Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your question was a nonresponse to my question, so I don't feel obligated to answer your question.

Sounds good. This is burned-over territory anyway.

[Indy Coug]

You didn't answer my question.

Your question was a nonresponse to my question, so I don't feel obligated to answer your question.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Are heterosexual single people consigned to a mortality of misery and woe?

You didn't answer my question.

[Paperback Writer]

Are heterosexual single people consigned to a mortality of misery and woe?

There's also the possibility that some may have been more "happy" before marriage.

[Mrs. Funk]

Sure - there is a difference in consent. Great.


But that doesn't answer the question.

Leaving homosexuality out of it alltogether - it appears clear that you are saying that a person who is sexually attracted to children is going to just have to suck it. They aren't ever going to have their sexual relationship "needs" fulfilled. If that is what it takes for them to be happy, then they will never be happy.

So - at least it seems to me - it is unreasonable to expect that it will be possible for everyone to have happiness if happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in having.

And with that in mind - I'm not sure that the arguement of saying it is ludicrous to expect some folks to live a chaste life while not marrying is valid. For some folks, it might have to be.

The arguement you are making about who can consent and who cannot is a completely different theme.

Yes. People who want to have sex with kids can suck it. Nobody is arguing that it is possible for "everyone to have happiness is happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in happening." It appears to me you are employing the parade of horribles or slippery slope argument that has been so popular in discussions surrounding legalizing homosexual marriage. If we allow homosexuals to get married, where's the limit to what we'll legalize? Polygamy? Incest? Sex with children? Sex with ducks?

[YOUTUBE]EXPcBI4CJc8[/YOUTUBE]

[Indy Coug]

How important is your relationship with your wife in terms of your overall happiness? Not just the sex, but the marriage, partnership, everything.

Are heterosexual single people consigned to a mortality of misery and woe?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is sex the only way to find happiness?

How important is your relationship with your wife in terms of your overall happiness? Not just the sex, but the marriage, partnership, everything.

[Indy Coug]

"Don't feel bad, gay people. Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, and guys who enjoy sex with dogs can't be happy in this life either."

Is sex the only way to find happiness?

[Jeff Lebowski]

"Don't feel bad, gay people. Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, and guys who enjoy sex with dogs can't be happy in this life either."

[SoCalCoug]

Sure - there is a difference in consent. Great.


But that doesn't answer the question.

Leaving homosexuality out of it alltogether - it appears clear that you are saying that a person who is sexually attracted to children is going to just have to suck it. They aren't ever going to have their sexual relationship "needs" fulfilled. If that is what it takes for them to be happy, then they will never be happy.

So - at least it seems to me - it is unreasonable to expect that it will be possible for everyone to have happiness if happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in having.

And with that in mind - I'm not sure that the arguement of saying it is ludicrous to expect some folks to live a chaste life while not marrying is valid. For some folks, it might have to be.

The arguement you are making about who can consent and who cannot is a completely different theme.

And someone who has a strong compulsion toward beating others up, or towards murder, also will not be happy unless they can satisfy these compulsions.

There are lines we draw as a society. We agree on where some of these should be drawn, and disagree on where others (gay marriage) should be drawn.

[Eddie]

What he said.

Sure - there is a difference in consent. Great.


But that doesn't answer the question.

Leaving homosexuality out of it alltogether - it appears clear that you are saying that a person who is sexually attracted to children is going to just have to suck it. They aren't ever going to have their sexual relationship "needs" fulfilled. If that is what it takes for them to be happy, then they will never be happy.

So - at least it seems to me - it is unreasonable to expect that it will be possible for everyone to have happiness if happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in having.

And with that in mind - I'm not sure that the arguement of saying it is ludicrous to expect some folks to live a chaste life while not marrying is valid. For some folks, it might have to be.

The arguement you are making about who can consent and who cannot is a completely different theme.

[Eddie]

Listen to your feelings.

I must admit that I love a good arguement. I don't even have to believe what I'm arguing a lot of the time - so long as it makes some sort of logical sense (to me) and should be considered as a plausible position.

[TripletDaddy]

It looks like this debate may have ended, and I probably should've just let it die.

Listen to your feelings.

[Mrs. Funk]

The church's defined age of accountability (consent) is 8 years old

:stirthepot:

Accountability ≠ sexual consent. Next, please.

[Moliere]

There is a huge difference in the two situations. Children can't give consent. Asked and answered.

The church's defined age of accountability (consent) is 8 years old

:stirthepot: