Proc di Catania
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2014-05-01 20:10:21.0 alle 2014-05-01 20:10:21.0
bella questa discussione
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-cont...
As the moderators have not deleted this thread, as I now wish they would, let's summarize the conversation thus far:
The homosexualists on this thread have come up with only two serious arguments against pedophilia:
1. Personal, visceral revulsion and disgust.
2. The lack of "informed consent".
First, if they are being honest about their personal disgust for pedophilia, that isn't something I want to discourage. It's natural, normal, God-given, and indeed something to cultivate. We all should have an instinctive revulsion for the very thought of pedophilia. But here's the point: your personal disgust isn't an argument. I have a deep personal disgust and loathing of homosexuality, as every normal person should. But the homosexualists don't accept that as an argument. When they make the same argument against pedophilia, it's hypocritical and unconvincing.
Second, the argument that all sexual relations must involve "informed consent" is easily dispensed with. The homosexualist movement speaks the language of sexual liberation. They want to "educate" the youngest schoolchildren on the niceties of sodomy, without their consent, as is happening in Massachussetts and California today. So their pleas for consent in this thread ring hollow. From whence comes their hypocritical morality of "informed consent"? From their own selves, apparently, out of political convenience. Militant "gays" tend to reject any moral arguments based on universal religious truths. They have no compelling argument as to why "informed consent" is necessary or moral. It's a completely arbitrary standard, as I have shown repeatedly. On the one hand, they tell me that the human brain isn't fully mature and capable of informed consent on sexual matters until its twenties. On the other hand, they approve of consensual sexual relationships between young children - yes, you can read that even here in this thread! - because there is, presumably, not an imbalance of power or the presence of coercion. For the apostles of homosexuality, their arbitrary doctrine of consent is both a justification for their own immoral acts, which are performed between consenting adults after all, and a public relations tool that is supposed to prove that even sodomites have sexual limits. But they easily dispense with "consent" in their own relationships, which are too disgusting to examine here, and because they have rejected all sources of universal moral truth their doctrine of consent is malleable to the point of obliteration.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-cont...
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-cont...
As the moderators have not deleted this thread, as I now wish they would, let's summarize the conversation thus far:
The homosexualists on this thread have come up with only two serious arguments against pedophilia:
1. Personal, visceral revulsion and disgust.
2. The lack of "informed consent".
First, if they are being honest about their personal disgust for pedophilia, that isn't something I want to discourage. It's natural, normal, God-given, and indeed something to cultivate. We all should have an instinctive revulsion for the very thought of pedophilia. But here's the point: your personal disgust isn't an argument. I have a deep personal disgust and loathing of homosexuality, as every normal person should. But the homosexualists don't accept that as an argument. When they make the same argument against pedophilia, it's hypocritical and unconvincing.
Second, the argument that all sexual relations must involve "informed consent" is easily dispensed with. The homosexualist movement speaks the language of sexual liberation. They want to "educate" the youngest schoolchildren on the niceties of sodomy, without their consent, as is happening in Massachussetts and California today. So their pleas for consent in this thread ring hollow. From whence comes their hypocritical morality of "informed consent"? From their own selves, apparently, out of political convenience. Militant "gays" tend to reject any moral arguments based on universal religious truths. They have no compelling argument as to why "informed consent" is necessary or moral. It's a completely arbitrary standard, as I have shown repeatedly. On the one hand, they tell me that the human brain isn't fully mature and capable of informed consent on sexual matters until its twenties. On the other hand, they approve of consensual sexual relationships between young children - yes, you can read that even here in this thread! - because there is, presumably, not an imbalance of power or the presence of coercion. For the apostles of homosexuality, their arbitrary doctrine of consent is both a justification for their own immoral acts, which are performed between consenting adults after all, and a public relations tool that is supposed to prove that even sodomites have sexual limits. But they easily dispense with "consent" in their own relationships, which are too disgusting to examine here, and because they have rejected all sources of universal moral truth their doctrine of consent is malleable to the point of obliteration.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-cont...
-
bella discussione @ 2014-05-01 20:10:21.0 di Non Autenticato
-
■ @ 2014-05-02 13:03:53.0 di SAMURAI
-