I was chatting with a friend, Sam, the other day. He is openly gay, insists that he is a traditional Orthodox Jew and is very adamant about his “rights”. He believed that “people should be able to live however they wanted to or chose” – which to me, is the scariest phrase in the history of mankind.
Sam went on to tell me about his uncle who is currently in prison, serving time for rape, battery and kidnapping, among a long list of other crimes committed in a single night. Years ago, on the night of June 8th, 1984, his uncle had lured, molested and raped an 11 year-old girl nine times in that one night. He worked as a music teacher in her school. The girl was “friendly” with him regularly. He insisted it was consensual. The girl almost died.
Sam’s grandfather, father and uncle are all atheists and all share the belief that people should be able to live however they chose. This lesson was enforced throughout their bloodline. Sam stated that if it was up to him, “[his] uncle would be a free man”.
For those who have read my hubs, you know my stance on the topic of ‘gay rights’. I regularly see the phrase “people should be able to live how they choose” nonchalantly tossed around on HP – especially within the forums.
Yet still, deep in each of our scientific and rational hearts, we question if indeed it is a slippery slope. By permitting gay rights (with homosexual activities being in abundance since the dawn of time), then how can we in all fairness prevent a pedophile’s rights (with pedophilic activities of sex and marriage between children and adults also prominent since the dawn of time)?
Years ago it was generally felt that sex between consenting or non-consenting adults of the same sex was absurd, but now it is more and more acceptable. Today, most people believe that sex between a child and an adult is absurd, but who knows what the people of tomorrow will believe.
Stop interpreting the words and read them as face value. Don't insert your beliefs.
Okay, now insert your beliefs, because you're going to anyways. This story is an emotional train wreck. It goes to show you also, that many families have no moral value, regardless of religious affiliation.
Most people don't understand rights. And, I am sure from the statement above, you don't either. It's not good though.
Slippery slope? Based on what exactly?
I find this an appalling comparison. Gay rights damage no one. Pedophiles and their actions damage everyone they come in contact with, in more ways than I care to count.
Boy is the above statement- misinformation at the extreme. Rape is Rape. Rape is about non-consenting adults. This is still unacceptable and to say that it was acceptable at any time in the past, is just a twist of history. There are plenty of things that were happening and still are happening. Civilized? Not really and those in power, don't care to see a civilized society come about. They have no interests in it.
It doesn't matter how many times politicians say that America is a civilized nation, it's not true. Look around?
Sex between an adult and a child will never become an acceptable action. It destroys growth in society.
So Cagsil, since you superiorily understand "rights" more than others, then enlighten us.
I personally don't believe that you understood the post.
It's not superiority. I don't consider myself superior to anyone, much less you.
My remarks are covered in more detail- read this hub.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Controversial-R … sus-Morals
If you fail to grasp the concept, even after reading the hub, then you have bigger issues, and those issues are most likely by you doing it to yourself.
*the hub link is not self promotion. It's on topic and more in-depth.
Again Cagsil, checked out your hub and I stand by the fact that "not infringing" is still very much subjective. Any argument based on not purposely harming others in our actions lacks substance. We legally infringe on each other every day in the US. For example, unnecessary excessive force by cops, "spanking" of children, etc.
Be realistic!! With every case of physical contact, there is a line that should not be crossed - also considered "gray area".
Furthermore, and as I have stated before, there was no proof presented that the girl did not consent. To say that she was too young to understand, is to underestimate any person's mental capacity at any given time. Fact: No one can assess someone's mental capacity solely based on his/her age. If indeed she did consent, then she was not necessarily "infringed" upon.
Rights are defined. It isn't anyone's right to infringe upon the rights of another. When does someone infringe upon another person's right to life? Isn't subjective based on what a person thinks their rights are or believes their rights are something they are not.
Says you. To a rational and sane person, living a life that doesn't purposely harm others is the ultimate goal of living. How does it lack substance?
Both your examples are junk. Excessive force by cops? It is going to happen from time to time. Even stupid cops doing stupid things. They are human and flawed, just like everyone else, including you.
Spanking children is excellent way to teach discipline. And to say it doesn't, is to perpetuate a fallacy type argument. The problem is, too many parents take it to the extreme and the situation isn't just spanking anymore, but become child abuse. Having parents to not hit their kids, is to damage society as a whole, because the truth is that if they don't have the discipline they need, then when out in public they are not likely to have any boundaries. And, not having boundaries will only lead to an action taken by the child, which will have a consequence and reaction, to follow. And, the child will not understand.
BS. There is a line that isn't crossed. It's called manners and proper etiquette, when dealing with others. This is supposedly taught by parents to children. I am not surprised you didn't know.
Last time I checked, medical science has ways of determining whether or not, rape took place. Other factors, other than the fact that she had sex.
Sure she understood the action that took place, but she isn't mentally and/or emotional connected, to such action, because it would be all new to her. She in no way has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of the act and cannot consent. In many states, there is a legal age limited on it, whether or not you like it.
And, based on LAWs, any sexual action taken on a minor is a felony and as I said, most states have a specific age set. It's already been deemed by Law what is or is not appropriate.
Certain rights are indeed covered by law (whether anyone agrees or not), but definitely not all rights. However, laws are only after-the-fact anyway. The issue underlying the law has usually been lingering for some time.
I can disagree with your position on spanking children, but that will have to be a separate discussion. Put simple, there is a thin and obscure line between spanking and abuse. Parents can abuse a child and say it is their right to discipline their child via spanking. Therefore, spanking (without legal penalty) violates a child's rights as another human being and encourages violence and fear.
Medical science does not determine if specifically rape took place, it verifies intercourse. Harsh ripping of vaginal tissue can not necessarily be deemed as rape unless it is supporting a claim of rape.
Back to the topic, again it is unproven whether or not the sex was consensual. Again you can not and should not assess the mental capacity of anyone merely by that person's age.
So how do you determine when my daughter becomes mentally capable ? She is perfectly able to assess the pro's and con's of the brightly coloured sweety you are offering from the door of your car - and she makes the absolutely right decision to toddle over and try to take it.
What about the clearly mentally retarded prostitute that I met in my first youthful foray into a brothel/bar in Amsterdam - who was the public sex act with various partners, mechanical devices and an animal ? She is making a clearly informed and (correct?) decision within her capabilities about earning enough money to keep herself alive.
Good afternoon good folks! It's seems a lovely day outside, but I think it will be raining later on today. Anyhoo...
recommend1, I do not have an answer to your question. I do not know your daughter - or you for that matter. The age of maturity is different for everyone. As a matter of fact, I personally cannot assess anyone's rate of maturity or mental capacity. Neither do I try.
"Spanking children is excellent way to teach discipline. And to say it doesn't, is to perpetuate a fallacy type argument."
I totally disagree Cags and I will Perpetuate the "fallacy!"
How can any loving parent "HIT AND HURT" their children and think they are teaching their children something of value?
They are teaching their children that hitting is an ok method to discipline.
"Spare the rod and spoil the child" is religious barbarism!
I'm a single father who raised his son from 3 - 18. I NEVER!...EVER, even considered hitting him!
I've always taught him that his brain is the most potent weapon he owns! Use it!
My 2 grand children are being raised the same way I raised my son...NO HITTNG...NO VIOLENCE!
No father could be prouder of a "son" than I am of him!!
I agree with this.
Teaching violence to children could even be the main driver behind the aggression and rage that seems to be in so many western people - I see this aggression much more clearly here because I am treated to displays of it almost daily among the teeming mass of peaceful non aggressive Asian people.
I also find it in myself, and occasionally my mouth works faster than my brain in certain situations, however, I have learned to quickly shut up and back off which is some progress.
Just had to say I totally agree on the 'spanking' issue too. I often got a good smack or three on my legs or backside as a child when misbehaving (often in public places where the embarrassment was worse than any pain a smack caused). I am now a well adjusted adult of 41 who sees children today out of control and with major attitude problems because no-one, parents, teachers etc, are allowed to lay a finger on them,... and they know it! It can only go downhill from there
Sex between an adult ( male ) and a child ( girl ) is not only acceptable to Muslims, it is relentlessly pursued...
Hey Maven, it should show you how ridiculous Muslim are, with regards to understanding Life. It shows Muslim who perpetuate such actions are not actually civilized, now are they?
Social evolution(change) doesn't stop at religion. Religion prevents social aspects of life, because it bestows it's followers with the ideology "do as I say, not as I do" upon them and they go out and attempt to enforce it.
It is uncertain how this post has turned into a religious conversation.
It seems that individuals simply do not want to answer the question at hand because they do not have a viable response. The question remains: At what point do you accept or reject a person's rights?????????
I answered your question Miss Info. I even was nice enough to give you reading material, so you can better understand, what you claim to understand. It's called opening your mind. If you refuse to do so, then that is your choice.
You answered my post to someone else, which wasn't directed at you, but was for someone else, who isn't you.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but when it comes to discussing those beliefs, it will be checked for rationality and irrationality. When you compare things to other things, those things you compare will be judged by other people's perception and their understanding of the use of perception.
The two highest authorities known to man, (a) government and (b)those who believe in a god. Religion is automatically attached, because religion forms the belief in a god. You do not necessarily have to follow a specific religion, but if you do, then it is your personal belief, because you choose it.
Your beliefs are not in the best interests of society and/or the survival of the human species. Society isn't civilized and many aspects of other global societies are different. The Social laws in place, put in by humankind, is the stepping stone to creating a socially civilized society.
If you insist of going done this path, I will accompany you.
To state that "[my] beliefs are not in the best interest of society" (not that this was ever implied) only means that you are aware of someone's belief that may be. Would that someone happen to be you?
You respond as if you have it all figured out, when in reality no one does. You speak of civilization like you know how it should look, but this only justifies that while attacking my so-called bias, you have displayed your own.
"The social laws in place, put in by humankind, is the stepping stone to creating a social civilized society" is preposterous because history proves that these laws are temporary and destined to be changed in the future as society changes.
A person's rights should be rejected when it will cause harm to another!!!!!
Thank God you stepped in Cags, and totally summed up what I wanted to say but you saved me the trouble once I read your post.
My thoughts 'Gays are NOT pedophiles', so please can the bigots who think they are get a life and realise gays have the same abilities to love like straight people do. Why would they automatically be attracted to children?? Jeez, there is so much ignorance in this world it makes me sick.
I think it was ignorance 20 or 30 years ago. Now it's willful hatred.
It is again unclear what the notion of gays being pedophiles have to do with anything in the post.
Please if you are not here to give a rational argument, please refrain from commenting. I apologize, but I intend to only repond to arguments associated to the question at hand. Deviating issues are better left for a seperate discussion. Take Care.
Errrrm, re-read your original post, then think about it and you might just manage to work out that YOU were the one who made it pretty clear that gays being as bad as pedophiles was what YOU inferred.!!!
I WAS responding "to arguments associated to the question at hand", unless you have conveniently diverted from the wording of your original post!
Why even mention gays in the same breath as pedophiles otherwise?
There are people who believe the age of consent for sexual relations should be lowered to 12. One of them is Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.
Besides, isn't age an arbitrary limit imposed by an age-ist society obsessed with the majority opinion oppressing those who honestly love each other but may only be 11?
Sounds to me like age-o-phobia.
That right-wing lie was debunked years ago.
The age limit on what is deemed as a minor is arbitrary, as it was never scientifically proven. There are some 25-year-olds who should be considered minors due to their lack of maturity.
Yet still, in a world where everyone should do whatever they chose to, does age limits in sexual activities really matter?
That is a fact. And the New York liberals, along with their cohorts around the country, have been fighting for a long time to lower the age of consent to 12.
This is the kind of thinking, so completely fraught with logical fallacies of every kind, and so obviously underpinned by religion, that leads to fascism.
Fortunately, our society is enlightened and won't allow oppression and cultural dictatorship any time soon. You will be free to soft pedal bigotry, judgment and poorly contrived arguments as to why your favorite stone age religion should be imposed on everyone else, but it won't fly. At least not any time soon.
Your only hope is a really big disaster, like a flood or a meteor, that you can credit to God and convince everyone that it was his wrath and fury punishing us, the nation of sodomites, for our base souls. (Why did he send that meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, by the way, were they sodomites too? I can see it now, a bunch of lisping T-rexes capering about the jungle ravaging brontosauruses named Bruce and Lance, their tiny limp wrists flitting delicately and serving as a dead give away to God that it was time to act! It's all so clear to me now.)
What does this post have to do with religion? It is simply a question of accepting or rejecting people's rights.
Alright, if this isn't about religion, then what is your problem with gay rights?
You wrote,"The question remains: At what point do you accept or reject a person's rights?????????"
The answer is very simple: You have the right to do what you want unless your actions impinge on someone else's rights.
You get to blare your stereo as loud as you want, but not so loud that I can't sleep.
You get to have sex with whoever you want, so long as they want to have sex with you back. With the added caveat that there is a legal age of consent (which is debated in many places, and the specific "gray area" age occurs somewhere in the teens and depends on specific cultures to pick what number that is... etc, etc.).
So, since you have reduced gay people (and their rights) down to a sex act with your rape and pedophilia comparisons, what is your problem with gay sex when both are consenting?
Give me an answer that does not require religion. When you can't, accept that you are making a religious argument.
Perhaps you have spent too much time arguing with religious people, as I have no intention of arguing with you based on religion.
As for my take on gay rights, read my hubs.
As I have mentioned to others, the argument of not "[infringing] on someone else's right" is a lacking since history has proven otherwise (ie sexism, slavery, .... etc).
The "gray area" of this debate on rights is my point exactly.
"So since rights have been infringed upon throughout history, we might as well infringe on the rights of gays now" ... Thats where you are shifting your unsustainable argument to now? Wow. You sure have to keep churning and shifting and equivocating to keep from seeing the obvious.
And for what it's worth, you can't really just say, "If you want to know my stance on XYZ, go read my hubs." I mean, you can say it, but it doesn't mean anything. How boring would forum conversations be if they went like this:
Miss Info: "I have a stance on religion. Go read my hubs if you don't agree."
Shadesbreath: "I don't agree. Go read my hubs about it."
this coming from the man who wanted to limit a embryo's right to date
Sorry but your understanding of my statement is off.
Firstly, understand that I refuse to get into a circular argument with you. These serve no purpose at all.
Furthermore, and again, the topic of gay rights was not the true focus of this post. I could have stated dozens of other bases for this apparent slippery slope, but then the story of Sam would need no reference.
My point yet again is that due to the subjectivity of our "rights" as human beings - (for ex. one person may believe he has a right to take another man's life for merely plotting to kill him and a judge/jury may agree) - where do we place the line?
To agree that people should be able to do whatever they chose is illogical because in a world of so many people .... a short life would be guaranteed. The life expectancy for human beings will be very brief, not necessarily because of murder solely but because of withholding resources and necessities.
To agree that people should be able to live however they choose is to agree with Sam's or his uncle, who understandably is in jail.
Had that been what you said, you might have had a point of more meaningful conversation. But that's not what you wrote. You wrote about gay rights and put it in context with rapists, murderers and mentally unstable, godless people. That is what you put down in your OP and that is what people are responding to. Now you try to feign innocence. Which is fine. It may be that you are a troll and this is how you get your jollies. It's summer now, so I get to reappear on the forums again. I have to catch up on who the trolls are, who the fanatics are, who the nice people who sometimes make bad/poorly constructed arguments and are then unwilling (or slow) to recognize it and just confess it so everyone can move on are. I don't know which category you fall into. Yet.
What I know Shades, is that from the years I have known you, God help anyone who crosses swords with you on contentious issues. You are sharper than a box of pins, and in my experience, usually right, (actually I would struggle to come up with an example of when your opinion was ever wrong if I am honest).
You know what's funny, it's not being sharp (as nice is that is for my ego); it's knowing what B.S. looks like. I'd love to credit my amazing genius, my sales/marketing experience, or even my spectacular washboard abs, but the truth is, it really comes down to having done a little study in rhetoric. I have caught a lot of grief for quoting Aristotle too much, but his book, Rhetoric, really, really, really said everything that can be said about it. Yes, there are detractors and little tangental holes that can be poked in it, but, pretty much everything I have read since, on rhetoric, on persuasion, on philosophy of communication, on language theory, on sales and marketing ... blah blah... yeah, that's what Aristotle said. In 1/4 the number of pages. lol. It's like the Bible of how to communicate truth (how fun is paradox?)(double reverse paradox?). Having read it (and continuing to) makes it really easy to blow out stupid arguments. If my cat could read, it could do the same thing to arguments like this OP is.
Again, your comment fails to answer the question repeatedly asked: At what point should people's rights be rejected (or accepted)? Do you draw a line in the sand?
If you are offended by the scenario stated in the post (which was by no mean meant to offend), then simply walk away. The question at hand will not change merely because you believe you were offended. The question is not bias or insulting. It is a rational question that deserves an rational answer. Simple.
...The genetics conundrum hasn't been figured out yet, but "gayness" is a genetic "variation."
I'm not concerned with it.
You are concerned with American law specifically in regard to pedophilia?
There are still "cultures" that marry children off as young as 4 and sexual activity begins at the start of menses...regardless of the age of the girl.
Many countries have legal lower age limits of consentual sexual activity.
"Statutory rape" in America would be legal in some other countries.
I take no position about "right and wrong."
One has a choice about where one desires to live.
One must adhere to the mores, morals and laws of the culture one decides to live within...or suffer the consequences.
My belief is that nothing should "ever" be done to a child that would cause harm to it!
I am an American born and raised.
There is no evidence of Gay, being genetic... none. Not at all.
In my reading of the literature there is evidence of it being congenital, and relating to neurological features, whether genetics are involved or not (although twin studies suggest maybe they are). As with many things there are predispositions which may not be absolute but seem to be pretty damn strong.
But if you are being picky, we haven't found a gene for heterosexuality or homosexuality per se. I am not sure that matters as a sole determinant of what is okay. If it did, sociopathy would be just fine as would various nasty medical conditions.
I said: "The genetics conundrum hasn't been figured out yet,..."
Why did you find it necessary to reiterate what I said?
"Gayness is a genetic variation..." based upon what I said above, would be just be my opinion, would it not?
Okay... Sorry. I just get a lil tired of some on here slinging the, "Genetic Homosexuality", line. No offense meant Quark.
-"...The genetics conundrum hasn't been figured out yet, but "gayness" is a genetic "variation."
I'm not concerned with it."-
I took that as, it is. Not as, in your opinion. My mistake.
How you doing today, Quark? Good I hope.
Doin' good TM : thanks for askin'...
Hope yer the same?..:
Haven't been finding too much to respond to here in the forums.
All pretty much meaningless, tripe-ish garble...:
Thanks for your logical answer qwark.
It is true that in the end of the day, we all have to abide by the laws of the land. But aren't these laws created in response to these exact same issues??
If there were no need for lines in the sand, then why do we need laws at all??
These issues do exists and sooner or later, regardless of what most of the people here believe, there will be a law to accept/support the issue or deny/reject the issue. PEOPLE JUST CAN NOT DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. That is anarchy!!!
I just want to say nothing is impossible, it all depends on human's desire. But I wish human's desire turn resonable
I agree, autotoolsmall. The fact that anything is possible is a bit scary. I believe this can lead to societal demise. Unfortunately, "reasonable" is not as objective as it once was.
That's kind of subjective, as it depends on what a person means by that. If we're talking about homosexuals having the right to live however they like without judgment being cast upon them, then I see no harm in it. However, if we're talking about a person saying that they have a right to live however they want, and they happen to be molesting and raping children...then that's a different story altogether, as I don't condone any form of pedophilia or rape of any kind.
Well I don't know the full story other than what you're telling me. However, from what you just said, it sounds like your friend's Uncle deserved to be put in jail for what he did. There's no excuse for a man to take advantage of a child like that. None. Children often are insecure about themselves, and naive about what they want. If your friend's Uncle truly did hurt this little girl for sexual pleasure, then he should be locked up, and he rightfully deserves it.
Again, I don't know the full story, so I would have to talk to your friend personally to get a better understanding as to why he feels that way. Although I think based on what you told me, your friend probably isn't looking at the big picture. He probably got taken in by his own Uncle's lies to cover up his wicked act in order to come off as innocent. Most pedophiles will never admit they did anything wrong, and will often lie through the skin of their teeth to get away with it. All pedophiles are cowards by nature. Hence, why they manipulate children in the first place, as they're easy prey for them. Of course, I'm not an expert on this, but I'm merely throwing in my opinion.
Who cares? That's what forums are for. Sure, most people will utter out nonsense, while a few will make rationalized arguments. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it, as some of the people that post the most in forums don't know what they're talking about anyway. I would name a few names, but I won't. Besides, I doubt anyone is going to care what I think anyways.
Okay, I was with you until you brought this part up. What does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia? I get what you're saying, and understand where you're coming from. However, I don't see how you can equate the rights of a homosexual to the acts of a pedophile. That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that homosexuals are prone more to be pedophiles? Is that what you're saying? If so, then I have to say your mistaken, as I can think of several incidences including the one that you mentioned where a straight person can be just as prone to be a pedophile.
You do bring up a good point there. However, it's already been scientifically proven that people are born gay, so that negates your argument about homosexuals. besides if a person is born gay, then what right do we have to impose on their rights to not be gay? would you impose on the rights of a child that was born blind and/or deaf too?
Whereas pedophilia, we still don't know much about it, so you can't compare the concepts of homosexuality to pedophilia as they're about as different as night and day. there's no comparison.
Anyone who thinks abusing an 11 year old is okay is not expressing a philosophy, they are expressing a personality disorder or major mental disorder. Why are you hanging around such a guy? He is sick. Very sick.
Just to get really explicit: there is nothing whatsoever in the right to do what you want that permits you to infringe on the right of others by beating or raping them--and sex with a minor is always rape. Saying I have a right is just the same as saying you have a duty. It only makes sense of that duty is reasonable and fair.
Firstly you are extremely judgemental. If someone like Sam were to save your life by offering you a lung if you needed it, would you refuse it? I didn't think so. Therefore, to ask "why are you hanging around such a guy?" (when you scarcely know him) is imprudent.
Furthermore, it is my choice to keep in company whomever I please. This is my right. Sam is not the one in jail. If I was as judgemental as you, I would probably have no friends. Everyone has flaws.
Wow, inflammatory arguments, followed by claiming that the initial argument was misunderstood (back peddling) then baiting an individual in hopes of misdirection of argument (and cagsil at that, how predictable) followed by defensiveness at mild questioning...
You have the "How to Debate Without Ever Actually Addressing the Issue" book too? Did my ex-husband finally get around to putting it out as an eBook?
Does anyone know how to delete an irrelevant comment in forums? Just asking.
It is ridiculous to compare the free choice of two consenting adults to the victimization of a child. A child does not have the emotional maturity to consent, therefore any sexual activity is rape.
Comparing gays to pedophiles is a cheap tactic to arouse emotional response in ignorant individuals.
To imply a link between the rape of a child and the rights of two adults to have equality, makes little sense. This is a commonly used suggestion of the far-right, intended to place some kind of link in people's minds, thus turning them against the ideals of equality for all. The shameful thing is that this tactic will work on some people who have no idea what being gay actually means. You really should know that being gay means having an attraction for members of the same gender, not for children. To link the two is really quite sick.
Just because it was practiced at one time does not make it right. If anything, history has shown how wrong mankind has been . Slavery? witch hunts? Although I'm sure there are still some 'wingnuts' around who believe that anything goes, imagine this scenario, An adult man (say 45) wants to have sex with an 11 year old girl, the girl however does not. Who's preference should be honored?
And to equate homosexuality with rape of a child is just so ignorant it doesn't even deserve a response.
I had a friend who came to me one day complaining that his ten-year-old son's teacher was a homosexual, he was going to take his boy out of school and give the teacher a good beating!
I asked him how he felt about his nubile twelve-year-old daughter being taught by a heterosexual teacher.
To cut a long story short, he assumed that homosexual men were attracted to young boys, eg paedophiles.
Fortunately he believed me when I told him that the average homosexual was no more likely to be a paedophile than the average heterosexual teacher.
As you indicated cindi h, the question is "Who's preference should be honored?"
The controversy with the trial would have been "did the girl consent". Yet still, that would have still been considered stagetory rape. The right of the young female to choose to be with an older male would have been rejected either way.
True enough! I think all cases regarding age differences within a relationship should be dealt with on an individual basis, however, I believe the majority of people think a child ( under 18?) does not have the emotional maturity to enter into such a relationship. It is the same logic that dictates a minor can not enter into a legally binding contract, they simply do not possess the adequate mentality.
The reality however cindi is that this is being done as we speak. Polygamists believe this is their right. Are their rights any less important than that rights of a gay person?
I'm a bit confused. You started this thread by making a correlation between gay rights and the rights of a person accused of kidnap, rape and assault!! Did you not?? Now you've switched to polygamy? I believe a persons 'rights' are defined by laws and morals. If I think it is my right to steal from someone that which I desire, does it mean I can? If I think it's my right to marry or have sex with my son, can I? If people think they have the right to do as they please with no consequences then undoubtedly, the rights of others will be ignored. A person who commits assault against another is far different from two people of the same sex agreeing to love and share their lives together. That hurts no one. It may very well OFFEND some people but it doesn't HURT them. If all parties involved in a polygamistic relationship are ok with it, then I don't see why society should have a say.
cindi, I made no such correlation. Sam's story was used as a mere example. It was simply a reference I had on hand.
I felt the need to use the example and I did. Again, I could have used endless examples of activities that were once considered taboo. For example, I know a Christian guy who was recently "silenced" at his church for having sex with his niece. She was young, but not a minor. Therefore, no criminal charges were filed.
At this point, I believe that certain readers separated that fact that Sam was gay and focused primarily on that issue - igniting a fire storm that I was gay bashing. This even after I indicated that Sam was a friend of mine. It's so interesting... all the back and forth and the question is still not answered. The title of the thread is pretty self-explanatory.
I still do believe that noone has an answer.
"By permitting gay rights, then how can we in all fairness prevent a pedophile's rights"
I think the only 'rights' a pedophile has is to remain silent and the right to hire an attorney.
All kidding aside, I think your question was not presented very clearly, that's why the responses have been so inflammatory. Could you simply state your question without the story? Are you wondering to what extent are we willing to accept certain behaviors?
Good Morning everyone.
Cindi, my question has been stated at least 8 times throughout this conversation. It is also indicated in the title.
The Question: Considering the various possible "rights" of mankind, at what point do we reject someone's rights or draw a line in the sand? In other words, if we accept everyone's rights (as in the belief seen even here that "everyone has a right to do as they chose"), then in all fairness are we not establishing a slippery slope?
And, it's been addressed, which apparently you have failed to realize. *shakes his head side to side, face palm*
Laws determine it and it's based on what is in the best interests of society. In most cases, it is [b]voted on by the people as a group. What part are you missing?
Actually it's not, because you keep leaving out the most important aspect- as long as it doesn't harm, hurt or damage(infringe upon the rights of others) . There are restrictions to rights. I have said this before, and you continue to dismiss it.
Again and yet again Cagsil, your response is incorrect and subjective. Perhaps you should check out Wayne's arguments below as they are more rational and logical. I can have a discussion with him at anytime.
You stated that "laws determine it and it's based on what is in the best interests of society" This is INCORRECT. Human rights were established long before laws were established to ENFORCE these rights. It is because rights are debatable, they require the stamp of approval by government in order to be enforced. It is for this reason that topics and issues (like gay rights) are lobbied for in (state or federal) government.
If you are referring to Constitutional rights, then please understand those rights are indeed laws and not the "non-established rights" that I am referring to in this thread. Again the title of this thread refers to the "Rights of mankind" not the rights under law.
Furthermore, you indicated "it's based on what is in the best interest of society" which is also INCORRECT. It is scientifically proven that current gun laws in the US, for example, are more destructive to our society in comparison to other societies in which the right to own a gun is forbidden. Yet still, there are individuals who insist on maintaining their own private arsenal.
Finally, and for hopefully the last time, the argument that "as long as it doesn't harm, hurt or damage (infringe upon the rights of others)" is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. I have explained this to you before. We LEGALLY infringe upon each other every day. Examples are stated above whether you agree or disagree. You cannot use a subjective argument (whether it is 90% subjective or 9% subjective) as a valid, solid argument in a debate. If you do not have a stronger argument, then please understand that you are under no obligation to continue replying.
And, a conversation with you is like banging my head against the wall. It's called being counter-productive.
Actually, YOU would be wrong. The survival of the human species is the actual motive. Which is IN the best interest of society.
Says you? Which isn't true, unless you're now going to claim it is based on religious morals? If so, then you've lost that argument before you even got started. Religious morals were fully enforced and even without thought of the individual's rights.
If you think not, then I suggest you learn about HISTORY, before you go any further. Approximately, 3000 years ago, the religious leadership of many different civilizations never bothered with the rights of the individual and imposed religious moral laws regardless. Including enslavement.
Rights are not debatable in all actuality, it appears that way, because people refuse to learn about them and get properly educated, like yourself.
There are NO "non-established rights". The Right to Life covers every other right in existence and even ones you can think up. So please...GO LEARN SOMETHING!
The Human Rights are the rights of humankind. And, are under law. Something YOU refuse to pay attention to. Why? Who the hell knows.
Repeat yourself much? Addressed in above comments.
Sorry, I covered this in a hub recently and your stance and even the statistics you mention, but don't link to are corrupted. Too bad you know nothing about it. Gun Control isn't about government's ability to control ownership. It's about controlling the distribution of guns. Gun Control on a government level is a myth, perpetuated forth.
Actually, it's YOU who has a failed argument. You're just too blind to see that you're wrong.
And you have fallen upon your own sword my friend.
If the motive is survival of the human species, then why should gays have rights? Why should abortion be legal? Why do we legally enforce capital punishment in some states within the US?
Again I have not referred to or supported my stance with religion throughout this entire conversation and have no intent to.
By the way, trying to insult lowers your credibility in a debate.
Your inability to clearly and objectively support your stand is no fault of mines. Take care.
No such thing.
Because, it's in the best interest of society. By giving the equality, it provide them the happiness that they want and grants them the power to be productive in others ways, which are not tied to the reproductive system.
Because, it's in the best interests of society, the women retain their individual rights and can live their life happy, and more productive in other matters.
Because, the FEDERAL authorities authorized the States to use the sentence as a part of their court system. Some States do and some States don't.
But, you do in other ways. Your religious belief is all over your statements. And, to PROVE it to you....what was the first thing you said in this post I am responding to. So please, don't tell me that your religious beliefs have nothing to do with your thoughts on any of the subject matter being discussed in this thread. You would only show yourself to be speaking untruth.
Insults? Is that what you think I am doing. Telling YOU to go learn something isn't an insult, regardless of whether you believe it to be or not. It's a fact that you do not comprehend everything that is entailed in your OP. Nice try, but again you failed.
Actually, you're not smart enough to see your ego is in your own way from understanding YOUR own OP. So, take your "take care" and sit and spin. Your obnoxious, egotistical, MISS "I know it all" type attitude is absurd and making you look ridiculous. I am just pointing it out, so you know. Everyone else who has responded in this thread knows, simply because of your actions.
If you're not going to be objective and listen, then you are no good to yourself or others.
Ok, I see where you're going. I think, had this question been stated without the story, you would have gotten more thought provoking answers. I, along with everyone else I'm sure, was focused on the 'gay vs. peodiphile' part of your question.
I don't really know the answer, but I do feel that throughout the ages, we have become more tolerant of some behaviors that were once considered bad. It seems that society's morals and values are declining, so yes it is a 'slippery slope', however, I don't believe or hope not at least, that we will ever come to accept an unlimited right to do anything we please.
IF WE ACCEPT EVERYONE'S RIGHTS-- That will never happen because, as cagsil has stated, there are laws put in place BY mankind to limit or control behavior. When people don't agree with the laws for whatever personal reasons, that is when they break them and choose, on their own, to do as they wish.
Good afternoon good folks.
Thank you for your response cindi. I was under a similar conclusion "that society's morals and values are declining" and there is indeed a slippery slope. Wayne made a similar deduction as well and I also received email making a similar argument.
The question remains... where do we draw the line?
On that note, I will begin another conversation.
Off to start another post..... Take Care everyone.
Looks to me like just another gay basher, sinking into the cesspool of their own rotting morals.
If "Sam" truly believes that everyone should be able to do whatever they want he is incredibly stupid. Not just ignorant, but stupid. Either that or he's the biggest, strongest, meanest man on the face of the earth.
Anyone that can actually propose a link between child rape and homosexuality isn't much better. It's just another rationalization used to keep control over someone else and their choice of lifestyle. Very similar to strongman Sam, actually.
No sane person would advocate strongman rule. The well understood but unstated addition of "as long as it hurts no one else" to the statement of "Do whatever you wish" seems to be missing from your thinking as well as your post. Put it back in where it belongs and then try to make sense with this ridiculous post.
I agree completely. I'm not a wiccan but I always admired their basic philosophy. "Harm no one, do as ye will" I had a bumper sticker that said it. For some reason it pissed people off.
I always wondered if they wanted bumper stickers that said "You'll do what I want you to, because everything I believe is right"
wilderness, you clearly did not understant the post.
I hate to say it, but I have a sneaky suspicion Sam is an imaginary atheist friend, created to push an anti gay and pro religion agenda. I see nothing believable in your statement.
Good morning good folks. It’s interesting how one can be labeled a “liberal” in one day and “right-winged” in the next. Yet still, I haven’t the clue what this post has to do with politics.
Anyway, for those who read the post INCORRECTLY, you are duly ignored.
For those who read the post correctly. Thanks for your feedback. The topic of sex and marriage between a consenting child and adult is a growing, heated debate. For example, polygamist families are fighting brutally for their rights, while to many individuals, polygamists can be considered amoral or criminal. Scientifically, some older minors (12 – 18 years of age) are indeed capable of enduring sex with adults and conceiving/raising children by those adults. This practice is indeed very much so present throughout the world and the US today – accepted by those who uphold its belief and their right to believe such.
Society is indeed changing. Whether social standards are really developing versus depleting is questionable. The reality is that the concept of “rights” is not objective. As one comment indicated, some centuries ago the notion of free Black people in the US was unperceivable. Now today, we have a Black US president. There are some people who still believe that Black, Hispanic and Asian Americans should not be considered equal in the US today.
My point is that at what point do we accept or reject a person’s “right”?
"Your rights end at the point they could reasonably be viewed as infringing on the rights of others." Excellent. After that it is just good manners. And for those who must have more than others: my right is superior to yours.
Oh, I think cagsil understood it. Stop baiting him, he bites.
It's not so much the debate I disagreed with as the tactics used in the first post. Obviously you have a preformed opinion and obviously you are using inflammatory statements to advance that opinion.
To the poster about the age of consent-I believe that mainly consists of age of consent with another of similar age and the legal implications of one 12 year old having sex with another. Interesting, but unrelated.
I see no increasing acceptance of pedophilia.
As far as the "right" of the young female. At 12, she would have been psychologically incapable of forming a decision so she, legally, wouldn't have the "right" to make that decision. Legal rights, as you interpret them, could be used in almost any criminal case... i.e. If you convict this rapist, you are restricting the rights of women to walk across a dark parking lot" The law simply doesn't work that way.
wow, i was wondering where the story was going... from the right to rape an 11 year old to the point of death, to the rights of two adults having sex of their own free will.
Will you marry me? Or can I at least hire you to follow behind me and point out the obvious to the idiots I deal with daily?
"Sex between an adult ( male ) and a child ( girl ) is not only acceptable to Muslims, it is relentlessly pursued.."
Yep, that should just about wrap the non-debate up. Now all that is left is the name calling.
Since you are clearly not here for a rational, adult conversation, then please refain from commenting.
This post was not meant for childish banter. Please forgive me if I refrain from responding to your comments from now on. Take Care.
Miss Info, in answer to the point you raised in your last paragraph, we can not know what people will think years from now...
but most people that i have come across believe, generally speaking, that the right to extend your fist ends where the other person's face begins.
In other words, what Sam's uncle did was wrong because a) he forced himself upon another person without their consent, and b) he forced themselves upon a person who did not have the maturity to give their consent.
What is the similarity with Sam's Uncle's actions and those of two adult people with sound minds who choose to engage willingly in sexual activities that involve only themselves?
What Sam's Uncle did was wrong not simply because it was 'taboo', but because he viciously disregarded the rights of a helpless person who was unable to stop him, and in fact was not in a position to know better to make the choice to stop him or not.
The slope that Sam's Uncle embarked upon does not lead to the right to have consensual gay sex.. it leads to the exact opposite.. ie the denial of human beings to do what they want with their own bodies.
You raise very good point and issue: TABOO. So let's talk about taboo.
A century ago, a man sleeping with his sister was considered taboo. Sex between two men or two women was considered taboo. Adults having sex with children was considered taboo. Polygamy was considered taboo. Adults having sex with animals was considered taboo. Adults having sex in public was considered taboo. Nudity in public was considered taboo. S&M was considered taboo. And I can go on and on.
These are all becoming more and more "acceptable" in today's sex scene. Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line?
The argument that you can not infringe on someone else is subjective and futile as seen by history (ie sexism, slavery, etc).
We are living in a very sexual day and age. Should sexual exploration be contained?
Furthermore, there is no proof as to if indeed the girl did or did not consent and no one, scientifically, can assess her level of maturity due merely to her age.
The fact that history shows that people's rights were 'legally' infringed upon, doesn't mean that they should have been infringed upon.
You ask if sexual 'exploration' should be contained? I don't think that the actions, sexual or not, of any person(s) should be 'contained' if they are made by those of sound mind and do not hurt anyone else.
As for the particular case of Sam's Uncle, you made it cleat that she was raped to near to the point of death. It's hard to image that anyone would chose that, isn't it?
In my opinion, someone of her age would not have reached the age of maturity to make a decision to engage in sexual activity with an adult. For the purposed of your analogy though, it really doesn't require to determine what the age of maturity should or shouldn't be however. I know some people would place that age far younger than I would.
More importantly when considering your question is the principle that underlies the rights.. ie that two when two consenting adults should be able to engage if activities that do not hurt others.
"In your opinion" is not enough.
Whether the girl may or may not have consented to simply sex (not rape) can not be proven.
Again and yet again, "those of a sound mind" is subjective. You do not know who is of a sound mind these days. "do not hurt anyone else" is also subjective. Today, we send our soldiers out to die under reckless and poor juddment/orders/commands repeatedly. Is this sound or not hurting anyone else??? Absolutely not, but it is still law. I actually wrote a hub on justice and "rights".
My point is that it may (or may not) be detrimental to society to ponder whether to contain or not to contain.
Not really, just uncommon. Still uncommon.
In some places. In those places it is still consider taboo.
Where in the hell do you live? I live in WEST VIRGINIA and I can tell you that sex with animals is still frowned upon?
Sexism, slavery etc. are not the same thing as anti-pedophilia. A person being black does not create a victim. I.E. the fact that a person is black does not, in itself, create a traumatic experience for another human being.
No, but rape isn't sexual exploration.
Um... scientifically one can. Psychological profiles, studies on human emotional development, etc. There is, in fact, a whole field of scientific study that can, and does access levels of maturity based on age. It's called Psychology. Its been around for awhile.
Who cares what's "taboo".
All that matters is if the individuals involved give consent to an activity, and also are not in breech of another individual's property rights.
The original poster apparently, since they were using it to illustrate some vague point.
As to decision making ability for those on welfare, that point would be valid only if:
1. All decision making skills were equal. I.E. if you assumed that choosing what to have for dinner was equivalent to selecting the appropriate mortgage interest structure. Age, intellect, and education (either by life experience or instruction) all effect which decisions on is capable of making. This in no way invalidates the argument that a 12 year old is incapable of choosing to be with an older man, if anything it supports it.
2. You must also assume that every person on welfare has made illogical decisions and is not there as a result of injury or other unforeseeable circumstances.
3. You must further assume that each person on welfare was presented with opportunities that allowed for a choice.
4. You must assume that by changing any choices that they made, they would have had different results.
Once all those assumptions are proven factual, then yes you would have an argument that individuals on welfare are incapable of making decisions.
I believe Evan, that if you do not have any problems or reservations with activities that are taboo, then your problem is bigger than this tread. Good luck with that.
And there is the personal attack.
Well, I believe this thread has spun its natural course. This is why new people don't stay around for long.
Hmmm ! just like attacking a person by suggesting they have a 'sexual problem' because they argue against pornography ? ?
I probably should have apologized for that. The original poster in that thread reminded me of my self 10 years ago and I was frustrated that I couldn't get through to her. I took it out on you because you were (I thought) encouraging her to go down a path that was going to ruin her marriage. You weren't, and I am truly sorry.
Ahh - you are just young and impulsive, no offense taken here
Holy crap, what am I going to feel like when I am OLD? If this is young, can I quit now?
Old is when you stop fighting and give in, and it is the stopping fighting that is the real cause of sliding values in respect of people's rights.
How is the smoking issue going
While it is worse for me personally, I decided that it was better for my family and friends if I continue... In short, epic fail. I did develop a sucker addition though, so smoking is at least reduced.
I quit (for the umpteenth time) 3 years ago when my partner demanded it. I will finally beat the remaining issue of totally secret smoking this summer holiday when we will be in each others company every minute travelling through Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand for 8 weeks. After managing to not smoke without issues of any kind for most hours of the day and several whole days at a time - I consider that I am about ready to finish it. I would advise giving it up on a regular basis and ignore the false feeling of abject failure that is as insidious as the addiction.
*nods* probably a good idea. If I quit often enough, its bound to stick eventually. Hubby and I are hoping to spawn again, I wanted to quit beforehand for obvious reasons. So the feeling of failure is slightly magnified when fertility is dependent on success.
OH GOD!!! NOT TABOO!!!
I FARTED IN FRONT OF A GIRL!!!
OMG!!! I NOW AM DRINKING ALCOHOL BEFORE NOON!!!!!
ZOMG!!! NOW I'M URINATING WITH THE DOOR OPEN!!!!!!
Man, my problems really ARE bigger than this "tread".
Mis Info is your name?
"And the New York liberals"
Well that's a new one. How many of them can you name?
People have the right to do with their property as they voluntarily choose to, so long as it does not infringe on another's right to do the same.
Being allowed to do what you want is NOT a right. This is nonsense. But, basic human rights demand that - so long as everything IS voluntary and does not infringe on another's property rights - then things are A-OK.
People own their bodies, for those wondering about "murder" etc. The body is the property of the individual.
Yes, this philosophy of human rights DOES make drug use, prostitution, assisted suicide, and voluntary slavery legal (VOLUNTARY slavery). But this obviously is of little to no concern, due to the fact that these individuals are not disrupting other people's property rights.
NOW - we must discuss "when is someone able to consent to something". Some demand that it's when they are of a certain mental state and/or age. Others question whether consent can ever truly exist.
I would argue that one can only truly consent to something when they are able to feed and house themselves without the help of direct charity (for example: welfare, family members feeding you, your father writing you a check every month, etc.). For this implies the mental capability of being able to handle decision making.
I await a discussion - not argument - about this assertion.
So those on welfare can not consent to anything!
Makes them pretty unemployable doesn't it?
Oh, good point.
Well, honestly, if the policy were implemented welfare (Like the type of welfare we have today)wouldn't really be allowed - taxes are theft.
But charity, on the other hand, would be another thing entirely, now wouldn't it! And I think this is what the heart of your question was about.
Indeed - in order to receive charity, one would have to agree to accept it, wouldn't they? They would need to consent to receiving charity, but in so doing would lose the power to consent -- clearly a mistake has been made on my part.
I would imagine that this might be a great time to point out the role of a parent/guardian. It would be their duty to help the individual obtain their first job. Sort of a sponsor / benefactor, if you would.
I agree it would be awkward at a bar "hey baby, are you able to give consent?" instead of "are you 18 yet?".
"Yes, this philosophy of human rights DOES make drug use, prostitution, assisted suicide, and voluntary slavery legal (VOLUNTARY slavery). But this obviously is of little to no concern, due to the fact that these individuals are not disrupting other people's property rights."
Firstly, I have never heard of the concept "voluntary slavery". This is an oxyMORON.
Furthermore, these activities absolutely do affect other individuals - innocent bystanders. On Father's Day, according to the news (in New York), a guy walked into a pharmacy and shot and killed four complete strangers merely to steal prescription drugs to satisfy his and his wife's addiction. Yes, he is strung out and overwhelmed by his addiction. Yes, he was not in his sound mind and may not have entirely known what he was doing. But does that justify what he did? Absolutely not.
He had a right to stop his pain and supply for his family, but not take someone else's life in the process. He could have taken himself and his wife to rehab.
This brings me back to Sam's uncle. There were other options for Sam's uncle, he CHOSE what option he wanted to take and paid the price for it. If everyone did what THEY BELIEVED or CHOSE was the right action to take, then how can you justify that anything anyone does can be right or wrong? Hence, the slippery slope. Sam's uncle believed he was right and implemented his choice accordingly.
A person has the right to do what they wish if they do not harm someone else.
While it is often debatable whether a given act or behaviour violates this principle, what is not debatable is the principle itself.
While people can come to different subjective conclusions of whether a particular act does indeed violate this principle, the principle itself is not debatable. Similarly, the legitimate differences of opinion on a given issue (ie the age of consent), does not negate the soundness of this principle,
While history is full of examples of the blatant violation of this principle on a vast scale, and with the blessing of the state, again the principle itself is sound.
Homosexual activity maybe taboo, but the idea of people of engaging in homosexual behaviour in an of itself is not a violation of this principle.
The idea of forced sexual activity is a violation of this principle. Forced sexual activity means sexual activity without informed consent. A minor does not have the ability to provide this informed consent. We can debate the age at which a person does has this ability, but the point is the principle itself, not the particulars. Furthermore this so called 'grey area' for this particular issue has nothing to do with homosexual rights, or any other rights, under the principle in question.
What people believe tomorrow comes about much by how we shape our morals and beliefs of today. I cannot imagine a society in which a pedophile's logic is accepted on any level as reasonable to embrace from a moral standpoint. When did an eleven year old girl reach a mental maturity to make decisions regarding consensual sex? The reasoning is riddled with ignorance. Certainly an eleven year old can be friendly to other people but that should not be taken as an invitation to engage in sexual conduct. Who is the adult here and where is the logic? I robbed the bank because I really needed the money...I didn't have any! So that makes it okay...I really needed it as opposed to someone who is out robbing banks just for kicks. Marriage is basically and essentially a holy institution in the eyes of God and thus the perameters that make it such are set fort in his words concerning the make up of it. The law enters into it only because marriage becomes a legal and binding contract between the parties. It is not up to the law to determine the moral aspects of the religious requirements of marriage. It is up to the law to decide who gets what when it all ends in divorce and the property must be split. Divorce relieves the parties of the legal obligations of marriage but does nothing to resolve the moral failure both have brought. When society attempts redefine the perameters of marriage for the convenience of a few, we are outstripping our authority as human beings in the eyes of the Lord. Rights in a society are few and specific. With those rights come responsibilities and accountability. No one in any sane society has the "right" to have sexual intercourse with an eleven year old girl and then imply that it was consensual because she acted friendly. There is a moral obligation and an adult maturity which should be at work telling the other person that fact. To imply to anything less is totally irrational and illogical and simply borders on functional ignorance. WB
Hi Wayne. You stated that you "cannot imagine a society in which a pedophile's logic is accepted on any level as reasonable to embrace from a moral standpoint", but polygamists do this all the time. The practice is based on their religious beliefs. Therefore, it is definitely being done in the US.
Being gay = rape and near murder of an 11 year old.
No replies necessary, really.
Greg, yeh a reply is necessary!
I have no idea what you mean: gay=rape and near murder...?
My brother was gay.
We knew he was "different" from about 2yrs old.
He was the best of my 4 siblings!
He finished college. He was a wonderful artist. He was vice pres of a Calif bank and a guy who'd do anything for ya.
He died in his early 40's of AIDS.
Rape and murder? Where'n the hell did ya get that stupid notion?
I will assume you are simply caught up in the fact that this thread has quite predictably degenerated into a pointless mixed bag of soapbox saviors full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
One might note, however, that the original trolling intent of the OP was quite precisely to equate those very two things.
I don't get "caught up" in much of anything anymore.
I just respond when something hits home regardless of the title of the thread.
Gay=rape and murder, caught my eye, hit a tender spot in my psyche and the response was automatic.
I owned apts in Ft Laud, Fla. in an area where there were many "gays." Some of them were my tenents and every one of them were talented hard working people who paid there rent. What their personal activities were in their apts, was none of my business.
My brother died a horrible death because his search for "love" backfired!
Gay = rape and murder is the judgement of an idiot!
You will learn pretty quickly who the selective readers are too.
I do not understand your statement, therefore I will refrain from replying.
Well I think the statement is glaringly obvious, in other words, the two do NOT equate as you seem to imply. Miss Info is in other words, full of 'Miss-Information'.
Does that make it any easier to understand?
Just so that you are aware (since the intended effect of your words fell flat) ...
Insulting in response to a question ask is always a sign of weakness, ignorance and immaturity. Others will not take you seriously in a debate. Take Care.
The same could be said of the way you posted your 'question' - which is why you got such a negative response. The question part of your post is unclear, while the poorly chosen examples are very clear.
Again, if you are uncomfortable with this particular conversation, it is unclear why you would insist on returning.
It's a lovely day outside. Have a nice day!
In respect of human rights. The issues of gay rights and the rights of an individual are not linked in the manner suggested.
The right of a person to refuse is the basic right, not the right of a person to impose what they want on another.
The Gay issue is about changing attitudes of society, not individual rights. The individual rights are part of it of course but the overwhelming issue is public perception that has to be dealt with in public ways.
The issue of underage children is one of property. The child belongs to the parents in that the parent is charged with its protection, the age that a child becomes an adult is decided by its society in a negotiation between the child, the adult and the society.
This means that the OP is correct in one respect, this negotiation is different in different cultures and changes over time - and so may one day change to make 12 year old people adult. Until that time they are children and the paedophile uncle should have been summarily executed within one day of being found guilty.
Thanks for your input. recommend1. "[C]hanging attitudes of society" does affect individual's rights. This refers back to the detriment of the slippery slope. If our attitudes about what is socially acceptable or not constantly keep changing, then who (in the future) is to say that we will not end up, in the long run, choosing our own demise.
Sorry Miss Info but the last time i check you could not legally have two or more wives. Here again one makes a decision to violate the morals and the legals and expects to be rewarded for it. There certainly cannot be a basis for simply violating laws because you claim it is within your religious principles...you're getting the cart ahead of the horse and a society geared as such will be in chaos. That is the point which people miss...we are a people of relative common beliefs...when we start including everyone in that process and they make no concessations to become part of it, chaos ensues...it will never work. WB
Understand that I agree with you Wayne.
However, the laws have not prevented polygamists from fighting for their rights. Furthermore, polygamists have the deflector - separation of Church and State - on their sides. Who knows, maybe the laws will change in their favor in the future .....
To be clear my response above was to 'Miss Information's' response to this comment by Greg:
Greg Sage wrote:
Being gay = rape and near murder of an 11 year old.
No replies necessary, really.
Whilst I can agree that the OP is making a very clumsy argument and appears to be making a veiled homophobic argument - emotional responses do nothing except support the blind view, in this case maybe of homophobia. It is essential to counter the arguments with reason to open up the bigotry or whatever to examination.
The point about age of consent, when someone becomes an adult and what that means in relation to consent, and the changing rules that society imposes - should all be aired and argued. Values are totally subjective and the nature of societies through the ages widely differ on this, and will in the future. The more people aware of hte issues in an reasoned way the more likely we are to make better choices.
There is no attemp at a "veiled homophobic argument".
Perhaps if readers refrain from picking out hot-button words from the original post (like the word gay - Sam was gay, so what!) and focus on the entire post (or even its title), then it will be clear that the post uses two or even three prominent forms of "human rights" today towards understanding if indeed a slippery slope does (or does not) exist. It really can not get anymore simple than that.
We had remarkably uniform answers for such a diverse group of people. You just didn't like them. That isn't our problem.
miss info...Your references as to the polygamist and pedophiles is really their claiming of their "ways" as their rights. These actions have not been granted either morally or legally to them as a right and it certainly cannot be looked upon as a right of birth into the human race. We can use all the illogical and irrational reasoning we want to justify our "way" in this life but that does not give them the status of "rights". We cannot speculate on the maturity of an eleven year girl to make the right decision and that is why we have laws against adults having sex in any form with an eleven year old girl. There is nothing that even remotely approaches the aspect of "rights" in the scenario unless you are referring the the "rights" of a minor to be protected from such harm under the laws of our nation. One can move from that position to the argument of gay rights or "gay ways" as it applies to the institution of marriage which seems to have been quite well-defined eons ago within our culture. The demand is for the "right" to marry. Thus far, that "right" has not been granted in most cases and the reasons have been cited as such. I am not here to promote or defend but simply using this as an example within our society. Given the "right" is not granted does not forbid the "ways" of the gay population necessarily. The unfortunate side of this demand seems to run beyond the aspect of the moral and legal sense. At its roots, it is a demand for acceptance and all that goes with it. That demand is not necessarily a justification unless you change the original premise on which it is rejected in order to make it palatable. Morals and laws develop for a reason and it is generally not to accomodate the "ways" of particular people in order to justify their legitimacy within a society. Those who elect these lifestyles or criminal actions in particular instances begin with the same rights morally and legally that you and I have had since birth. They elect to add additional rights to themselves simply by demanding that society embrace their "ways" as a form of rights. While their need may be an earnest one, it apparently does not hold water for the majority of people weighing the evidence. WB
Wayne, there are human rights and legal rights. I am referring to human rights as indicated by the title of this thread.
I believe that the reason why gay rights create such a fire storm is because the concept of 'gay rights' was never even considered human rights previously. Being openly gay for centuries was considered taboo. This doesn't mean that there were no such practices.
Like the right to be gay, polygamists believe in their right to not only wed multiple times, but also to wed young girls. These marriages are usually arranged by the girl's mother. Due to their upbringing (and moral code), these young girls are raised to deem it an honor to wed at a young age. Though this practice is not legally enforced (or condoned) by law, the fight for their human rights (towards becoming a legal right) and maintain these practices and lifestyles, continue as we speak.
As you mentioned, "given the "right" is not granted does not forbid the "ways"" and right now polygamists like gays are indeed fighting for the legal right to practice their ways of life (what they deem as human rights). Perhaps in the future, who we label "pedophiles" today, like polygamists, will be also fighting for their right to wed children outside of religion.
The issue of morals is where things get a bit tricky. Most morals are based on religious upbringing. Morals are unfortunately not innate and can be either good or bad. Therefore, morals cannot objectively determine what are human rights nor what should be considered legal. Laws, on the other hand, should be based on scientific deduction. However, science, in itself, can at times be manipulated.
In reference to not speculating on the maturity of an eleven year old girl, I tend to disagree. If indeed this same eleven year old girl killed Sam's uncle without him even touching her for whatever the reason, then the prosecution would heavily rely on assessing the actual maturity and intent of this same little girl towards convicting her for murder.
I guess you are just so much smarter than the rest of us...
Miss Info, it seems that it is your ability to communicate that needs work. Because everyone else in this conversation seems to understand what they answered to what you seem to have asked. Ergo, whatever you meant to ask: you didn't.
One might ask just who the fool is when attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who starts a conversation by equating homosexuality with child-rape.
Greg, wondering the same thing, especially in the story, the rapist of the 11-year old is heterosexual. He's a man and she's a girl!!! What does that guy, who is deservedly sitting in prison right now, have anything to do with gay rights??? It's a totally incoherent and disconnected event.
Really might as well be comparing people who walk up the down escalator to pedophile rapists... just as valid, and just as poignant.
Trollbaiting 101. How is it that these things even get debated? Are people that desperate to be right about everything that they'll just argue at any provocation no matter how inane?
by GA Anderson5 years ago
Here is some food for thought for all those that think objections against laws and regulations - based on the old "slippery slope" or "give them an inch and they will take a mile" arguments are...
by Harry Tamanjon4 years ago
What are the benefits of a hidden relationship?
by KEVY44447 years ago
IN MY OPINION ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRINK PLAIN WATER????
by SpaceShanty3 years ago
The quote on Google's home page appears to be critical of Russia's anti gay laws.
by Credence25 years ago
How wide spread is the message that seems to come from the Republican Right that among the parties involved in a rape crime, the status of the woman is less important that that of the offender or that of the unborn...
by LAURENS WRIGHT4 years ago
Do you feel that the US can continue going into debt to fund the present or must tackle the problem?It seems that the US is kicking the can down the path and borrowing money to just keep up with the programs it now...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.