Consensual sex with a Teen = Morally depraved | Gay on Gay = Not morally depraved??

[Bladers]

Oh look another teacher is in a sexual relationship with his student and probably had consensual sex with her before she turned 18.

Proving yet again my argument is not a matter of consent.

If a grown person can't have consensual sex with a teenager because as you all said, its "morally wrong so its against the law". So Why should a homo have sex with another homo? Isn't that also morally wrong?

[Rockets(T-mac)]

No.This.

And the 18 year old having sex with the 40 year old wasn't the issue, it was the 40 year old leaving his wife and 3 kids that was the issue. And also the fact that the guy was her teacher.

[Qwyjibo]

No.
Exactly. Why would it be wrong? It's just two consenting dudes who happen to enjoy sucking each other off or screwing each other in the ass or possibly even adding a nice Cleveland Steamer to one of the two to spice things up. It doesn't harm anyone.

[Bladers]

No.

So Zophila's are not morally depraved either and having consensual sex with a teen isn't either.

First it was "they were born that way"
Then it was "they are two consenting individual"
Now its "well it ain't morally wrong"

Ohh how convenient.

[heyhey]

Most sex laws are quite arbitrary indeed. But I don't think thats the point ops trying to make tho

[Bladers]

Exactly. Why would it be wrong? It's just two consenting dudes who happen to enjoy sucking each other off or screwing each other in the ass or possibly even adding a nice Cleveland Steamer to one of the two to spice things up. It doesn't harm anyone.

So why it is wrong for two consenting individual to enjoy sucking each other off if one is 41 and one is 17?

It amazes when the logically holes in your argument. :oldlol:

[Qwyjibo]

So why it is wrong for two consenting individual to enjoy sucking each other off if one is 41 and one is 17?

It amazes when the logically holes in your argument. :oldlol:
I didn't say the other one was wrong either. I don't have a problem with that teacher and the student going at it if they both understand the situation.

The reason why it might be questionable is because he as a teacher had some authority over her at some point and possibly used that. Maturity level is another issue but is there any proof that she isn't a logical and reasonable human being at that point? That I don't know. I don't care about the "morals" of it.

[Bladers]

I didn't say the other one was wrong either. I don't have a problem with that teacher and the student going at it if they both understand the situation.

The reason why it might be questionable is because he as a teacher had some authority over her at some point and possibly used that. Maturity level is another issue but is there any proof that she isn't a logical and reasonable human being at that point? That I don't know. I don't care about the "morals" of it.


So you have no problem with a grown individual having consensual sex with a 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old Individual?

Alright cool, atleast you are looking at this with a objective point of view.
You can't have it one way and not the other.

Secondly I don't think most people in ISH know what morals are. ie- ShannonElem.

[Jello]

Depends on what your definition and context fornication is defined. In terms of procreation, subjectively, only heterosexual fornication is moral. In terms of sexual pleasure, they are both equally moral.

[Qwyjibo]

So you have no problem with a grown individual having consensual sex with a 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old Individual?

That depends. I'm no expert on psychology so I can't comment on when a person is old enough to make this kind of a choice logically without being manipulated by the older party. I'm sure it depends on each person.

I just assume a 17 year old has enough reasoning to understand the situation and enter it without any coercion. There is no "icky" factor in terms of morality. The fact that he was her teacher puts that into question a bit.

[Nanners]

what a retarded thread troll thread by a retarded troll poster. i shouldnt even waste my time but whatever

if you want to argue about the age at which a person is able to consent to sex, thats a different topic entirely.

something that bladers conveniently ignores when he compares gay sex to sex with a 13 year old is that a 13 year old is not capable of consent. consent doesnt just mean you want to have sex, in order to truly consent you have to be able to make an informed decision. a 13 year old is not capable of making an informed decision and therefore incapable of consexual sex. gay sex has two consenting adults, and therefore the analogy to child sex is worthless.

[Meticode]

Not only did Bladers fail at promising league pass for the full season, but he failed at this thread too. ****in' Christ...

[ROCSteady]

Stop being a pot stirrer and comparing situations that are dissimilar with varying incomparable nuances.

You generally suck at convincing people to see it your way. I guess I admire the effort but your holy approach doesn't work at ISH OTC. Maybe you should try a different forum?

[Nanners]

Stop being a pot stirrer and comparing situations that are dissimilar with varying incomparable nuances.

You generally suck at convincing people to see it your way. I guess I admire the effort but your holy approach doesn't work at ISH OTC. Maybe you should try a different forum?


maybe thats the point. he could be like some kind of extreme stephen colbert. a hardcore democrat/liberal in secret putting on this religious fundamentalist satire to make people realize how stupid it is.

[dunksby]

Bladers give us our money back bitch!

[Jello]

what a retarded thread troll thread by a retarded troll poster. i shouldnt even waste my time but whatever

if you want to argue about the age at which a person is able to consent to sex, thats a different topic entirely.

something that bladers conveniently ignores when he compares gay sex to sex with a 13 year old is that a 13 year old is not capable of consent. consent doesnt just mean you want to have sex, in order to truly consent you have to be able to make an informed decision. a 13 year old is not capable of making an informed decision and therefore incapable of consexual sex. gay sex has two consenting adults, and therefore the analogy to child sex is worthless.
What about incest? Do you have the same feelings for incest and gay sex?

[LeFraud James]

What's ISH's take on necrophilia?

[Qwyjibo]

What's ISH's take on necrophilia?
That might be a question for a lawyer. There is obviously no consent needed from the corpse but does the Estate of the deceased need to provide that?

[Nanners]

What about incest? Do you have the same feelings for incest and gay sex?

well incest is tricky because inbred babies are much more likely to have genetic deformities and medical problems than regular babies. so incest really comes down to whether or not you should allow people to make babies that are more likely to be deformed/diseased.

from a strictly moral perspective, i think incest is disgusting, but I dont feel like I can force my morals on the rest of society and tell two relatives they arent allowed to have sex, assuming they are both old enough to give informed consent.

[Jello]

well incest is tricky because inbred babies are much more likely to have genetic deformities and medical problems than regular babies. so incest really comes down to whether or not you should allow people to make babies that are more likely to be deformed/diseased.

from a strictly moral perspective, i think incest is disgusting, but I dont feel like I can force my morals on the rest of society and tell two relatives they arent allowed to have sex, assuming they are both old enough to give informed consent.
What if it's just for sexual pleasure without any biological implications? Are these laws "morally" justified in that case? And the increased risk for congenital diseases is exaggerated.

[LeFraud James]

That might be a question for a lawyer. There is obviously no consent needed from the corpse but does the Estate of the deceased need to provide that?

http://www.bannedinhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/this-is-a-baby-pondering.gif

[Nanners]

What if it's just for sexual pleasure without any biological implications? Are these laws "morally" justified in that case? And the increased risk for congenital diseases is exaggerated.

if its for sexual pleasure with two consenting adults and no biological implications, then i say screw away. i am not one of those people who think god gave me the right to outlaw everything that i find morally gross. this applies especially to situations where something doesnt actually effect me at all (such as gay sex or incest with condoms). true, the risk for disease is not very significant, unless there are repeated generations of inbreeding.

[Jello]

if its for sexual pleasure with two consenting adults and no biological implications, then i say screw away. i am not one of those people who think god gave me the right to outlaw everything that i find morally gross. this applies especially to situations where something doesnt actually effect me at all (such as gay sex or incest with condoms). true, the risk for disease is not very significant, unless there are repeated generations of inbreeding.
Should we rid current laws on incest as long as they are consentual and between adults?

[Bladers]

What about incest? Do you have the same feelings for incest and gay sex?

What incest isn't morrally wrong... are you serious? OMG they are two consenting adults having consensual sex. Just like the gays! What's morally depraved about that? They should be given AWARD!!! AWARDS!! I say. They are setting a right example for the generation to come and follow in their footsteps. They are our heros, just like the gays. :rockon:

[Nanners]

Should we rid current laws on incest as long as they are consentual and between adults?

well im not familiar with how these laws work, so I dont know if we should get rid of them. like i said, if two consenting cousins want to have sex without reproducing, i might not agree but i am not going try to stop them.

[Nanners]

comparing homosexuality to incest and child molestation... some of you people are fvcking sick

[Bladers]

well incest is tricky because inbred babies are much more likely to have genetic deformities and medical problems than regular babies. so incest really comes down to whether or not you should allow people to make babies that are more likely to be deformed/diseased.

from a strictly moral perspective, i think incest is disgusting, but I dont feel like I can force my morals on the rest of society and tell two relatives they arent allowed to have sex, assuming they are both old enough to give informed consent.

LOL @ this ignorant fool. And having sex with another man is any different or safer?

"so incest really comes down to whether or not you should allow people to make babies that are more likely to be deformed/diseased. "

This should make the list of the most idiot post ever. There coudn't be anything more further from the truth. Talk about twisting a lie and using it as a defense.

[Nanners]

LOL @ this ignorant fool. And having sex with another man is any different or safer?

"so incest really comes down to whether or not you should allow people to make babies that are more likely to be deformed/diseased. "

This should make the list of the most idiot post ever. There coudn't be anything more further from the truth. Talk about twisting a lie and using it as a defense.


yeah, unlike you i am not entitled and delusional, and i dont think "god" gave me the authority to force people people to live by my definition of morally right and wrong.

how about you debate the actual points i make? for starters , id love to hear your response to my earlier post about informed consent, troll.

[Jello]

well im not familiar with how these laws work, so I dont know if we should get rid of them. like i said, if two consenting cousins want to have sex without reproducing, i might not agree but i am not going try to stop them.
Fair enough. As long as you're consistent.

[Bladers]

what a retarded thread troll thread by a retarded troll poster. i shouldnt even waste my time but whatever

if you want to argue about the age at which a person is able to consent to sex, thats a different topic entirely.

something that bladers conveniently ignores when he compares gay sex to sex with a 13 year old is that a 13 year old is not capable of consent. consent doesnt just mean you want to have sex, in order to truly consent you have to be able to make an informed decision. a 13 year old is not capable of making an informed decision and therefore incapable of consexual sex. gay sex has two consenting adults, and therefore the analogy to child sex is worthless.


Wait wait wait. The average age of a teen losing their virginity is 13.
More than half 50% of teens have said to have lost it at 13, second most is 14.

So you are saying that a 13 year old who have had sex consensually multiple times before they even turn 14. and before they turn 15 have had it over a dozen is not capable of consexual sex.

So then are you saying the other parties of these teens are rapists? because their partner didn't and couldn't consent to the sex?

LOL what a reach. When I was in high school if you weren't getting some on a consistent basis you were considered a LOSER.

In middle school, weren't much different. Kids were having sex even at school and in classrooms.

Half the people on here lost it when they were 13-15, are you saying they didn't do it consensually?

LOL GTFO please. I swear to god I'm gonna lose my damn mind if i see another one of you numb skulls coming into my thread with a retarded counter argument.

[Real Men Wear Green]

what a retarded thread troll thread by a retarded troll poster. i shouldnt even waste my time but whatever

if you want to argue about the age at which a person is able to consent to sex, thats a different topic entirely.

something that bladers conveniently ignores when he compares gay sex to sex with a 13 year old is that a 13 year old is not capable of consent. consent doesnt just mean you want to have sex, in order to truly consent you have to be able to make an informed decision. a 13 year old is not capable of making an informed decision and therefore incapable of consexual sex. gay sex has two consenting adults, and therefore the analogy to child sex is worthless.
I reported the thread for the pedophilia more than the homophobia, but am not a fan of either.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

yeah, unlike you i am not entitled and delusional, and i dont think "god" gave me the authority to force people people to live by my definition of morally right and wrong.

how about you debate the actual points i make? for starters , id love to hear your response to my earlier post about informed consent, troll.Don't bother with him. If you look at this thread, he only responds to posts where he can just keep repeating his retarded comparison and ignores any post that is a direct argument against it.

[Jello]

comparing homosexuality to incest and child molestation... some of you people are fvcking sick
So pinpoint to me what exactly is wrong with incest? Why is incest illegal? Your premise seems to be as long as an act does not infringe upon others' rights then more power to them. It's funny that you try to create an air of consistency and then turn around and condemn incest in the next post.

[N0Skillz]

So you have no problem with a grown individual having consensual sex with a 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old Individual?

Alright cool, atleast you are looking at this with a objective point of view.
You can't have it one way and not the other.

Secondly I don't think most people in ISH know what morals are. ie- ShannonElem.


You fail, Minors can not consent....... THAT'S WHY IT'S ILLEGAL

[Nanners]

Wait wait wait. The average age of a teen losing their virginity is 13.
More than half 50% of teens have said to have lost it at 13, second most is 14.

So you are saying that a 13 year old who have had sex consensual multiple times before they even turn 14. and before they turn 15 have had it over a dozen is not capable of consexual sex.

So then are you saying they other parties of these teens are rapist? because their partner didn't and couldn't consent to the sex?

LOL what a reach. When I was in high school if you weren't getting some you were considered a LOSER.

In middle school, weren't much different. Kids were having sex in at school.

Half the people on here lost it when they were 13-15, are you saying they didn't do it consensually?

LOL GTFO please. I swear to god I'm gonna lose my mind if i see another one of you numb skulls coming into my thread with a retarded counter argument.


hey troll, stop putting words in my mouth and read my post, you will see the SECOND SENTANCE I mentioned that the age of consent is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT.

consensual sex between two teenagers is completely different from consensual sex between a teenager and an adult. do i really have to explain the nuances to you?

did i say all teenagers are rapists? can you post an argument that is not a straw man or red herring? do you even realize how ****ing stupid your post is?

[niko]

A lot of you are morons.

[BankShot]

Why do you guys feed into this guy's agenda-laden trolling? :facepalm

[Nanners]

So pinpoint to me what exactly is wrong with incest? Why is incest illegal? Your premise seems to be as long as an act does not infringe upon others' rights then more power to them. It's funny that you try to create an air of consistency and then turn around and condemn incest in the next post.

incest and homo sex are gross, they both just turn my stomach over and make me lose my appetite. especially that disgusting and depraved lesbian sex. just imagine, two beautiful women rubbing eachothers tittyballs... barf.

i dont know everything, but i definitely know that what goes on within the walls of your own home should be fine as long as it doesnt harm any innocent people. maybe instead of outlawing gay sex and incest, we would be better served openly talking about it as society, and trying to understand why people would make the choice to fvck their cousin or have gay sex in the first place. i took enough biology back in the college days to know that both homosexuality and incest are common in nature. not that i am saying that they are a good thing if they happen in nature. if i recall correctly, inbreeding generally only happens in small populations when it is unavoidable.

[Bladers]

You fail, Minors can not consent....... THAT'S WHY IT'S ILLEGAL

Actually that is not true, in most states there is a close-age exeception. but you won't know that would you?

How ignorant can you be? :facepalm

[irondarts]

Bladers calling someone ignorant..:lol

[Bladers]

hey troll, stop putting words in my mouth and read my post, you will see the SECOND SENTANCE I mentioned that the age of consent is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT.

consensual sex between two teenagers is completely different from consensual sex between a teenager and an adult. do i really have to explain the nuances to you?

did i say all teenagers are rapists? can you post an argument that is not a straw man or red herring? do you even realize how ****ing stupid your post is?

Actually that's not the truth in most states. According to the laws of the US, in most states. It is illegal to have sex under the age of sixteen (the age of content for most states). Period.

Even if both are under the age of consent. That means if you are 15 and she's 15, you legally can't have sex.

But that isn't enforced unless 90% of teens would be in Jail. And Schools would be empty, malls would be empty, etc.

Now some states do have close-age exceptions.

But i figure you won't know all this because you come off as an ignorant proud individual.

[sick_brah07]

dont worry about gay people getting married, we going to MARS bitches thats right i said it .... MARS

[Jello]

incest and homo sex are gross, they both just turn my stomach over and make me lose my appetite. especially that disgusting and depraved lesbian sex. just imagine, two beautiful women rubbing eachothers tittyballs... barf.

i dont know everything, but i definitely know that what goes on within the walls of your own home should be fine as long as it doesnt harm any innocent people. maybe instead of outlawing gay sex and incest, we would be better served openly talking about it as society, and trying to understand why people would make the choice to fvck their cousin or have gay sex in the first place. i took enough biology back in the college days to know that both homosexuality and incest are common in nature. not that i am saying that they are a good thing if they happen in nature. if i recall correctly, inbreeding generally only happens in small populations when it is unavoidable.
Why don't you just say it? You find incest morally wrong and disgusting and you don't completely disagree with laws against incest. If you really stuck to your philosophy then you would be calling that law a travesty and realizing its the same subjective morality that the religious have against gay sex. You're tiptoeing around the issue trying to stay within your "bounds." The truth is, in terms of affecting other people's rights, consensual gay sex and incest should not be under moral government legislation.

[LJJ]

Why don't you just say it? You find incest morally wrong and disgusting and you don't completely disagree with laws against incest. If you really stuck to your philosophy then you would be calling that law a travesty and realizing its the same subjective morality that the religious have against gay sex. You're tiptoeing around the issue trying to stay within your "bounds." The truth is, in terms of affecting other people's rights, consensual gay sex and incest should not be under moral government legislation.

I agree.



Oh yeah, so does my nicka Lot.

[Bladers]

incest and homo sex are gross, they both just turn my stomach over and make me lose my appetite. especially that disgusting and depraved lesbian sex. just imagine, two beautiful women rubbing eachothers tittyballs... barf.

i dont know everything, but i definitely know that what goes on within the walls of your own home should be fine as long as it doesnt harm any innocent people. maybe instead of outlawing gay sex and incest, we would be better served openly talking about it as society, and trying to understand why people would make the choice to fvck their cousin or have gay sex in the first place. i took enough biology back in the college days to know that both homosexuality and incest are common in nature. not that i am saying that they are a good thing if they happen in nature. if i recall correctly, inbreeding generally only happens in small populations when it is unavoidable.

Im so glad you have finally come to term.


Why don't you just say it? You find incest morally wrong and disgusting and you don't completely disagree with laws against incest. If you really stuck to your philosophy then you would be calling that law a travesty and realizing its the same subjective morality that the religious have against gay sex. You're tiptoeing around the issue trying to stay within your "bounds." The truth is, in terms of affecting other people's rights, consensual gay sex and incest should not be under moral government legislation.

Nice response.
Hit the nail on the head. (though it has nothing to do with being religious)

:applause: :applause:

[niko]

How about stealing? Because if so, can I get my 7 dollars?

[Nanners]

Why don't you just say it? You find incest morally wrong and disgusting and you don't completely disagree with laws against incest. If you really stuck to your philosophy then you would be calling that law a travesty and realizing its the same subjective morality that the religious have against gay sex. You're tiptoeing around the issue trying to stay within your "bounds."

get the fvck out with your amateur psychology nonsense and stop putting words in my mouth. i have said multiple times that as long as we are talking about consenting adults, and as long as nobody is reproducing, i would not try to stop incest.

do i really need to spell it out for you? incest laws vary state by state, some places its not currently illegal. do i think that in general, incest laws should reflect my views? yes. do i disagree with the laws that dont reflect my views? yes.

am i going to go on a crusade because i think only certain aspects of incest should be allowed to be legislated? nope. within the spectrum of government legislation of morality, there are other issues that i personally think are more important to society than incest laws.


The truth is, in terms of affecting other people's rights, consensual gay sex and incest should not be under moral government legislation.

this is what i have been trying to say all along.

[CelticBaller]

Inside Hoops

Where Pedophilia, Necrophilia and Incest = Homosexuality :oldlol:

[RidonKs]

not all incest relationships are equal to one another

f*cking your cousins or even your siblings... should not be a problem. that i can certainly equate to homosexuality. it essentially falls under the category of 'two consenting adults' and genetic probabilities are not enough grounds for illegality. and especially in an age where, in the west anyway, kin matters less and less with regard to how we distribute ourselves in groups and communities, it's just not as relevant as it once was in past ages of societal organization.



but parent-child incest is a whole different ballgame and failing to acknowledge it as such is just another case of false equivalency, a fallacy that pretty much permeate every contentious issue anybody ever argues about... and it usually takes what might be a productive debate way off course. the difference of course is the natural paternalistic relationship that governs the interaction between a child and its parent... it's an ultra authoritative relationship that in some cases can be broken but in many cases persists straight into adulthood, thus rendering the "two consenting adults" concept as far less descriptive of the situation.

it's far too easy for the parent to use their position of dominance as a way of exploiting their child, regardless of age or psych development. and it's a rather universal phenomenon, at least as close as you can get with this shit.

[LJJ]

but parent-child incest is a whole different ballgame and failing to acknowledge it as such is just another case of false equivalency, a fallacy that pretty much permeate every contentious issue anybody ever argues about... and it usually takes what might be a productive debate way off course. the difference of course is the natural paternalistic relationship that governs the interaction between a child and its parent... it's an ultra authoritative relationship that in some cases can be broken but in many cases persists straight into adulthood, thus rendering the "two consenting adults" concept as far less descriptive of the situation.

it's far too easy for the parent to use their position of dominance as a way of exploiting their child, regardless of age or psych development. and it's a rather universal phenomenon, at least as close as you can get with this shit.

If you are forcing somebody into sexual acts by using the strong authority you have over them, that is sexual abuse regardless of whether it is incest or not.

Can't really call it consent if it involves authoritarian coercion.

[Nanners]

If you are forcing somebody into sexual acts by using the strong authority you have over them, that is sexual abuse regardless of whether it is incest or not.

Can't really call it consent if it involves authoritarian coercion.

no shit sherlock, its called INFORMED consent. If you are coerced in to something, then it is not truly consentual, because you were not able to make an informed decision.

[LJJ]

no shit sherlock, its called INFORMED consent. If you are coerced in to something, then it is not truly consentual, because you were not able to make an informed decision.

I wasn't responding to you. :confusedshrug:

[Nanners]

I wasn't responding to you. :confusedshrug:

i could have sworn that you had quoted my post. i apologize for calling you sherlock. regardless, my point stands.

[RidonKs]

If you are forcing somebody into sexual acts by using the strong authority you have over them, that is sexual abuse regardless of whether it is incest or not.

Can't really call it consent if it involves authoritarian coercion.
but obviously psychological coercion is much more difficult to prove, and in certain cases, the victim can legitimately be said to have consented... when the consent, in truth, is meaningless due to the nature of the relationship.

i think my point was that there are numerous degrees of authoritative relationships, and the vast majority of the spectrum cannot be used as grounds for illegality. in cases such as a boss and his secretary or just any employer/employee situation, or a professor and his grad student, or even an older sibling and a younger sibling... i'm not sure there is enough universality in terms of straight up psychological dominance to actually legislate. certainly not for the former two, and i would argue not even in the case of the last example... all in cases where 'consent' of both parties appears obvious.

parent-child is essentially an orange and everything else is an apple, because it's so consistently bred into us to feel the way we do towards our parent. and of course specific examples of teacher-student or older-younger siblings can rival the authoritarian nature of parent-child, just not enough to legislate.


this is all in specific response to jello's pondering/semi-baiting about government actually legislating sexual morality.

[El Kabong]

dont worry about gay people getting married, we going to MARS bitches thats right i said it .... MARS
There won't be any Mars if they let those gays get married. It'll be anarchy and chaos. You know why China is the new superpower? No gays allowed.

[Kblaze8855]

Why hateful people get all upset and try to make reasonable people see things their way is beyond me. The world gets more and more tolerant and the idiots get more and more upset as their opinions matter less and less.

This is not Iran. Given long enough....Iran wont stay iran. The world wont allow it forever.

You can believe what you want. But thats about it.

And if you dont see why children who are easily manipulated due to a natural lack of maturity need to be protected from adults who take advantage...you are an idiot. A child is not grown mentally. At some point a child mentally becomes an adult but since that would require individual evaluation of each kid we just put ages on it that should be....pretty close.

No reason to compare it to two adults making decisions.

[Jello]

get the fvck out with your amateur psychology nonsense and stop putting words in my mouth. i have said multiple times that as long as we are talking about consenting adults, and as long as nobody is reproducing, i would not try to stop incest.

do i really need to spell it out for you? incest laws vary state by state, some places its not currently illegal. do i think that in general, incest laws should reflect my views? yes. do i disagree with the laws that dont reflect my views? yes.

am i going to go on a crusade because i think only certain aspects of incest should be allowed to be legislated? nope. within the spectrum of government legislation of morality, there are other issues that i personally think are more important to society than incest lawss.



this is what i have been trying to say all along.
lol I was typing a response to this trying to explain what I was trying to accomplish with those questions but it ended up to be a bunch of nonsense and over argumentative. I'm just going to say that both our philosophies are similar and we both agree that our moral aversions are completely subjective and should not be forced on others. My main point was consistency through all issues even with your own moral aversion.

[Nanners]

we both agree that our moral aversions are completely subjective and should not be forced on others.

no doubt about that :cheers:

[Jello]

but obviously psychological coercion is much more difficult to prove, and in certain cases, the victim can legitimately be said to have consented... when the consent, in truth, is meaningless due to the nature of the relationship.

i think my point was that there are numerous degrees of authoritative relationships, and the vast majority of the spectrum cannot be used as grounds for illegality. in cases such as a boss and his secretary or just any employer/employee situation, or a professor and his grad student, or even an older sibling and a younger sibling... i'm not sure there is enough universality in terms of straight up psychological dominance to actually legislate. certainly not for the former two, and i would argue not even in the case of the last example... all in cases where 'consent' of both parties appears obvious.

parent-child is essentially an orange and everything else is an apple, because it's so consistently bred into us to feel the way we do towards our parent. and of course specific examples of teacher-student or older-younger siblings can rival the authoritarian nature of parent-child, just not enough to legislate.


this is all in specific response to jello's pondering/semi-baiting about government actually legislating sexual morality.
Yes I agree that a truly consensual act between a parent and child cannot exist.

[RidonKs]

Yes I agree that a truly consensual act between a parent and child cannot exist.
so even under your criteria of 'consistency', this would be a particular situational nuance for which you would have to deviate from your general stance... no?

[raiderfan19]

I am a christian and to be homest i actually agree that per my personal morals all of these situations are morally wrong. The thing is, while I think my morals are right, I have no right to force them on anyone else anymore than someone who thinks homosexuality is morally correct has the right to make me screw another guy so they are more than welcome to bang away

[Jailblazers7]

So Zophila's are not morally depraved either and having consensual sex with a teen isn't either.

First it was "they were born that way"
Then it was "they are two consenting individual"
Now its "well it ain't morally wrong"

Ohh how convenient.

I don't understand how you can't get it through you're head that its between 2 consenting ADULTS. The laws determining the age to consent would be the same for gay as they are for straight people.

I can't tell if you are too stupid to understand this or if you are purposely ignoring it because it destroys your entire argument.

[Bano114]

Oh look another teacher is in a sexual relationship with his student and probably had consensual sex with her before she turned 18.

Proving yet again my argument is not a matter of consent.

If a grown person can't have consensual sex with a teenager because as you all said, its "morally wrong so its against the law". So Why should a homo have sex with another homo? Isn't that also morally wrong?

Its morally wrong because an older person has the ability to manipulate a younger person.

I dont see how you can say its morally wrong for a man to love another man because what is it they are doing again? Oh yeah thats right...loving. How is loving morally wrong? Nobody gets hurt, nobody gets manipulated. They are grown man and are making a decision that really harms no one.

[heyhey]

I don't understand how you can't get it through you're head that its between 2 consenting ADULTS. The laws determining the age to consent would be the same for gay as they are for straight people.
.

yea but then what is an adult? that's just a social construct. there were times and societies where you became a man when you were 13 and were expected to have family and wives as early as 16. Yet now we would consider those to be kids. (okay there are certain physiological prerequisite for consideration to be adult but that's also largely individual based and the ages of 18 and 21 are fairly arbitrary)

All morality and these social norms are necessarily culture bound and created/consented on by the members of a community.

In this relativistic realm, what is moral and correct is nothing more than a social contract that's agreed on by the majority.

Hence I think the question OP asks can be interpreted in two ways:
1) why are certain acts deemed deviant while others aren't in the society we live in?
2) do these standards and norms have any legitimacy in an absolute perspective?

[Jailblazers7]

My whole point is about the legality of homosexuality because the reason the argument was even posed was because the OP is trying to paint homosexuality as immoral in order to justify keeping it illegal.

I don't feel like discussing the morality of it because the is a whole nother can of worms and frankly I just don't care lol.

[bluechox2]

old men had teenagers everyday back in the olden days

[Rojogaqu11]

Regarding incest...

so where did Cain of the Bible find his wife?

[Scholar]

So Zophila's are not morally depraved either and having consensual sex with a teen isn't either.

First it was "they were born that way"
Then it was "they are two consenting individual"
Now its "well it ain't morally wrong"

Ohh how convenient.

If you're a logical thinker, it was all three to begin with. :facepalm

Nobody is making excuses for homosexuals to date one another. It's an attraction they can't control, ya dig?

As for a 40-year-old teacher leaving his 3 kids & wife for a student? That's morally ****ed up. That's an attraction the man can and SHOULD control, but it's too late now.

[bluechox2]

Regarding incest...

so where did Cain of the Bible find his wife?
they weren't literally the first pple, i believe

there were others around the earth to ****