They just can't help themselves. [modified]
-
OK - it's my turn to start this one off. Feel free to univote me whoever you are. Anyway, it turns out that a cardinal has linked child abuse to homosexuality. Now, call me Captain Fartypants, but that seems to me to be just a wee bit stupid/asinine/moronic (delete as appropriate). How dare he compare the two. It seems that the vatican is trying to distance themselves from him[^], but for goodness sake people, get a f*cking grip. One's about two consenting adults engaged in same sex relationships, the other's about abusing somebody who is not in a position to fight back. Can you see how they are so not the same? [Edit]Ah there you are univoter. We'd missed you. I've countered your votes against the others and it looks like my reputation is much much better than yours, seeing that I had much more of an effect than you did.[/Edit]
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:47 AM
... not really.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Anyway, it turns out that a cardinal has linked child abuse to homosexuality
This used was a widely held view, and is more common in older people (not that it makes it right of course....) so I'm not surprised, but I am dismayed. I think the attitude has its roots in the time when homosexuality was illegal, and therefore driven underground. I'm sure under such circumstances some ended up preying on vunerable groups. Male (and child) prostitution was rife during the Victorian period for example.
Dalek Dave: There are many words that some find offensive, Homosexuality, Alcoholism, Religion, Visual Basic, Manchester United, Butter. Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
-
My sexuality makes me apreciate the delights of women, particularly slim, brunette, intelligent, attractive and sexually mature ones at that, (good news for Michelle, I'm a helluva catch :) ). Some men are attracted to rugged hairy-arsed rugby playing chaps. So what, whatever floats your boat, so long as all concerned are happy and no-one is co-erced. But to be sexually attracted to children is no different, it is what some find attractive. However, this is against society's mores, and against natures intentions. Sexual maturity exists for a reason, and those that would abuse a child cannot be cured, for the attraction is no different than attraction to busty blondes or wasp hipped gingers. So, given that they cannot be cured, they must be either locked up or hanged by the testicles. my two penneth.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
OK - it's my turn to start this one off. Feel free to univote me whoever you are. Anyway, it turns out that a cardinal has linked child abuse to homosexuality. Now, call me Captain Fartypants, but that seems to me to be just a wee bit stupid/asinine/moronic (delete as appropriate). How dare he compare the two. It seems that the vatican is trying to distance themselves from him[^], but for goodness sake people, get a f*cking grip. One's about two consenting adults engaged in same sex relationships, the other's about abusing somebody who is not in a position to fight back. Can you see how they are so not the same? [Edit]Ah there you are univoter. We'd missed you. I've countered your votes against the others and it looks like my reputation is much much better than yours, seeing that I had much more of an effect than you did.[/Edit]
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:47 AM
What a twat. I have sucked a fair bit of cock in days gone by, never fancied a child though. Although, I have to say my first experience was with a 15 year old. But then I was 15 too! Mind you, its still illegal aparently. ---edit--- Oh come on one voter, dont be timid. If youve got somehting to say say it! (Oh, and I say 'fair bit' but its a bit of an exageration. Only had gay sex three times but I couldnt find a better way of phrasing it!) Oh, and anyone who finds my honesty offensive, get a grip. There are far more ofensive things in life than a couple of young lads having a bit of fun.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:01 PM
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Sexual maturity exists for a reason
SO its OK to fuck with a sexually mature person whatever their age?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
? Of course, biologically speaking yes. It is only that certain religious people has decreed that it is wrong. But they are all mad. For example, until the late 1800's it was normal for girls to get married at 13, even Christians acknowledge that the Virgin Mary was 13 when she gave birth. The reason for the upping of the age was nothing to do with morailty and all to do with money. Girls whose parents had died would be married to older men so that the men could get hold of the fortune. The first Act of Parliament in this country to counter this said that a girl could not marry until she was 14! I think you are somewhat in denial of your history. If you were a 14 year old boy and wanted to have sex with a 12 year old girl would that be illegal? Would it be immoral? Go to Holland, where it is neither. On the other hand, the ultra-christian elite in USA make it statuatory rape to slepp with a girl who is one day under her 18th birthday. Here in UK it is 16. So I fail to see where you are going with this argument. Sexual Maturity is, biologically speaking, the point at which sex happens, deal with it. This does not make me a paedophile. I would love to have had sex with a 14 year old, when I was 16, but by god not now! I am 43, I probably wouldn't want to do it with a 19 year old. I couldn't keep up and there would be nothing to talk about after.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
? Of course, biologically speaking yes. It is only that certain religious people has decreed that it is wrong. But they are all mad. For example, until the late 1800's it was normal for girls to get married at 13, even Christians acknowledge that the Virgin Mary was 13 when she gave birth. The reason for the upping of the age was nothing to do with morailty and all to do with money. Girls whose parents had died would be married to older men so that the men could get hold of the fortune. The first Act of Parliament in this country to counter this said that a girl could not marry until she was 14! I think you are somewhat in denial of your history. If you were a 14 year old boy and wanted to have sex with a 12 year old girl would that be illegal? Would it be immoral? Go to Holland, where it is neither. On the other hand, the ultra-christian elite in USA make it statuatory rape to slepp with a girl who is one day under her 18th birthday. Here in UK it is 16. So I fail to see where you are going with this argument. Sexual Maturity is, biologically speaking, the point at which sex happens, deal with it. This does not make me a paedophile. I would love to have had sex with a 14 year old, when I was 16, but by god not now! I am 43, I probably wouldn't want to do it with a 19 year old. I couldn't keep up and there would be nothing to talk about after.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
On the other hand, the ultra-christian elite in USA make it statuatory rape to slepp with a girl who is one day under her 18th birthday.
That varies from state to state, but I believe it's generally 16 (or 15), not 18.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
On the other hand, the ultra-christian elite in USA make it statuatory rape to slepp with a girl who is one day under her 18th birthday.
That varies from state to state, but I believe it's generally 16 (or 15), not 18.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Ah, down in the south it is "Grab What You Can!"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Ah, down in the south it is "Grab What You Can!"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I hear that in Appalachia it's 'Grab yer cousin before before her brother does.' :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
They shur do talk pirty, and she has some teeth too.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
? Of course, biologically speaking yes. It is only that certain religious people has decreed that it is wrong. But they are all mad. For example, until the late 1800's it was normal for girls to get married at 13, even Christians acknowledge that the Virgin Mary was 13 when she gave birth. The reason for the upping of the age was nothing to do with morailty and all to do with money. Girls whose parents had died would be married to older men so that the men could get hold of the fortune. The first Act of Parliament in this country to counter this said that a girl could not marry until she was 14! I think you are somewhat in denial of your history. If you were a 14 year old boy and wanted to have sex with a 12 year old girl would that be illegal? Would it be immoral? Go to Holland, where it is neither. On the other hand, the ultra-christian elite in USA make it statuatory rape to slepp with a girl who is one day under her 18th birthday. Here in UK it is 16. So I fail to see where you are going with this argument. Sexual Maturity is, biologically speaking, the point at which sex happens, deal with it. This does not make me a paedophile. I would love to have had sex with a 14 year old, when I was 16, but by god not now! I am 43, I probably wouldn't want to do it with a 19 year old. I couldn't keep up and there would be nothing to talk about after.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
A rolling age of consent (with absolute maximums and minimums) always seemed like a good idea to me (they have something like this in Germany and Holland). I checked out on wiki and found these Golden Nugget: Vatican State: 13 (unless in a position of trust) Which explains a lot. Spain is even worse at 12. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe[^]
Dalek Dave: There are many words that some find offensive, Homosexuality, Alcoholism, Religion, Visual Basic, Manchester United, Butter. Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
-
OK - it's my turn to start this one off. Feel free to univote me whoever you are. Anyway, it turns out that a cardinal has linked child abuse to homosexuality. Now, call me Captain Fartypants, but that seems to me to be just a wee bit stupid/asinine/moronic (delete as appropriate). How dare he compare the two. It seems that the vatican is trying to distance themselves from him[^], but for goodness sake people, get a f*cking grip. One's about two consenting adults engaged in same sex relationships, the other's about abusing somebody who is not in a position to fight back. Can you see how they are so not the same? [Edit]Ah there you are univoter. We'd missed you. I've countered your votes against the others and it looks like my reputation is much much better than yours, seeing that I had much more of an effect than you did.[/Edit]
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:47 AM
Agreed. +5 :thumbsup:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ~ Albert Einstein "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ~ Paul Neal "Red" Adair
-
? Of course, biologically speaking yes. It is only that certain religious people has decreed that it is wrong. But they are all mad. For example, until the late 1800's it was normal for girls to get married at 13, even Christians acknowledge that the Virgin Mary was 13 when she gave birth. The reason for the upping of the age was nothing to do with morailty and all to do with money. Girls whose parents had died would be married to older men so that the men could get hold of the fortune. The first Act of Parliament in this country to counter this said that a girl could not marry until she was 14! I think you are somewhat in denial of your history. If you were a 14 year old boy and wanted to have sex with a 12 year old girl would that be illegal? Would it be immoral? Go to Holland, where it is neither. On the other hand, the ultra-christian elite in USA make it statuatory rape to slepp with a girl who is one day under her 18th birthday. Here in UK it is 16. So I fail to see where you are going with this argument. Sexual Maturity is, biologically speaking, the point at which sex happens, deal with it. This does not make me a paedophile. I would love to have had sex with a 14 year old, when I was 16, but by god not now! I am 43, I probably wouldn't want to do it with a 19 year old. I couldn't keep up and there would be nothing to talk about after.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
biologically speaking what you say may be true, but mental/emotional maturity-wise, it is not. 13 year old girs 100 years ago were more mature than 13 year olds today. So the comparison fails. [Edit] I should also add that I have two daughters, one 14 the other 16. In no way are either of them ready to responsibly have sex. And yes, my wife and I have taught them about sex, etc. Anyone who would try to, or in actuality, have sex with them I would consider abuse. They are not emotionally ready to make such a move. Nor do the have the life experience to understand just what consequences of such an act would be (beyond getting pregnant of course). And even know the possibility of pregnancy, they just don't understand just what an enormous life-changer that is. (In truth nobody really is until you do it. But at least get to the point where you can be a responsible parent both emotionally and economically!) The same goes for *all* boys and girls who are "under age". [/Edit]
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
biologically speaking what you say may be true, but mental/emotional maturity-wise, it is not. 13 year old girs 100 years ago were more mature than 13 year olds today. So the comparison fails. [Edit] I should also add that I have two daughters, one 14 the other 16. In no way are either of them ready to responsibly have sex. And yes, my wife and I have taught them about sex, etc. Anyone who would try to, or in actuality, have sex with them I would consider abuse. They are not emotionally ready to make such a move. Nor do the have the life experience to understand just what consequences of such an act would be (beyond getting pregnant of course). And even know the possibility of pregnancy, they just don't understand just what an enormous life-changer that is. (In truth nobody really is until you do it. But at least get to the point where you can be a responsible parent both emotionally and economically!) The same goes for *all* boys and girls who are "under age". [/Edit]
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ahmed zahmed wrote:
13 year old girs 100 years ago were more mature than 13 year olds today
Really, on what evidence are you basing this on? I would say that girls today are more advanced than 100 years ago.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
13 year old girs 100 years ago were more mature than 13 year olds today
Really, on what evidence are you basing this on? I would say that girls today are more advanced than 100 years ago.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
it is true, that girls today are more advanced. However, if you think about it, in ages past families were larger and girls (and boys) had to help out a lot more from a much earlier age. So they got to know what it meant to take care of someone else --- their siblings. So earlier emotional maturity was forced on them. Just go read some history books and some journals from girls of the time and you'll know what I mean.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
biologically speaking what you say may be true, but mental/emotional maturity-wise, it is not. 13 year old girs 100 years ago were more mature than 13 year olds today. So the comparison fails. [Edit] I should also add that I have two daughters, one 14 the other 16. In no way are either of them ready to responsibly have sex. And yes, my wife and I have taught them about sex, etc. Anyone who would try to, or in actuality, have sex with them I would consider abuse. They are not emotionally ready to make such a move. Nor do the have the life experience to understand just what consequences of such an act would be (beyond getting pregnant of course). And even know the possibility of pregnancy, they just don't understand just what an enormous life-changer that is. (In truth nobody really is until you do it. But at least get to the point where you can be a responsible parent both emotionally and economically!) The same goes for *all* boys and girls who are "under age". [/Edit]
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ahmed zahmed wrote:
they just don't understand just what an enormous life-changer that is. (In truth nobody really is until you do it.
Total truth! Some things, reading about, or even watching people do, do not even give you a hint of the reality. :omg:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
it is true, that girls today are more advanced. However, if you think about it, in ages past families were larger and girls (and boys) had to help out a lot more from a much earlier age. So they got to know what it meant to take care of someone else --- their siblings. So earlier emotional maturity was forced on them. Just go read some history books and some journals from girls of the time and you'll know what I mean.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/I didn't say historically that this was untrue, merely disagreed with your assertation about 100 years ago. It was a post Victorian world, and girls were encouraged to remain children for longer. It wasn't until the outbreak of WWI that this view changed. It may be a cultural thing, I am, of course, refering to Britain. Even so, historically, women were much younger when giving birth.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
OK - it's my turn to start this one off. Feel free to univote me whoever you are. Anyway, it turns out that a cardinal has linked child abuse to homosexuality. Now, call me Captain Fartypants, but that seems to me to be just a wee bit stupid/asinine/moronic (delete as appropriate). How dare he compare the two. It seems that the vatican is trying to distance themselves from him[^], but for goodness sake people, get a f*cking grip. One's about two consenting adults engaged in same sex relationships, the other's about abusing somebody who is not in a position to fight back. Can you see how they are so not the same? [Edit]Ah there you are univoter. We'd missed you. I've countered your votes against the others and it looks like my reputation is much much better than yours, seeing that I had much more of an effect than you did.[/Edit]
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:47 AM
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
the other's about abusing somebody who is not in a position to fight back
Yeah, poor priests, helpless in the face of desire.... :suss:
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.