Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

Are you serious? This is what white Protestants said in the late 1800s when darker Catholics were coming over in “hordes” and reproducing like “rats.” Have Catholics taken over yet?

We’re working on it.

 

[JDaniel]

larkin

Are you serious? This is what white Protestants said in the late 1800s when darker Catholics were coming over in “hordes” and reproducing like “rats.” Have Catholics taken over yet?

We’re working on it.

Yeah, I gotta work on my tan!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Are you serious? This is what white Protestants said in the late 1800s when darker Catholics were coming over in “hordes” and reproducing like “rats.” Have Catholics taken over yet?

Catholics were the only people brave enough to test the mettle of the high seas! :banghead:

Why is a motivation “puny”? I certainly did not say that nor suggest it. You need to get on with whatever point you want to make about survival. Gay marriage does not in any way prevent or effect the ability of heteros to marry or to procreate to continue the species. Heteros will keep taking care of sex among themselves, I am sure.

“Motivation” is something that is ratiocinated. A survival dynamic is something internally generated. It comes from beyond merely the brain.

So, I guess, when God commanded us to be “fruitful and multiply,” He was speaking of food and calculators? Or, perhaps He was speaking only to me and not to some others? Homosexuality is antithetical to survival. It is only about 1.5 - 2% of the population right now. What if it got to 15%? There is a mathematical formula that depicts the potential demise of the species at, or, near, 15% - most other considerations included.

Note: sodahead.com/living/is-the-homosexual-life-span-shorter-than-the-population-at-large/question-1142847/

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

Catholics were the only people brave enough to test the mettle of the high seas! :banghead:

You missed my point.

So, I guess, when God commanded us to be “fruitful and multiply,” He was speaking of food and calculators? Or, perhaps He was speaking only to me and not to some others? Homosexuality is antithetical to survival. It is only about 1.5 - 2% of the population right now. What if it got to 15%? There is a mathematical formula that depicts the potential demise of the species at, or, near, 15% - most other considerations included.

It doesn’t spread; it’s not contagious. Relax.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

It doesn’t spread; it’s not contagious. Relax.

How do you know? My impression is that it’s doing all it can to increase its numbers, including marriage rights and the right to adopt children who might otherwise be thoroughly heterosexual.

 

[antroji]

So now, according to your grammar, CII, you are accrediting homosexuality with discrete intelligence of a level capable of engineering propagating by conversion? Is this a part of “intelligent design?” And again with the assumptions? Please explain.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*So now, according to your grammar, CII, you are accrediting homosexuality with discrete intelligence of a level capable of engineering propagating by conversion? Is this a part of “intelligent design?” And again with the assumptions? Please explain. *

Intelligent Design is hardly the topic of this thread.

Nice try with your flame thrower!

 

[antroji]

No, CII, I just don’t get what you are saying or why. Your claim to charity just doesn’t wash and comes off to me as busybodiness. I just plain don’t get you.

 

[JDaniel]

You missed my point.

It doesn’t spread; it’s not contagious. Relax.

Larkin:

I am relaxed!

However, there are a number of attempts, in other countries, as well as here, where gays are trying to lower the “age of consent” to 14 yo. MORE meat. And, fresh meat, I suppose. Untainted. That’s how it spreads. At 14 years old, no child is not at risk.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In this part of the world there is a group called NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). They accept for membership people from all walks of life, including clergy, physicians, lawyers, etc. Their motto is, “If not by eight, it’s too late.” What does this mean if not that Male adult homosexuals intend to convert heterosexual children to homosexuals while they are not yet sexually self defined?

They don’t want to spread it? They’ll be first in line with adoption papers!

 

[larkin31]

Larkin:

I am relaxed!

However, there are a number of attempts, in other countries, as well as here, where gays are trying to lower the “age of consent” to 14 yo. MORE meat. And, fresh meat, I suppose. Untainted. That’s how it spreads. At 14 years old, no child is not at risk.

God bless,
jd

1. Gays are not the only ones who want this.
2. This has nothing to do with your suggestion that homosexuality will spread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

1) Gays are not the only ones who want this.

True. There are hetero perverts as well as man/boy and woman/girl perverts. What is your point?

That pedophilia is objectively (universally) wrong no matter who does it?

 

[JDaniel]

1. Gays are not the only ones who want this.
2. This has nothing to do with your suggestion that homosexuality will spread.

True. I’m not saying they are. But, bad heteros entice young children into vice and sin, in precisely the same ways. Sometimes, worse ways. But, that, too, is wrong and illegal. My question to you is, “Since you recognize that turning children into heterosexual-mindless-pleasure-meat-things is wrong, why are you defending it for homosexuals?”

In answer to your No. 2), “Why do you think gays want the reduction of the age of consent? Hmmm?”

jd

 

[larkin31]

True. I’m not saying they are. But, bad heteros entice young children into vice and sin, in precisely the same ways. Sometimes, worse ways. But, that, too, is wrong and illegal. My question to you is, “Since you recognize that turning children into heterosexual-mindless-pleasure-meat-things is wrong, why are you defending it for homosexuals?”

In answer to your No. 2), “Why do you think gays want the reduction of the age of consent? Hmmm?”

jd

1. You are blurring distinctions between minors and children. Not all minors are children in the usual suggestions of the word. I am against all sex with children (under age of consent for sex). I am not against all sex with minors (under 18). I am certainly not for making it illegal, except for statutory rape cases, where both the age of the young party AND the gap in years between the two matter. I am not for making sex between minors illegal either. And I reject the notion you state here that non-reproductive sex is “heterosexual-mindless-meat-things.” That is nothing more than a smear.
2. Don’t be smarmy. State your thinking and logic for us to respond to. Are you claiming that both heteros and gays want to have legal sex with, say, 15 year olds in order to win them to their “side”? Or, as most people argue, is it primarily that some people are very attracted to youth and the power over them that often comes with it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*2) Don’t be smarmy. State your thinking and logic for us to respond to. Are you claiming that both heteros and gays want to have legal sex with, say, 15 year olds in order to win them to their “side”? Or, as most people argue, is it primarily that some people are very attracted to youth and the power over them that often comes with it? *

Please reply to the remarks I made in a previous post about NAMBLA. Does this organization of adult homosexuals constitute and attempt to recruit homosexuals from children that might otherwise be heterosexual?

*In this part of the world there is a group called NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). They accept for membership people from all walks of life, including clergy, physicians, lawyers, etc. Their motto is, “If not by eight, it’s too late.” What does this mean if not that male adult homosexuals intend to convert heterosexual children to homosexuals while they are not yet sexually self defined? *

You had earlier said:

*It doesn’t spread; it’s not contagious. Relax. *

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

No, CII, I just don’t get what you are saying or why. Your claim to charity just doesn’t wash and comes off to me as busybodiness. I just plain don’t get you

Yeah. So charitable you are. Thanks a bunch,

 

[JDaniel]

1. You are blurring distinctions between minors and children. Not all minors are children in the usual suggestions of the word.

Interesting. Did you say that to anyone when Catholic Priests were being pummeled by the media for “pedophilia?”

Secondly, thus, you see 14 year olds as fair game? When you were 14 did you understand all of the ramifications of having sex? Did anyone close to you?

I am against all sex with children (under age of consent for sex). I am not against all sex with minors (under 18).

Hmmm, the age of consent happens to be 18, although the authorities might let a 17 1/2 year old slip by.

I am certainly not for making it illegal, except for statutory rape cases, where both the age of the young party AND the gap in years between the two matter.

I am now very curious: Why would a gap in age matter? Obviously there are 20 year old women that marry 50 year old men, supposedly for Love. Can you tell if those 20 yo’s are telling the truth?

I am not for making sex between minors illegal either. And I reject the notion you state here that non-reproductive sex is “heterosexual-mindless-meat-things.” That is nothing more than a smear.

Well, I have never met a 14 - 15 year old that had so all together that they could handle the potential ramifications of sex, and a possible child, at that age. Or, the ramifications of drinking alcohol. Or, the ramifications of committing crime. Etc., etc., etc.

1. Don’t be smarmy.

K. I will try.

State your thinking and logic for us to respond to. Are you claiming that both heteros and gays want to have legal sex with, say, 15 year olds in order to win them to their “side”?

Yes. As one strong possibility.

Or, as most people argue, is it primarily that some people are very attracted to youth and the power over them that often comes with it?

That, too.

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

Interesting. Did you say that to anyone when Catholic Priests were being pummeled by the media for “pedophilia?”

Yes. I have never criticized the church for this.

Secondly, thus, you see 14 year olds as fair game?

If you continue to distort what I write, I will put you on ignore.

Hmmm, the age of consent happens to be 18, although the authorities might let a 17 1/2 year old slip by.

In what state? The age of consent (for sex) varies from state to state.

This is my state (Maine):

. A person is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor if:

A. Having attained the age of 19 years, the person engages in a sexual act with another person, not the actor’s spouse, who has attained the age of 14 years but has not attained the age of 16 years, provided that the actor is at least 5 years older than the other person; or [1995, c. 104, §1 (amd).]

B. [1989, c. 401. Pt. A, §5 (rp).]

C. Having attained the age of 21 years, the person engages in a sexual act with another person, not the actor’s spouse, who has attained the age of 16 years but not the age of 18 years, and is a student enrolled in a private or public elementary, secondary or special education school, facility or institution and the actor is a teacher, employee or other official in the school district, school union, educational unit, school, facility or institution in which the student is enrolled. [1995, c. 104, §2 (new).]

[1995, c. 104, §§1, 2 (amd).]

1. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1, paragraph A, that the actor reasonably believed the other person to have attained his 16th birthday.

[1985, c. 495, § 10 (amd).]

1. Violation of subsection 1, paragraph A is a Class D crime; and violation of subsection 1, paragraph C is a Class E crime; except that the sentencing class for a violation of subsection 1 is one class higher if the State pleads and proves:

A. The actor was more than 10 years older than the other person; or [1997, c. 460, §2 (amd).]

B. The actor knew the other person was related to the actor within the 2nd degree of consanguinity. [1997, c. 460, §2 (amd).]

C. [1997, c. 460, §3 (rp).]

I am now very curious: Why would a gap in age matter? Obviously there are 20 year old women that marry 50 year old men, supposedly for Love. Can you tell if those 20 yo’s are telling the truth?

You seem to be writing about aspects of the law that you do not understand. Please check your own state laws on this matter. I just posted mine above. If you do not know why sexual consent is linked to age differences in order to protect minors, than my guess is that you do not really understand the problem.

Well, I have never met a 14 - 15 year old that had so all together that they could handle the potential ramifications of sex, and a possible child, at that age. Or, the ramifications of drinking alcohol. Or, the ramifications of committing crime. Etc., etc., etc.

I have not either. I don’t even know why you ever brought this up. But I have answered fully and precisely. These laws can vary state by state, and I suggest that are not based on any form of “natural law.”

 

[Portrait]

1. Gays are not the only ones who want this.
2. This has nothing to do with your suggestion that homosexuality will spread.

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well.

Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the lowering of the age of consent continues to be a source of major concern to the homosexual lobby. This is hardly surprising given that the objective of full acceptance is sought for by homosexual activists; it desires nothing less than that the active homosexual lifestyle be affirmed as being entirely legitimate - a valid choice in sexual preference. However, this can only be at the expense of traditional Christian morals and values.

Here in the UK, the age of consent was reduced from eighteen to sixteen, the same age for heterosexuals, in 2000 by Tony Blair’s Labour government. Blair has only recently converted to Catholicism but has arrogantly challenged its supposedly “entrenched” views on homosexuality and believes that the Church should ought to have a radical ‘rethink’ of its whole position (interview in the homosexual magazine Attitude).

The fallout of this perverse legislation is that vulnerable sixteen or seventeen year old young men face increasing danger from homosexual predators who often desire and prey on youth, especially those who may be alienated from their families or who suffer some emotional disturbance and may be looking for a ‘father figure’.

Moreover, it is morally wrong and irresponsible to legalise practices that put our young people at risk, hence we no longer permit sixteen and seventeen year olds into frontline situations in the armed forces. However, we seem to think that it is perfectly permissible to allow them to be corrupted by seasoned homosexuals and put them at risk of contracting AIDS or other STD’s. This just beggars belief.

Amensty International has condemned discriminatory ages of consent between heterosexual and homosexual acivity as appearing to criminalise homosexual conduct.

All of this wrongheaded thinking in spite of significant evidence of the dangers to adolescent males. A British Medical Association funded study demonstrated that homosexual men under twenty-one are at higher risk of HIV infection than those above twenty-one. Moreover, this same study also showed that a significant percentage of homosexual men wished they were not homosexual and indeed would change if that were possible.

Those homosexual activists who clamour for the lowering of the age of consent also ignore the fact of the slower maturing process in adolescent males, evidently that is of no concern to them.

Peter Tatchell, a prominent homosexual rights campaigner, actually spoke some years ago in defence of sex with children (The Guardian, 26 June 1997)!

Is this the brave new world that we are being asked to embrace?; is there no end to this madness and egregious moral corruption, even of vulnerable youth still in a state of formation?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well.

Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the lowering of the age of consent continues to be a source of major concern to the homosexual lobby. This is hardly surprising given that the objective of full acceptance is sought for by homosexual activists; it desires nothing less than that the active homosexual lifestyle be affirmed as being entirely legitimate - a valid choice in sexual preference. However, this can only be at the expense of traditional Christian morals and values.

Here in the UK, the age of consent was reduced from eighteen to sixteen, the same age for heterosexuals, in 2000 by Tony Blair’s Labour government. Blair has only recently converted to Catholicism but has arrogantly challenged its supposedly “entrenched” views on homosexuality and believes that the Church should ought to have a radical ‘rethink’ of its whole position (interview in the homosexual magazine Attitude).

The fallout of this perverse legislation is that vulnerable sixteen or seventeen year old young men face increasing danger from homosexual predators who often desire and prey on youth, especially those who may be alienated from their families or who suffer some emotional disturbance and may be looking for a ‘father figure’.

Moreover, it is morally wrong and irresponsible to legalise practices that put our young people at risk, hence we no longer permit sixteen and seventeen year olds into frontline situations in the armed forces. However, we seem to think that it is perfectly permissible to allow them to be corrupted by seasoned homosexuals and put them at risk of contracting AIDS or other STD’s. This just beggars belief.

Amensty International has condemned discriminatory ages of consent between heterosexual and homosexual acivity as appearing to criminalise homosexual conduct.

All of this wrongheaded thinking in spite of significant evidence of the dangers to adolescent males. A British Medical Association funded study demonstrated that homosexual men under twenty-one are at higher risk of HIV infection than those above twenty-one. Moreover, this same study also showed that a significant percentage of homosexual men wished they were not homosexual and indeed would change if that were possible.

Those homosexual activists who clamour for the lowering of the age of consent also ignore the fact of the slower maturing process in adolescent males, evidently that is of no concern to them.

Peter Tatchell, a prominent homosexual rights campaigner, actually spoke some years ago in defence of sex with children (The Guardian, 26 June 1997)!

Is this the brave new world that we are being asked to embrace?; is there no end to this madness and egregious moral corruption, even of vulnerable youth still in a state of formation?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Why do you not equally acknowledge the dangers that young adults face from older heterosexuals? Any age of consent law will deal at least 90% of the time with heterosexual behavior. Need I tell you how alluring the woman-girl image is to the erotic life of many men? How much it is promoted in our media? How often young women have to fend off the advances of older men?