What's your take on marriages?

[DiamondGooner]

16 year olds arent physically mature either thats a fact in the vast majority of cases.

......... admitting I'm right in other words.

this is irrelevant what does it relate too. The point of what i am saying is an argument can be made for someone who is 14 having sex. You wouldnt need to do that if they were already allowed. Being able to look after yourself isnt an enforced prerequisite for child bearing. Do you really think a 16 year old is any more likely to be able to look after a child than a 15 year old?

You were discussing being under the protective control of a parent, and that protection includes a sick bastard from having sex with their children without consent, I was giving examples of maturity to exclusively make decisions for yourself as an adult in comparison to when your a child, you are under the legal guardianship of a parent because you are too young to look after yourself hence why not having that consent is basically rape not to mention the above physical reasons already mentioned ...... another fact for you.

so you repeated exactly what i said when i said

Yet you called it a wives tale? I think your confused.

this is how i know you dont have a clue what you're talking about. You dont have a basic understanding of what that even says so you cannot argue based on it. If there are no recessive undesirable genes there's no chance of these so called genetic deformities unless there's some kind of mutation but that wouldnt be affected by who you slept with it's down purely to chance. They said it's a higher chance but they didnt say by how much it increase and also the likeliness of two sibbling sharing a damaging recessive gene. But again i'm sure you believe what you referenced equates to this.

Are you really that stupid? you've just answered it yourself yet your refusing to accept what it means.
There is more chance of bad genes being in both parents from the same family line, there are also different kinds of negatives that are passed i.e mental stability, Cancer, etc etc when two people have the same family traits because they are related that doubles the risk.
I never said you can't have healthy children but the FACTS show that if two people have the same negative trait then its likely to be passed on to the child, incest increases that risk FACT.
If one person has a cancer trait and the other has a depression trait the child may not inherit either but two family members will likely carry the same trait = Fact.

you're clearly not aware of the problems caused by an aging population and i cant be bothered to explain it in detail so il be quick

Don't bother I don't give a sh*t about your poor ass reason to hate Gay people, we're talking about your sympathy of paedophiles, lets stick to one of your sick in the head features at a time shall we?

[Héctor24]

......... admitting I'm right in other words.

it doesnt really show that you're right about anything other than 16 year olds being allowed to have sex. But then your explanations completely contradict allowing a 16 year old to have sex.

You were discussing being under the protective control of a parent, and that protection includes a sick bastard from having sex with their children without consent, I was giving examples of maturity to exclusively made decisions for yourself as an adult in comparison to when your a child, you are under the legal guardianship of a parent because you are too young to look after yourself ...... another fact for you.

no i wasnt talking about protective control of parents only you mentioned parents. Anyway i'm not gonna talk around this point anymore because as i said it's irrelevant. It's like me saying people should be allowed to smoke weed and someone responding no it's illegal. This point doesnt add anything to the conversation.

Yet you called it a wives tale? I think your confused.

no this is what i called a wifes tale

if you engage in incest there is a big likelihood your babies will be retarded or deformed in some way

which is exactly what it is the fact that you think what you wrote above is the same as

Recessive alleles are expressed (or rather, not masked) if the person does not have a dominant allele. This means a person with a 'bad' recessive allele paired with a 'good' dominant allele will be selected for based upon the good allele and the recessive allele will still have a chance of getting passed around. The closer you are related to somebody the higher the chance that you both carry the same copy of a recessive allele and so the likelihood of a potentially bad allele getting expressed in their offspring is higher.

is worrying.

At the no point does it say there's a big liklihood all it says is there is a higer chance. The same way there's a higher chance of winning the lottery if you buy 2 tickets instead of one. It doesnt mean that there is a big likelihood or being retarded or deformend.

Don't bother I don't give a sh*t about your poor ass reason to hate Gay people, we're talking about your sympathy of paedophiles, lets stick to one of your sick in the head features at a time shall we?

i dont hate gay people i'm not against gay marriage and i dont care what anyone does with each other i'm just here to have a friendly debate. If you want to have a fair debate emotions like hate or love really shouldnt come into this but you've been trying to provoke emotional reactions ever since you joined. Maradonitis is gay i know this for a fact and he's arguing the same position as me. This is just presenting an argument in the perspective of a religious person nothing more. I have no sympathy for peadophiles if you followed the debate instead of getting carried away with your emotions you would see how they have been brought into the conversation.

It's a shame now that most debates end with one side resorting to ridiculous shaming attempts but i'm not surprised to be honest when people are losing they try whatever.

[DiamondGooner]

The only reason I tolerated this conversation is because I'm also a believer in a good debate but where I resort to "name calling" is when I go out of my way to present facts and you've continuously skirted them while also basically accepting them but with a desperate retort attached.

Fact is I've given enough reasons why having sex with a child is wrong which is a distasteful subject at the best of times, yet you've chosen to prolong this conversation by making me repeat these points over and over because you can't just say ........ your right.

I didn't lose, I got offended by you not accepting facts as a poor attempt to save face.

[Angelito]

proud of you angelito.
Remember this?

Religion is against life and living.

The religion I'm talking about here and the one I talked about in the other thread is different, Mara.

[Maradonna]

Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.

that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.

Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.

Can you fkin believe this guy (Maradonna) I'm usually a pretty impartial guy but I've never liked him and its sh*t arguments like this that are the reason.

How in fks name can you compare two adult consensual men having sex with an adult preying on kids, some as young as babies and toddlers?? the idiocy here is stunning!

Sleeping with someone below the age of consent is rape especially the age Paedo's usually go for, that is not a comparison with being Gay that is a comparison with a man forcing a woman to have sex.

agree,

[GoonerAlexandre]

How did I show my bigotry again? I have never said persecute gay people, I have full right to believe what they do is a sin

[LMAO]

I don't see the point in religion trying to regulate marriage. How the f**k is it religion's right to regulate what people do?

[StLGooner]

No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.

i gave incest as an example too. That can be between two adults. For example to adult siblings cannot get married.

But in response to what you said. I said consensual and in anticipation to what i believe you might say. Who are you to tell a person no matter what age they are what they can and cannot consent to.

I'm nobody, and I don't tell people who they can have sex with or at what age, and that's the whole point.

so then you should be ok if a 14 year want to have sex with a 36 year old i'm presuming

Of course not. I didn't say I'd be ok with it, I said, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I don't follow a set of outdated dogmatic beliefs that tells me what I should think about a certain group of people, or that tells me who does and who doesn't deserve hell. I go off of our own moral code that society has established as a whole, from human empathy. Of course that moral code changes throughout the different cultures of the world.

[Maradonna]

Of course not. I didn't say I'd be ok with it, I said, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I don't follow a set of outdated dogmatic beliefs that tells me what I should think about a certain group of people, or that tells me who does and who doesn't deserve hell

are you sure?

. I go off of our own moral code that society has established as a whole, from human empathy. Of course that moral code changes throughout the different cultures of the world.

and where does that moral code from human empathy comes from buddy???

[Maradonna]

I don't see the point in religion trying to regulate marriage. How the f**k is it religion's right to regulate what people do?

you are right, corporations are doing a much better job.

[Maradonna]

i saw that the topic of human nature has come a couple of times already:
what im going to post is an incredible document, Chomsky and Foucault arguing the concept of human nature (im much closer to Foucault than im to Chomsky) both thinkers exposing incredible points, basically Foucault disregard the concept as a fantasy while Chomsky insists that something like human nature exists.

Enjoy:

[StLGooner]

Of course not. I didn't say I'd be ok with it, I said, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I don't follow a set of outdated dogmatic beliefs that tells me what I should think about a certain group of people, or that tells me who does and who doesn't deserve hell

are you sure?

. I go off of our own moral code that society has established as a whole, from human empathy. Of course that moral code changes throughout the different cultures of the world.

and where does that moral code from human empathy comes from buddy???

Sure about what?

And nobody really knows do they, but there are many theories.

[GoonerAlexandre]

If there was no religion, there would be no democracy, no development, we'd all be like North Korea

[LMAO]

I don't see the point in religion trying to regulate marriage. How the f**k is it religion's right to regulate what people do?

you are right, corporations are doing a much better job.

Never said corporations had a right either...

[Maradonna]

Of course not. I didn't say I'd be ok with it, I said, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I don't follow a set of outdated dogmatic beliefs that tells me what I should think about a certain group of people, or that tells me who does and who doesn't deserve hell

are you sure?

. I go off of our own moral code that society has established as a whole, from human empathy. Of course that moral code changes throughout the different cultures of the world.

and where does that moral code from human empathy comes from buddy???

Sure about what?

And nobody really knows do they, but there are many theories.

we all follow an outdated dogmatic set of beliefs, you are a westernized human being, you havent been born in a bubble. Can i suggest
http://www.anus.com/zine/db/friedrich_nietzsche/friedrich_nietzsche-the_antichrist.pdf
and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra

Nietzsche requires a very critical lecture, you need to be with your guard on the entire time, because some of the concepts are really dangerous (especially in Zarathustra) but i think you would found them passionate, they are great books for people how are very critical of religion an authority.