(09-03-2014 01:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:57 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:50 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What if I was? Would you want a law to prevent me from acting?

Ever hear of statutory rape? How about child molestation? That covers consenting and non consenting sex with a minor which again has absolutely nothing to do with plural marriage between consenting adults.

So you are for those laws..

In Biblical times that was acceptable. The prophet Mohammed got with a 9 year old. Many in the Muslim faith still believe that should be legal and a norm.

There is no evidence that a child cannot consent to something.

Yes I am and I am not a Muslim and none of that has the first damn thing to do with plural marriage between consenting adults.

Sure it does. Because those are all things that are illegal. Just like Plural marriage were illegal in Utah until one judge and a special interest group changed that. So when one judge and a special interest group eventually lgalizes marriages between children and adults or adults and innate objects, you won't act surprised.

I am using your own logic against you. You want the government to dictate what people can and cannot do in regards to marriage and happiness.

BTW Mary was 12-14 years of age when she gave birth to Jesus, so that is more of a traditional age

On the contrary it's you that wants the government to dictate how many spouses an adult can have based on what I assume is your interpretation of religious belief.

(09-03-2014 01:12 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:57 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:50 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Ever hear of statutory rape? How about child molestation? That covers consenting and non consenting sex with a minor which again has absolutely nothing to do with plural marriage between consenting adults.

So you are for those laws..

In Biblical times that was acceptable. The prophet Mohammed got with a 9 year old. Many in the Muslim faith still believe that should be legal and a norm.

There is no evidence that a child cannot consent to something.

Yes I am and I am not a Muslim and none of that has the first damn thing to do with plural marriage between consenting adults.

Sure it does. Because those are all things that are illegal. Just like Plural marriage were illegal in Utah until one judge and a special interest group changed that. So when one judge and a special interest group eventually lgalizes marriages between children and adults or adults and innate objects, you won't act surprised.

I am using your own logic against you. You want the government to dictate what people can and cannot do in regards to marriage and happiness.

BTW Mary was 12-14 years of age when she gave birth to Jesus, so that is more of a traditional age

On the contrary it's you that wants the government to dictate how many spouses an adult can have based on what I assume is your interpretation of religious belief.

like you want the government to dictate how old those wives must be.

(09-03-2014 01:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:12 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:57 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So you are for those laws..

In Biblical times that was acceptable. The prophet Mohammed got with a 9 year old. Many in the Muslim faith still believe that should be legal and a norm.

There is no evidence that a child cannot consent to something.

Yes I am and I am not a Muslim and none of that has the first damn thing to do with plural marriage between consenting adults.

Sure it does. Because those are all things that are illegal. Just like Plural marriage were illegal in Utah until one judge and a special interest group changed that. So when one judge and a special interest group eventually lgalizes marriages between children and adults or adults and innate objects, you won't act surprised.

I am using your own logic against you. You want the government to dictate what people can and cannot do in regards to marriage and happiness.

BTW Mary was 12-14 years of age when she gave birth to Jesus, so that is more of a traditional age

On the contrary it's you that wants the government to dictate how many spouses an adult can have based on what I assume is your interpretation of religious belief.

like you want the government to dictate how old those wives must be.

I actually feel parents have more of a say in that.

(09-03-2014 01:19 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:12 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:57 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Yes I am and I am not a Muslim and none of that has the first damn thing to do with plural marriage between consenting adults.

Sure it does. Because those are all things that are illegal. Just like Plural marriage were illegal in Utah until one judge and a special interest group changed that. So when one judge and a special interest group eventually lgalizes marriages between children and adults or adults and innate objects, you won't act surprised.

I am using your own logic against you. You want the government to dictate what people can and cannot do in regards to marriage and happiness.

BTW Mary was 12-14 years of age when she gave birth to Jesus, so that is more of a traditional age

On the contrary it's you that wants the government to dictate how many spouses an adult can have based on what I assume is your interpretation of religious belief.

like you want the government to dictate how old those wives must be.

I actually feel parents have more of a say in that.

So no laws regarding age? I'm not faulting you if you feel that way, but understand that people will not agree. Just like people will not agree with polyamorous marriages.

Can you honestly not see a difference between plural marriage between consulting adults and men marrying 12 year olds? If you can't then there is no use continuing this.

(09-03-2014 01:35 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Can you honestly not see a difference between plural marriage between consulting adults and men marrying 12 year olds? If you can't then there is no use continuing this.

There is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, that doesn't mean one is right and one is not, or that either are right.

If you want a country where there are no defined rules, then that country falls apart. When you bend the norms for one group, they all come out of the woodwork demanding the same. I can guarantee you that the left will push for legalized pedophilia in distant future. It's just like our border. We let some in, they all want in, and sooner or later we have no border.

It is in our instincts and in our DNA to raise children with one father and one mother. Often times that also falls apart and children are left with a single parent...or no parent, but social experimentation is never the answer and never lasts.

I was raised for most of my childhood with my father living one place and my mother living in another home remarried. I bounced back and forth...but I can tell you that I am positive that I would have preferred that to having 10 moms or two dads.

I'm probably going to regret this but here goes

(09-03-2014 01:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, that doesn't mean one is right and one is not, or that either are right.

If you want a country where there are no defined rules, then that country falls apart. When you bend the norms for one group, they all come out of the woodwork demanding the same. I can guarantee you that the left will push for legalized pedophilia in distant future. It's just like our border. We let some in, they all want in, and sooner or later we have no border.

A few questions:

A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Quote:It is in our instincts and in our DNA to raise children with one father and one mother.

You have anything to back up these statements?

(09-03-2014 02:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm probably going to regret this but here goes

(09-03-2014 01:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, that doesn't mean one is right and one is not, or that either are right.

If you want a country where there are no defined rules, then that country falls apart. When you bend the norms for one group, they all come out of the woodwork demanding the same. I can guarantee you that the left will push for legalized pedophilia in distant future. It's just like our border. We let some in, they all want in, and sooner or later we have no border.

A few questions:

Quote:A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

You are defining polygamy

Quote:B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

Quote:It is in our instincts and in our DNA to raise children with one father and one mother.

You have anything to back up these statements?

Yes, research the effects of fatherless children..or the outcome of children raised in polygamous or gay households.

(09-03-2014 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm probably going to regret this but here goes

(09-03-2014 01:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, that doesn't mean one is right and one is not, or that either are right.

If you want a country where there are no defined rules, then that country falls apart. When you bend the norms for one group, they all come out of the woodwork demanding the same. I can guarantee you that the left will push for legalized pedophilia in distant future. It's just like our border. We let some in, they all want in, and sooner or later we have no border.

A few questions:

Quote:A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

You are defining polygamy

Quote:B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

Quote:It is in our instincts and in our DNA to raise children with one father and one mother.

You have anything to back up these statements?

Yes, research the effects of fatherless children..or the outcome of children raised in polygamous or gay households.

No. You are the one making the claims, not me. It is your responsibility to back them up.

BTW, you missed some other questions there sport.

(09-03-2014 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  No. You are the one making the claims, not me. It is your responsibility to back them up.

Good luck on that. He never backs up any of his outlandish claims.

Since Okie is evidently too busy preparing signs to participate in the next Westboro protest to properly separate quotes to an easily readable format here we go

Okie's responses are quoted, my retort shall be in red


I asked: A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

Okie lifted up his hood and said:

Quote:You are defining polygamy

Actually no I'm not. Polygamy is a word derived from the Greek word "polygamia" which essentially means marriage to many spouses. Incredibly weak attempt to dodge the question. I expected a much better effort from you considering the fact you are a pro at dodging questions around here

B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Okie took a break from sending hate mail to the NFL and FIFA to reply

Quote:Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

So based upon your logic we shouldn't change any laws regarding the safety of motor vehicles because it would set a precedence that could lead to a push to ease the restrictions on drunk driving. I mean after all both concern motor vehicles.

(09-03-2014 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm probably going to regret this but here goes

(09-03-2014 01:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, that doesn't mean one is right and one is not, or that either are right.

If you want a country where there are no defined rules, then that country falls apart. When you bend the norms for one group, they all come out of the woodwork demanding the same. I can guarantee you that the left will push for legalized pedophilia in distant future. It's just like our border. We let some in, they all want in, and sooner or later we have no border.

A few questions:

Quote:A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

You are defining polygamy

Quote:B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

Quote:It is in our instincts and in our DNA to raise children with one father and one mother.

You have anything to back up these statements?

Yes, research the effects of fatherless children..or the outcome of children raised in polygamous or gay households.

No. You are the one making the claims, not me. It is your responsibility to back them up.

BTW, you missed some other questions there sport.

I tell you what, sport. Your questions are the same questions I have been asking you. Who are you to decide polygamy is socially acceptable and pedophilia is not? Who are you to define what the age of consent shall be?

Your argument is "consenting adults." At what age do confirm someone is able to provide consent and how do we regulate that?

(09-03-2014 02:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Since Okie is evidently too busy preparing signs to participate in the next Westboro protest to properly separate quotes to an easily readable format here we go

Okie's responses are quoted, my retort shall be in red


I asked: A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

Okie lifted up his hood and said:

Quote:You are defining polygamy

Actually no I'm not. Polygamy is a word derived from the Greek word "polygamia" which essentially means marriage to many spouses. Incredibly weak attempt to dodge the question. I expected a much better effort from you considering the fact you are a pro at dodging questions around here

B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Okie took a break from sending hate mail to the NFL and FIFA to reply

Quote:Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

So based upon your logic we shouldn't change any laws regarding the safety of motor vehicles because it would set a precedence that could lead to a push to ease the restrictions on drunk driving. I mean after all both concern motor vehicles.

and going by your logic, special interest groups should define our laws as long as everyone consents.

(09-03-2014 03:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Since Okie is evidently too busy preparing signs to participate in the next Westboro protest to properly separate quotes to an easily readable format here we go

Okie's responses are quoted, my retort shall be in red


I asked: A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

Okie lifted up his hood and said:

Quote:You are defining polygamy

Actually no I'm not. Polygamy is a word derived from the Greek word "polygamia" which essentially means marriage to many spouses. Incredibly weak attempt to dodge the question. I expected a much better effort from you considering the fact you are a pro at dodging questions around here

B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Okie took a break from sending hate mail to the NFL and FIFA to reply

Quote:Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

So based upon your logic we shouldn't change any laws regarding the safety of motor vehicles because it would set a precedence that could lead to a push to ease the restrictions on drunk driving. I mean after all both concern motor vehicles.

and going by your logic, special interest groups should define our laws as long as everyone consents.

As if special interest groups don't already impact laws and regulations. Good God man have you ever heard the term lobbyist?

(09-03-2014 03:11 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Since Okie is evidently too busy preparing signs to participate in the next Westboro protest to properly separate quotes to an easily readable format here we go

Okie's responses are quoted, my retort shall be in red


I asked: A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

Okie lifted up his hood and said:

Quote:You are defining polygamy

Actually no I'm not. Polygamy is a word derived from the Greek word "polygamia" which essentially means marriage to many spouses. Incredibly weak attempt to dodge the question. I expected a much better effort from you considering the fact you are a pro at dodging questions around here

B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Okie took a break from sending hate mail to the NFL and FIFA to reply

Quote:Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

So based upon your logic we shouldn't change any laws regarding the safety of motor vehicles because it would set a precedence that could lead to a push to ease the restrictions on drunk driving. I mean after all both concern motor vehicles.

and going by your logic, special interest groups should define our laws as long as everyone consents.

As if special interest groups don't already impact laws and regulations. Good God man have you ever heard the term lobbyist?

There we go, so be prepared for groups like NAMBLA to make major changes in the future. Know that you helped make it a reality.

There is no bottom with the left - no pun intended.

(09-03-2014 03:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm probably going to regret this but here goes

(09-03-2014 01:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy, that doesn't mean one is right and one is not, or that either are right.

If you want a country where there are no defined rules, then that country falls apart. When you bend the norms for one group, they all come out of the woodwork demanding the same. I can guarantee you that the left will push for legalized pedophilia in distant future. It's just like our border. We let some in, they all want in, and sooner or later we have no border.

A few questions:

Quote:A. Who defines what is right and what is wrong?

You are defining polygamy

Quote:B. So changing rules on something totally unrelated except for one part means that we are opening the door on something else?

Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

Quote:It is in our instincts and in our DNA to raise children with one father and one mother.

You have anything to back up these statements?

Yes, research the effects of fatherless children..or the outcome of children raised in polygamous or gay households.

No. You are the one making the claims, not me. It is your responsibility to back them up.

BTW, you missed some other questions there sport.

I tell you what, sport. Your questions are the same questions I have been asking you. Who are you to decide polygamy is socially acceptable and pedophilia is not? Who are you to define what the age of consent shall be?

Your argument is "consenting adults." At what age do confirm someone is able to provide consent and how do we regulate that?

I haven't decided jack. I really don't care if Steve marries Debbie, if Steve marries Debbie, Wanda, and Bertha, if Steve marries George, or if Steve marries George, Ralph, and Jose. If by the rule of law in the state that they live they are consenting adults who are OK with the arrangement then more power to them. It doesn't affect me one way or another. In the end the reality is the only marriage that is any of my business is my own, and quite honestly this country would be a far better place if everybody had that attitude.

As for what age is someone able to consent, every single state has already established what the limits are, and in fact have provisions to allow for situations where while someone might be of real age they are mentally functioning at a lower level that puts greater restrictions on the law. There isn't a state in this country, even California, that would allow an adult to marry a child who hasn't reached the age of consent to marry or have carnal relations.

(09-03-2014 03:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm probably going to regret this but here goes


A few questions:


You are defining polygamy


Yes and they are not unrelated. They are precedents. They are the wants of special interest groups.

You have anything to back up these statements?

Yes, research the effects of fatherless children..or the outcome of children raised in polygamous or gay households.

No. You are the one making the claims, not me. It is your responsibility to back them up.

BTW, you missed some other questions there sport.

I tell you what, sport. Your questions are the same questions I have been asking you. Who are you to decide polygamy is socially acceptable and pedophilia is not? Who are you to define what the age of consent shall be?

Your argument is "consenting adults." At what age do confirm someone is able to provide consent and how do we regulate that?

I haven't decided jack. I really don't care if Steve marries Debbie, if Steve marries Debbie, Wanda, and Bertha, if Steve marries George, or if Steve marries George, Ralph, and Jose. If by the rule of law in the state that they live they are consenting adults who are OK with the arrangement then more power to them. It doesn't affect me one way or another. In the end the reality is the only marriage that is any of my business is my own, and quite honestly this country would be a far better place if everybody had that attitude.

As for what age is someone able to consent, every single state has already established what the limits are, and in fact have provisions to allow for situations where while someone might be of real age they are mentally functioning at a lower level that puts greater restrictions on the law. There isn't a state in this country, even California, that would allow an adult to marry a child who hasn't reached the age of consent to marry or have carnal relations.

I know you don't care because you don't care about a traditional family. You believe in moral relativism. You cannot see how legalization of gay marriage opened the door for polygamy and how polygamy will open the door for pedophilia. You think "consenting adults" is a valid defense of your argument but don't realize that definition can be changed the same way marriage has been. You are for some laws but not others. You think the laws you are for will stay intact or are somehow protected from your own logic. They aren't.

BTW California is already trying to decriminalize pedophilia.

Get it through your head, sport. Social liberalism doesn't work.

(09-03-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I know you don't care because you don't care about a traditional family. You believe in moral relativism.

Who gets to define what is traditional and what is not? Who defines what is moral and what is not?

Quote:BTW California is already trying to decriminalize pedophilia.

Really? Got a link?

(BTW I'm not holding my breath as you never seem to have the balls to back up your claims with proof)

(09-03-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Yes, research the effects of fatherless children..or the outcome of children raised in polygamous or gay households.

No. You are the one making the claims, not me. It is your responsibility to back them up.

BTW, you missed some other questions there sport.

I tell you what, sport. Your questions are the same questions I have been asking you. Who are you to decide polygamy is socially acceptable and pedophilia is not? Who are you to define what the age of consent shall be?

Your argument is "consenting adults." At what age do confirm someone is able to provide consent and how do we regulate that?

I haven't decided jack. I really don't care if Steve marries Debbie, if Steve marries Debbie, Wanda, and Bertha, if Steve marries George, or if Steve marries George, Ralph, and Jose. If by the rule of law in the state that they live they are consenting adults who are OK with the arrangement then more power to them. It doesn't affect me one way or another. In the end the reality is the only marriage that is any of my business is my own, and quite honestly this country would be a far better place if everybody had that attitude.

As for what age is someone able to consent, every single state has already established what the limits are, and in fact have provisions to allow for situations where while someone might be of real age they are mentally functioning at a lower level that puts greater restrictions on the law. There isn't a state in this country, even California, that would allow an adult to marry a child who hasn't reached the age of consent to marry or have carnal relations.

I know you don't care because you don't care about a traditional family. You believe in moral relativism. You cannot see how legalization of gay marriage opened the door for polygamy and how polygamy will open the door for pedophilia. You think "consenting adults" is a valid defense of your argument but don't realize that definition can be changed the same way marriage has been. You are for some laws but not others. You think the laws you are for will stay intact or are somehow protected from your own logic. They aren't.

BTW California is already trying to decriminalize pedophilia.

Get it through your head, sport. Social liberalism doesn't work.

Everyone with a brain is for some laws and not for others. That's the very fabric of a free society.

(09-03-2014 03:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I know you don't care because you don't care about a traditional family. You believe in moral relativism.

Who gets to define what is traditional and what is not? Who defines what is moral and what is not?

Quote:BTW California is already trying to decriminalize pedophilia.

Really? Got a link?

(BTW I'm not holding my breath as you never seem to have the balls to back up your claims with proof)

Sure,

here's three.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=california+legalizing+pedophilia

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/l...-bill-for/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-...ia-rights/