Challenging the standard...

2minkey said:
maybe johhny could become president! *piss2*
Click to expand...

Gee. How unoriginal. :p You do, however, get the point.

Starya said:
Allowing same sex couples to get married is a good thing. Has nothing to do with the bad things people do. And, if one absolutely wants to say it's relevant because of the general concept of "accepting what wasn't acceptable yesterday", then there are a whole lotta things we accepted long time ago that should be mentioned alongside it. But I still plan on voting for the next election. And I'll keep these pants on, thanks.
Click to expand...

So where do you draw the line? At children? That line is under attack. How about animals? Take a peek anywhere on the net. The most insidious thing is rewarding the inept, and changing your world to fit. Tolerance is also not the same as acceptance.
 
Gato_Solo said:
So where do you draw the line? At children? That line is under attack. How about animals? Take a peek anywhere on the net. The most insidious thing is rewarding the inept, and changing your world to fit.
Click to expand...
Draw the line? What line? I do not regard love between two people of the same gender as any different than love between two people of opposite gender. Therefore, talking about "drawing the line" in connection with it just seems utterly ridiculous to me. And, when same sex marriage keep getting brought up when child porn, bestiality etc is mentioned (or vice versa), it is to me as utterly pointless as if it was to be connected with straight people getting married.

Tolerance is also not the same as acceptance.
Click to expand...
I know. Your point?
 
Starya said:
Draw the line? What line? I do not regard love between two people of the same gender as any different than love between two people of opposite gender. Therefore, talking about "drawing the line" in connection with it just seems utterly ridiculous to me. And, when same sex marriage keep getting brought up when child porn, bestiality etc is mentioned (or vice versa), it is to me as utterly pointless as if it was to be connected with straight people getting married.

I know. Your point?
Click to expand...

Its about a standard. Its not about your feelings. Some people want to limit marriage to two consenting adults of the opposite sex. Thats a standard. You wish to open it up to two consenting adults regardless of gender. Thats your standard. Others wish to have marriage and sexual relations with children. Thats their standard. Since you mock my standard, why is yours any better? Thats my point.
 
hmmm yeah but yer standard is about mid-band on the archie bunker evaluation criteria battery. that means it's suck-suck reactionary.
 
2minkey said:
hmmm yeah but yer standard is about mid-band on the archie bunker evaluation criteria battery. that means it's suck-suck reactionary.
Click to expand...

Nope. Gay marriage only became an issue in the early to mid 1990's. Archie Bunker was 1970's. The 1970's standard was the standard for a divorce...which was a different lowering of a standard, BTW. You can try to downplay that as much as you like, but self-delusion is an ugly thing...;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Its about a standard. Its not about your feelings. Some people want to limit marriage to two consenting adults of the opposite sex. Thats a standard. You wish to open it up to two consenting adults regardless of gender. Thats your standard. Others wish to have marriage and sexual relations with children. Thats their standard. Since you mock my standard, why is yours any better? Thats my point.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's that your standard discriminates against consenting adults based on gender.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Its about a standard. Its not about your feelings. Some people want to limit marriage to two consenting adults of the opposite sex. Thats a standard. You wish to open it up to two consenting adults regardless of gender. Thats your standard. Others wish to have marriage and sexual relations with children. Thats their standard. Since you mock my standard, why is yours any better? Thats my point.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the standards. They change. (Because society is "accepting what wasn't acceptable yesterday", as Prof phrased it.) Whenever a standard is being changed (voting, woot!) there are always those who will oppose it. I doubt anyone will hold on to a standard, not thinking it is the better one. I'll give you one factor explaining what makes my standard different from the ones of those who want to fuck kids: Ability to consent. The only thing different between my standard and your standard is genitals.
 
Starya said:
Ah yes, the standards. They change. (Because society is "accepting what wasn't acceptable yesterday", as Prof phrased it.) Whenever a standard is being changed (voting, woot!) there are always those who will oppose it. I doubt anyone will hold on to a standard, not thinking it is the better one. I'll give you one factor explaining what makes my standard different from the ones of those who want to fuck kids: Ability to consent. The only thing different between my standard and your standard is genitals.
Click to expand...

Not really. Some children mature faster than others. Besides. Your standard is silly. There are children all over the world engaging in sex at younger and younger ages. If they can consent to each other, what makes an adult so different?
 
I said I'd give you one factor, if you put some thought into it I'm sure you can elabarate on it yourself.
 
Starya said:
I said I'd give you one factor, if you put some thought into it I'm sure you can elabarate on it yourself.
Click to expand...

This one, perhaps? What you fail to realize is that the constant change you speak of can only go the way I'm showing you. You refuse because you think your standard is stronger than mine. 15 years ago, your standard was ridiculed, just as you ridicule what I'm saying now.
 
Gato_Solo said:
This one, perhaps? What you fail to realize is that the constant change you speak of can only go the way I'm showing you. You refuse because you think your standard is stronger than mine. 15 years ago, your standard was ridiculed, just as you ridicule what I'm saying now.
Click to expand...
I'm not ridiculing anything. :shrug:

So a mother let her 14 year old daughter get married because of a loophole in the law. The law was changed to close it. Are you saying the laws cannot be changed so that a parent will no longer be able to give consent on behalf of someone under the age of 18? Sounds like it to me, since you seem convinced that's the way it goes.
 
Gato_Solo said:
First there was gay marriage. Now we have this. Yeah, yeah. Its only a movie, right?
Click to expand...

That's what art has become these days. Is not about beauty anymore, is about pushing the lines to impress (i.e. make them vomit) people :disgust2:
 
Well, at least I'm aware of one person I should steer clear of on this forum. Can't stand people like that.
 
Well, you did kind of make it seem like he shouldn't have that opinion that disagrees with yours just because you don't like it.
 
Professur said:
It has to do with accepting what wasn't acceptable yesterday.
Click to expand...

You heathen hate monger. Of course, once again-you are correct. It's so obvious to some of us. The rest focum on the minutia & lose the trees.
 
Women voting wasn't acceptable, now it is. Progress as society.

It used to be acceptable for girls used to be married off at 13, now that's not acceptable. More progress.

Seeing the trees yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top