a lot of people believe and stand by the "consenting adults" line, myself included. What needs to happen is what Gays Against Groomers has been trying to do: weed the pedophiles and abusers out with extreme prejudice.
In today's climate, that will never happen. They would rather run cover for child abusers than have any semblance of control over promiscuity.
I guess it comes down to how we define "ok". If degenerates are degenerating, and the only people affected are said degenerates who mutually agree to degenerate, then I don't see the harm on a wide scale. Sure, they damage themselves and that's not "ok", but it is their own duty to correct their behavior or live with the consequences.
To me, it is when degeneracy bleeds into affecting non-consenting parties (either literally or legally) that it becomes a problem that warrants outside intervention. This ranges from annoying things like public indecency to outright criminal behavior like child abuse. The intervention required depends on the severity of the act, but it obviously can't be left alone.
If degenerate adults want to yiff in hell or whatever in a private setting, it's not our responsibility to stop them.
The problem is that that's the biggest if in the history of the species. Particularly given that we have the past two decades serving as stark evidence that literally none of these various fetishes can manage to keep it to themselves.
Gays Against Groomers is the only gay organization that's not complicit in the pedo problem. Even "conservative" gay groups like the Log Cabin Republicans are fifth columnists who view pedos as oppressed fellow travelers.
"Consenting adults" can't do plenty of shit, why should the gays be special? If two women agree to marry the same guy, that's completely illegal, and I don't see anyone but the most disgusting poly people (and a few off the grid Mormons who are only off the grid because its illegal) arguing for it.
So clearly, "consenting adults" only matters when it allows people to let something happen that opposing might get them backlash socially.
The only reason poly marriage isn't legal is the tax ramifications. It's all about the money. LGBT is a multi-billion dollar industry, like it or not, and it doesn't significantly alter the tax code, while no one cares much about the Mormons and the IRS keep their thirteen silver.
But nobody is arguing about it from a pro-tax point of view. They are pushing it from a moral one, which means they are either hypocrites or ignorantly spouting phrases they heard on TV without thinking about it.
That's the problem with principles and morals, if you try to use them as a bat for change and social causes you need to actually have them instead of just using them when it might win your argument for you.
those laws are in place because feds believe women are incapable of making healthy life decisions, same reason abortion is propped up everywhere. I don't agree that things like polyamory should be illegal, let alone even considered by feds.
So lesbians shouldn't be able to marry then, since two women cannot consent to a marriage.
It should absolutely be illegal because it would completely destabilize an already problematic dating market, and turn the already tumultuous "incel" issue into a rapidly exploding problem. If the point of government is to help maintain a nation's cohesion and cooperation, its absolutely in their interest to prevent a handful of rich or degenerate men from taking up the majority of the available women. Logically it makes perfect sense to keep it forbidden. After all, women cannot be trusted to make good decisions for the fate of the nation.
But we aren't arguing logic, just morals/principles. Which somehow only ever get people going out and marching for the Gays and everything else is an afterthought or a punchline.
Consent is necessary but not sufficient to make a moral action. For example, incest is not moral even if the parties are consenting. You probably only meant ordinary same-sex relations, and I agree that it is not immoral on an individual level. It seems to me that the problem is when society puts its stamp of approval on it.
a lot of people believe and stand by the "consenting adults" line, myself included. What needs to happen is what Gays Against Groomers has been trying to do: weed the pedophiles and abusers out with extreme prejudice.
I am not sure about legal regimes against teh gays, but they need to be socially pressured from any public visibility, even something perceived as "innocent" like holding hands. They are mentally ill.
It was never, not ever, about consenting adults in their own home.
a lot of people believe and stand by the "consenting adults" line, myself included. What needs to happen is what Gays Against Groomers has been trying to do: weed the pedophiles and abusers out with extreme prejudice.
In today's climate, that will never happen. They would rather run cover for child abusers than have any semblance of control over promiscuity.
we need to stop pretending that "consent" is some magic word that makes anything and everything ok.
Boom. "I consent to let this doctor hack off my dick". You shouldn't be able to consent to that anymore than to consent to being a slave.
Well, there goes banking.
I guess it comes down to how we define "ok". If degenerates are degenerating, and the only people affected are said degenerates who mutually agree to degenerate, then I don't see the harm on a wide scale. Sure, they damage themselves and that's not "ok", but it is their own duty to correct their behavior or live with the consequences.
To me, it is when degeneracy bleeds into affecting non-consenting parties (either literally or legally) that it becomes a problem that warrants outside intervention. This ranges from annoying things like public indecency to outright criminal behavior like child abuse. The intervention required depends on the severity of the act, but it obviously can't be left alone.
If degenerate adults want to yiff in hell or whatever in a private setting, it's not our responsibility to stop them.
The problem is that that's the biggest if in the history of the species. Particularly given that we have the past two decades serving as stark evidence that literally none of these various fetishes can manage to keep it to themselves.
Gays Against Groomers is the only gay organization that's not complicit in the pedo problem. Even "conservative" gay groups like the Log Cabin Republicans are fifth columnists who view pedos as oppressed fellow travelers.
I think the Log Cabin Republicans support the Florida law. They may be flawed in other areas, but they are not groomers.
"Consenting adults" can't do plenty of shit, why should the gays be special? If two women agree to marry the same guy, that's completely illegal, and I don't see anyone but the most disgusting poly people (and a few off the grid Mormons who are only off the grid because its illegal) arguing for it.
So clearly, "consenting adults" only matters when it allows people to let something happen that opposing might get them backlash socially.
The only reason poly marriage isn't legal is the tax ramifications. It's all about the money. LGBT is a multi-billion dollar industry, like it or not, and it doesn't significantly alter the tax code, while no one cares much about the Mormons and the IRS keep their thirteen silver.
And that's a perfectly fine reason.
But nobody is arguing about it from a pro-tax point of view. They are pushing it from a moral one, which means they are either hypocrites or ignorantly spouting phrases they heard on TV without thinking about it.
That's the problem with principles and morals, if you try to use them as a bat for change and social causes you need to actually have them instead of just using them when it might win your argument for you.
those laws are in place because feds believe women are incapable of making healthy life decisions, same reason abortion is propped up everywhere. I don't agree that things like polyamory should be illegal, let alone even considered by feds.
So lesbians shouldn't be able to marry then, since two women cannot consent to a marriage.
It should absolutely be illegal because it would completely destabilize an already problematic dating market, and turn the already tumultuous "incel" issue into a rapidly exploding problem. If the point of government is to help maintain a nation's cohesion and cooperation, its absolutely in their interest to prevent a handful of rich or degenerate men from taking up the majority of the available women. Logically it makes perfect sense to keep it forbidden. After all, women cannot be trusted to make good decisions for the fate of the nation.
But we aren't arguing logic, just morals/principles. Which somehow only ever get people going out and marching for the Gays and everything else is an afterthought or a punchline.
Consent is necessary but not sufficient to make a moral action. For example, incest is not moral even if the parties are consenting. You probably only meant ordinary same-sex relations, and I agree that it is not immoral on an individual level. It seems to me that the problem is when society puts its stamp of approval on it.
I am not sure about legal regimes against teh gays, but they need to be socially pressured from any public visibility, even something perceived as "innocent" like holding hands. They are mentally ill.
maybe, but I've never known bullying to be a cure or treatment for mental illness.
Semantics of bullying and disapproval aside, it's not about curing them. It's about stopping them from reproducing.