EPTDADT Repeal is Official! - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
| ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
but i do see why gay people shouldn't be "allowed" having a religious wedding though. Non religious is fine but wanting religious marriage is a joke when you're trying to force your beliefs on a group of people that don't like you and dont want to change their beliefs. fyi i think religions are a joke as well but i'm not going to tell them what they can or can't believe. thats just rude On September 20 2011 08:21 dcemuser wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter's_Syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome Yep, that's right. There are ONLY males and females. All those other people must not exist, thanks. I'm always curious if people that spam science wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender genetically speaking at least. If you have proper SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman. Go wikipedia some more :| | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:25 acker wrote: We're going to become the older generation someday. Younger generations will point at us and laugh because we considered pedophilia a crime or something equally heinous to us in the future. We all know it's going to happen. I have always felt that the true American tradition is a progression of civil liberties. It should be up to the state to have a good reason to deny rights, not up to the individual making use of them. Just as the myths of minority and female inferiority were dispelled, so too are the myths surrounding the union of two consenting adults of the same gender. These are all matters in which we compensated for our ignorance by propagating lies and half truths with little to no context. While I have no doubt that this progress will continue in new and amazing ways, I think we are accruing such a huge body of evidence and objective data that it is constantly getting harder for us to fool ourselves in this way. If something like pedophilia were a victimless crime that is simply subject to our prejudices, I find it very hard to believe there would not be compelling evidence being advocated somewhere. In short, I think that once we are working our way toward equality for smaller minorities but don't think something so radical as what you suggest is possible. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Pedophilia isn't a crime. Molesting/abusing children is. I don't consider pedophilia in of itself morally reprehensible or criminal but I had to choose something that a majority would agree was morally reprehensible. Most cultural crimes would also fit here, maybe even public nudity. It's quite clear that some (not all) of the stuff we consider wrong and punishable by law will be overturned by younger generations. Just like us with our grandparents. On September 20 2011 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Note, I'm a [moderate] libertarian (oxymoron?). I'd hate living with European social policies, it's a byproduct of being an economics major. *shrug* Always thought most economists were variants of the neoclassical or Keynesian school, not the monetarist or Austrian school. Not that the liberal/libertarian axes exactly divides down that way, but it's pretty close. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:52 acker wrote: I don't consider pedophilia in of itself morally reprehensible or criminal but I had to choose something that a majority would agree was morally reprehensible. Most cultural crimes would also fit here, maybe even public nudity. It's quite clear that some (not all) of the stuff we consider wrong and punishable by law will be overturned by younger generations. Just like us with our grandparents. *shrug* Always thought most economists were neoclassical or Keynesian, not monetarist or Austrian. Not that the liberal/libertarian divide exactly divides down that way, but it's pretty close. Most economists are "keynesian" (didn't even know it could be used like that!). Almost all the economics I've learned are keynesian. Hence "moderate" libertarian. It's my own interpretation, so maybe I'm classifying myself incorrectly, never given it too much thought tbh. | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:58 FabledIntegral wrote: Most economists are "keynesian" (didn't even know it could be used like that!). Almost all the economics I've learned are keynesian. Hence "moderate" libertarian. It's my own interpretation, so maybe I'm classifying myself incorrectly, never given it too much thought tbh. If it's "government should stay out of everything except what explicitly causes negative externalities and prioritize LM policy over IS policy", that's the neoclassical school. I think. There's a grey blur between this and Friedman's monetarism, so there could be some overlap. I guess monetarism places a good deal more emphasis on M2 stability. Just from your previous posts, I think neoclassical's closer to your school. Way off-topic >< | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:46 askTeivospy wrote: I'm always curious if people that spam wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender biologically speaking at least. If you have SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman. heres a wikilink since you got your degree through wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY The whole point of the links is that there are more than 2 sexes. I didn't say anything about being an expert. I doubt somebody like the guy I originally quoted even knows the difference between gender and sex, so just throwing intersex conditions at him served my purpose. Nobody knows what truly defines biological GENDER. People who have proper SRY but also have intersex conditions and female genitalia may grow up and decide being male feels completely wrong to them. Transsexualism and studies on transsexuals have called into question how biological gender is determined. There are lots of theories, but none are proven, least of all SRY. | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:00 Phyrigian wrote: Better late than never. My thoughts on the subject exactly. Now America just has to get working to resolve all the other cultural and legal inequalities for the GLBT community. Unfortunately it will probably be decades until that happens, but baby steps of progress is better than no progress at all. | ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
Delinius
United States324 Posts
| ||
|
KSMB
United States100 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :| Because it is an extremely common red herring that anti-gay bigots tend to throw out: implying pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:59 acker wrote: If it's "government should stay out of everything except what explicitly causes negative externalities and prioritize LM policy over IS policy", that's the neoclassical school. I think. There's a grey blur between this and Friedman's monetarism, so there could be some overlap. I guess monetarism places a good deal more emphasis on M2 stability. Just from your previous posts, I think neoclassical's closer to your school. Way off-topic >< Quite possibly, maybe I should look into it a little more before defining myself in a manner that doesn't even represent me, but agreed, off topic now  . | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
This is a great day for America  + Show Spoiler + to everyone filling this thread with ridiculous completely offtopic arguments please stop and post about how great this is :D | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :| On September 20 2011 09:08 KSMB wrote: Because it is an extremely common red herring that anti-gay bigots tend to throw out: implying pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked. Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural." | ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 20 2011 09:12 jdseemoreglass wrote: Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural." If you want to discuss whether paedophilia is acceptable or not start another thread. In here it's off topic. | ||
KwarK
United States41471 Posts
On September 20 2011 09:12 jdseemoreglass wrote: Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural." Pedophilia is to child molesting what heterosexuality is to rape. Neither pose a danger to society unless they choose to sexually assault another human and both pose a danger if they do. I expect there are thousands, if not millions, of people with pedophilic fantasies living normal lives in normal relationships because they aren't sociopaths. Thoughts are not and should not be illegal, it's what you do that counts. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
I expect it'll be an interesting transition, but the military has a handy way of enforcing behavior (zero tolerance for dissent) that should make the transition to a gay-tolerant culture fairly smooth. It's a good thing, and I'm glad we're here. Hopefully DOMA gets repealed next. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On September 20 2011 09:18 KwarK wrote: Pedophilia is to child molesting what heterosexuality is to rape. Neither pose a danger to society unless they choose to sexually assault another human and both pose a danger if they do. I expect there are thousands, if not millions, of people with pedophilic fantasies living normal lives in normal relationships because they aren't sociopaths. Thoughts are not and should not be illegal, it's what you do that counts. I agree completely with you. I just find it very hypocritical when people who are preaching about "equal rights" and "tolerance" suddenly get extremely offended when gays are mentioned with pedophiles. Like "don't compare gays with those sickos!" They can't even see the hypocrisy in it lol. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
Source: The conversation I just had with my wife. | ||
| ||
