

Good for you, but I'm not a Nihilist.

I am not a person to judge a person on what they do in their private life unless it affects others in a negetive way. I dont care if people are gay as long as they dont push it on me. As for racism that is a joke. Within the next 2000 years(of course we will all be dead) there will only be one race(all races mixed) and like I said before I judge a person on thier actions(as long as you dont negetively affect others your O.K. with me). People that push thier sexuality like some people push religion really pisses me off. So besides that I am fine with everyone.

I feel people should be free to hate who or what ever they want as long as they have a legitimate reason for it.
Hating something for no reason, and not willing to understand others is wrong, ands selfish.

I am homophobic, but i do not hate gay people. But i assure you if i got touched in any sexual way, i'd prob lash out into a violent rage.

So accordingly women have the right to kick you in the balls if they think you're touching them in a sexual way?

Ya sure, i rather her not kick my balls but if i deserved it, the reverse is true also, the only thing is i wont hurt a woman, if i was uninterested, i would push her off, how hard i push depends on how detestable she appears.

but no blind rage? To be fair, I'm not critiqueing your feelings. they are yours. I'm just curious about your actions and weather or not they fair to both the straight and the LGBT.