Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[JimL]

so what? Why don't "you and your ilk to try and live your own lives and to stop busying yourself with trying to force others to live according to your values based on your beliefs?"

Thats just the point, we do not, we could care less what you're doing in your private lives, if it doesn't effect us, why should we bother ourselves, or you.

[Sparko]

Thats just the point, we do not, we could care less what you're doing in your private lives, if it doesn't effect us, why should we bother ourselves, or you.

So you DO support pedophiles then. Make up your mind.

[Bill the Cat]

Thats just the point, we do not, we could care less what you're doing in your private lives, if it doesn't effect us, why should we bother ourselves, or you.

Could care less? How much less could you care?

[Terraceth]

Well then the solution to gay marriage is to make one of them have a sex change operation. Derp. Aging out is not a solution to their abnormal desire for children. Just like a sex change is not the solution to homosexual relationships.

This is still ignoring what I thought was my more important point:

I do not see the comparison. First, this was the issue of marriage, not the legalization of the act itself; homosexual sex was already legalized quite a while ago, and as far as I was aware, whether it should stay legalized or not was not in dispute in this topic, which was concerned solely with the question of marriage, a different issue. You can certainly argue about that if you wish, but at present you're comparing two rather different topics.

[Tassman]

so what? Why don't "you and your ilk to try and live your own lives and to stop busying yourself with trying to force others to live according to your values based on your beliefs?"

[Tassman]

Pedophilia is the non-consenting abuse of underaged children and is against the law for that reason. Don't know why that has to be explained to you people over and over again. We are speaking of the relationships between consenting adults.

It's the dreaded "slippery slope" Jim, it'll get you every time.

[Mountain Man]

Why is consent a moral requirement? What's your basis for declaring it so? Besides, children are subjected to a lot of things they don't necessarily consent to, so what makes sex any different? Or are you basing your objection on age of consent laws? Because those can be changed. Would you still have a problem with pedophilia then?

[Bill the Cat]

Pedophilia is the non-consenting abuse of underaged children and is against the law for that reason. Don't know why that has to be explained to you people over and over again. We are speaking of the relationships between consenting adults.

Yet, the same under-aged child somehow magically gains the ability to consent if their partner is close to their age. See the Romeo and Juliette laws.

[Tassman]

Why is consent a moral requirement? What's your basis for declaring it so? Besides, children are subjected to a lot of things they don't necessarily consent to, so what makes sex any different? Or are you basing your objection on age of consent laws? Because those can be changed. Would you still have a problem with pedophilia then?

Sexual relationships are a two way process requiring informed consent on both sides. It is not acceptable in our society to force sexual attentions on anyone, regardless of age or gender, without there being mutual, informed consent.

Yet, the same under-aged child somehow magically gains the ability to consent if their partner is close to their age. See the Romeo and Juliette laws.

These are humane provisions which cover the sexual experimentation common to most adolescents as they discover and come to terms with their developing sexuality. It can't be equated with pedophilia.

[Mountain Man]

Sexual relationships are a two way process requiring informed consent on both sides. It is not acceptable in our society to force sexual attentions on anyone, regardless of age or gender, without there being mutual, informed consent.

They doesn't even come close to answering my questions. Your answer basically says, "Consent is a moral requirement because it's a moral requirement," which is no answer at all.

[Bill the Cat]

These are humane provisions which cover the sexual experimentation common to most adolescents as they discover and come to terms with their developing sexuality. It can't be equated with pedophilia.

You are completely ignoring what I said. A 13 year old CAN consent with another 13 year old, but not with a 20 year old. Calling them "humane provisions" is a cop-out to the obvious double standard of the law.

[Tassman]

They doesn't even come close to answering my questions. Your answer basically says, "Consent is a moral requirement because it's a moral requirement," which is no answer at all.

Consent is a moral requirement because our society deems it morally unacceptable to force sexual attentions on anyone without there being mutual, informed consent.

[Tassman]

You are completely ignoring what I said. A 13 year old CAN consent with another 13 year old, but not with a 20 year old. Calling them "humane provisions" is a cop-out to the obvious double standard of the law.

Since when has a 20 year old been considered an "adolescent?

[Mountain Man]

Consent is a moral requirement because our society deems it morally unacceptable to force sexual attentions on anyone without there being mutual, informed consent.

If you follow this logic consistently then you're OK with pedophilia in societies where consent isn't a "moral requirement", or if we were to change our age of consent laws. Which is to say that your objections are entirely pragmatic.

[Bisto]

Hi. I'll take this chance to put forth again a question I had on that topic. Last time I didn't get an answer.

Theoretical question here.

Let's picture a staunch anti-Papal-authority, dispensationalist, believes-Muhammad-to-be-a-false-prophet, Evangelical Christian baker. He makes what he understands to be Christian cakes. If, for whatever reason, a Catholic family requests of him a cake with a picture of the Pope and some words about him, or a Preterist Christian requests a cake celebrating Preterism, or a Muslim asks for a cake celebrating God's message through Muhammad, and this baker sees those cakes as unChristian, should he make them anyway? To his eyes, they may well be asking him (perhaps forcing him?) to change his value proposition, the very 'why' of his product. In other words, is it discrimination if agreeing to the customer's desires involves changing the value proposition --which obviously is defined by the dudes offering their goods or services--?

In their eyes, it may look like forcing Apple to sell iPhones with keyboards instead of the touchscreen, or with Android instead of iOS as their OS, or forcing Victoria's Secret to sell male underwear too -- changes to what makes the product or service, well, the product or service. Any seller may one day heed those unsatisfied voices and change their product's characteristics accordingly, if they want to (and perhaps if they need to, in order to stay in business), but is that not the seller's choice? IIRC, in the words of Porter, that is strategy right there -- to choose what NOT to do.

Depending on your answer, one could start a movement to get Victoria's Secret to make us some male underwear models wearing their unique signature. I don't think I would buy it myself, but who knows? It may catch on in a couple of years.


(For the record, I'm not implying the above baker's views to be my own. I myself lean more preterist than else )