Outspoken opponent of the gay agenda wins presidential election in Poland

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BabyWitch said:
A child cannot consent because they don’t understand the concept of consent or sex. Do not take this to mean that a young person cannot understand that they aren’t the same as others, but they’re still too young to understand what sex actually is.
Click to expand...
According to you, consent is what makes a behavior moral. But that changes with children because they are too young to understand what sex actually is. So in this case, it’s not consent but an inability to understand what sex actually is that would make it immoral. What if a child’s parents freely and openly talked to them about sex from the time they were young and they understand what their parents taught them? Could they at age 9 or 10 consent because they understand better than their peers due to the upbringing they had? Don’t you think the morality of a behavior should be based on something more objective than “because I want to do it” or an individual persons perceived understanding of the behavior they are engaging in? Can understanding be skewed with misinformation?
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
It’s kind of amazing that if a group organizes itself by what sin they commit (even more so, what they do in the bedroom) that it can begin to claim oppression because they are sinners.

It’s like the Mafia being pursued by the organized crime unit of law enforcement is the unjust oppression of a group. Poor babies.
Click to expand...
Mock gay people all you want. But by organizing themselves and fighting for their rights, they’ve come a long ways in the last few decades. Within my lifetime, gay people could be arrested in many places for what they were doing in the privacy of their own homes with other consenting adults. And they could be fired from their jobs for being gay. At one time, the patrons of gay bars and gay organizations were regularly harassed and sometimes arrested by the police. It’s amazing how much things have changed. Just last month, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee to the US Supreme Court, wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The New York Times described this as “one of the most sweeping LGBT rights victories in the court’s history.”
 
Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesn’t make it right. I think you can assent to that maxim.
 
Anesti33 said:
Do you know who Harry Hay was?
Click to expand...
That sounds like an insignificant person.
Anesti33 said:
Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesn’t make it right. I think you can assent to that maxim.
Click to expand...
All the things he mentioned are good though because the Catechism says they shouldn’t be treated unjustly.
 
Last edited:
That’s wrong, it is just saying to be chaste like what Church usually says.
 
Hmmmm - have to watch to find out. Let me know your thoughts when you do.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
According to you, consent is what makes a behavior moral. But that changes with children because they are too young to understand what sex actually is. So in this case, it’s not consent but an inability to understand what sex actually is that would make it immoral. What if a child’s parents freely and openly talked to them about sex from the time they were young and they understand what their parents taught them? Could they at age 9 or 10 consent because they understand better than their peers due to the upbringing they had? Don’t you think the morality of a behavior should be based on something more objective than “because I want to do it” or an individual persons perceived understanding of the behavior they are engaging in? Can understanding be skewed with misinformation?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the other poster meant that at age 9 or 10 a child should be allowed to consent.

I don’t support that and neither does any other poster.

I think the poster meant that a 9 or 10 year old can’t consent, for the same reason that a 9 or 10 year old can’t sign a contract or write a will, because we assume a child can’t fully understand the situation.

Therefore, when people bring up pedophilia, that’s a different situation in some ways in that a child can’t consent.
 
signit said:
40.png
buffalo:

LGBT movement’s other goal: Lower age of consent to 10 years old for psychiatric therapy – without parents’ knowledge or consent!​

LGBT goal: Lower age of consent to 10 yrs old for psychiatric therapy
Click to expand...
And this is a bad thing?

Suicide prevention?

For young people who are suicidal?
Click to expand...
They want children to be diagnosed very early with “gender dysphoria” so that they may begin HRT before puberty strikes and “locks them in” to the body they were born with. Regardless of whether their parents think that is a good idea or not.
 
Last edited:
signit said:
don’t think the other poster meant that at age 9 or 10 a child should be allowed to consent.

I don’t support that and neither does any other poster.

I think the poster meant that a 9 or 10 year old can’t consent, for the same reason that a 9 or 10 year old can’t sign a contract or write a will, because we assume a child can’t fully understand the situation.

Therefore, when people bring up pedophilia, that’s a different situation in some ways in that a child can’t consent.
Click to expand...
The debate at hand was whether one should have rights because they can’t control their behavior which was based on one of her earlier comments.

I pointed out that that reasoning is not a good argument because it could be applied to all sorts of immoral behavior. Then she tried to use consent as a defining reason for determining the morality of a behavior. Truthfully, she side-stepped the original point but even consent doesn’t make a behavior moral. I asked her what if a child consents. She explained that they can’t consent because they don’t understand sex. So her own explanation shows that consent doesn’t determine the morality of an action either. But then the question becomes whether the morality of an action is based on the ability to consent combined with understanding what they consent to. …and so on.

The original point that one should have rights because they can’t control a behavior is an argument built on sand. If she’s going to argue for whatever rights she believes SSA persons should have, she needs to base them on something other than it’s something they can’t control. She has shown by her own arguments that pedophiles must control their urges because a child can’t consent. They don’t get rights based on a supposed inability to control their actions.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Is a behavior that can increase your insurance premiums important?
Click to expand...
Just from the standpoint of insurance premiums, I suppose we should be concerned by all sorts of behaviors. Perhaps we could start off by penalizing people for what they eat since according to the CDC, more than 40% of Americans are considered to be obese. That can cause problems like diabetes, stroke and coronary artery disease. We’d probably save a bundle on our health insurance premiums if we outlawed junk food, sugary drinks and fatty foods like ice cream and made only healthy foods available. And perhaps we should get rid of football since the head injuries suffered by people who play it might increase our premiums. And don’t forget smoking.

Or maybe we should realize that we can’t control all the unhealthy behaviors engaged in by others and often even by ourselves.

Edit: I just got myself some ice cream which I probably shouldn’t have because my cholesterol is a little high, but it’s awfully hard to resist sometimes. I wonder how much my ice cream eating might end up raising our health insurance premiums?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Is a behavior that can increase your insurance premiums important?
Click to expand...
Why would having sex increase your premiums? When I wore a younger man’s clothes I can’t remember anything on my health policy asking me how many partners I’d had or whether I used condoms. And I’m pretty sure there aren’t any questions now that ask about one’s sex life.
 
Freddy said:
Why would having sex increase your premiums? When I wore a younger man’s clothes I can’t remember anything on my health policy asking me how many partners I’d had or whether I used condoms. And I’m pretty sure there aren’t any questions now that ask about one’s sex life.
Click to expand...
@buffalo is fond of false equivalency.
 
Risky behavior is now to be shouldered by the rest of society rather than personally.
 
buffalo said:
Risky behavior is now to be shouldered by the rest of society rather than personally.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that LGBT lifestyle is any more a risk too society then you are.

Catholics need to pretend there is or people not unlike yourself won’t have leg to stand on.

That said it reminds me of the argument those with faith use to prove why God is good.
He gives your life meaning; otherwise life has no meaning.
Sure it does, if you want to be the best florists then your life is to be the best florists. God existing or not doesnt change that.

Being gay is morally reprehensible to the church but we don’t live in a mono theistic society. You have to make consideration for other philosophy.
 
I’d argue than that gay people are just a natural byproduct otherwise they would have been literally bred out of existence years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top