kpmarine
Well-Known Member
But Margaret didn't, she was almost 12 before she hit puberty!![]()
Which is still under 18.
But Margaret didn't, she was almost 12 before she hit puberty!![]()
Did you sleep through your US history classes?
Which is still under 18.
Given the nature of the revisionist history taught in the USA's Prussian school model that would have been the best thing she could have done.
Given the nature of the revisionist history taught in the USA's Prussian school model that would have been the best thing she could have done.
"A real young adult is over 18, an 11 year old hasn't even hit puberty yet"
You must be real high, brah!
Real life young adult means over 18.
Book company's marketing definition of young adult, 11 year old Margaret who hasn't hit puberty.
Having fun with much ado about nothing, which both of us know, and you know I know too. Or else, you're really stoned and don't know that's what you just did. Or did you?
Given that more than a few atrocities committed by the US government are taught in US schools; I'd be inclined to disagree.
Except your hypothetical 11 year old isn't the norm, and most people finish puberty before 18.
It was a reference to the book as joke. Jokes follow the norm, or is the fact they don't usually what makes them jokes?
My comment was poking fun at marketing calling an 11 year old a young adult, when the legal definition of an adult is 18, even a 16 year old emancipated minor isn't an adult in the legal sense either.
I'm all for removing all penalties for homosexuality, descrimination and the like. I just don't see any need to add any benefits to it, as it produces none of the benefits heterosexual coupling produces.
As to the morality, well I certainly don't think homosexuality raises to the same immorality as fraud or other forms of immorality, there is no harm being done. But neither you nor I get to decide what is moral and what isn't. Societies across time have, and almost universally homosexuality is considered outside of normal morals.
It was a reference to the book as joke. Jokes follow the norm, or is the fact they don't usually what makes them jokes?
My comment was poking fun at marketing calling an 11 year old a young adult, when the legal definition of an adult is 18, even a 16 year old emancipated minor isn't an adult in the legal sense either.
If the legal definition of an adult is 18 then why are kids younger than that tried as adults?
I accept that the crime is usually murder but nonetheless I'm curious.
Benefits exist to promote specific actions. Those actions are typically seen to be of some utility or benefit to our society on the whole.
A heterosexual couple unable/unwilling to have kids should not be separated from the rest of the heterosexual couples for purposes of these benefits. Theoretically, you are right, but the amount of monitoring it would take to "police" this provision would be cost prohibitive. In essence, the benefit is distributed where the potential to create the societal good rests. Even a hetero couple who never has children has the potential to have the by virtue of their sex. The vast majority do. While it is an impossibility for a homosexual couple to produce a child.
Homosexuality is amoral because western society has said it was for about 1500 years, if not longer. Homosexuality found acceptance in peagan Europe, but not as practiced today. Men would marry women, and engage in homosexual activity with each other for shits and giggles. Rarely before in world history has there been a movement where homosexuals would decide to enter into the same type of relationship as men and women enter into. So at times when homosexual activity was accepted, what we might call a same sex marriage was still unacceptable to their societies. Greece and Rome come to mind here. So were talking amoral for 3000 years of western society here.
As I said, this morality seems to be changing. Time will tell. Marrying a child was ok, when it was ok. It's not ok anymore, because we nolonger think it is ok. Make sense?
You say rights don't change. Go tell Henry VIII, Nero, and the Spanish Inquisitors that.
Bullshit. It's not morally superior in any way shape or form. Any belief to the contrary is simply opinion and should have no actions based on it.Heterosexuality is the null hypothesis. In other words, it's the norm, it is assumed, and it is the morally superior orientation.
All moral codes that have ever existed make this determination. Furthermore, heterosexuality is in the interest of the state. Heterosexual relationships are better for the economy, and produce the next generation of citizens.
So, now people with money are the problem? Anyone who's rich and doesn't blow their money?Homosexuals spend very little money on children, resulting in greater accumulations of wealth.
Accumulations of wealth are good for the person, not good for the economy. Economy is money in motion. Most heterosexuals largest expense is their children, on local services such as child care.
Populations need a 2.1 birth rate for population maintenance, a higher rate for growth. Homosexuals do nothing to this. Adoption by homosexual couples could be an answer to the first point, but not this one.
Heterosexuality is the norm, and most beneficial to society.
Homosexuals should be free to be what they are, that is not in dispute, but their benefits to society are far less. And don't give me any bullshit about the arts.
no, it's not.
I'm an immoral weed smoker just because I wanted to get high. Smoking weed is so bad, that under certain circumstances supporting another's weed habit can get you the death penalty. In other words, morality is in and of itself is opinion based.
So it's not the perceived benefit to society, it's the function of ability; heterosexual couples could do it "if they wanted to"... homosexual couples can't - that's what matters.
What about sterile heterosexual couples? Should they be denied the same benefits, too, because they don't have the ability to have kids?
You seem to believe that what is right is whatever the society of the time says is right. How do you not see the obvious flaw in this reasoning? Slavery was legal up until 1865, does that mean it was right because the society said it was in 1860?
Bullshit. It's not morally superior in any way shape or form. Any belief to the contrary is simply opinion and should have no actions based on it.
Also not true. Homosexuality has been welcomed and seen as a desirable trait in many cultures. Native Americans, Greeks, lots of tribal cultures, and many more. What you mean to say is, the Abrahamic religions say it's bad so YOU think it's morally inferior.
So, now people with money are the problem? Anyone who's rich and doesn't blow their money?
Seriosuly? The fact that less gay people buy diapers and baby food is grounds for a moral stance against their sexuality? That is just ridiculous.
Lots of gays use surrogates. Have you never heard of this? The fact that gays have less children that heterosexuals means absolutely nothing in terms of morality. Nothing.
Homosexuality is the norm too, just on a smaller scale as can be documented by virtually every mammalian species. You are talking about your opinion about gays, not facts.
You are measuring 'benefits to scoeity' as likelyhood to have children. This is complete bullshit. What about being a good neighbour or brother/family member? Helping out people who are less socially mobile than you? Donating money to charities? Being a good person overall? These are much more important than having kids in terms of 'helping' society.
Anyone can pop out a kid and raise it as a shitstain. How is that helpful?
Anyway, your opinion about the morality of sexuality is completely opinion based, with no basis in reality other than 'cause I (or an old book) say(s) so'.
I'm pretty much socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.How do you feel about that not being a traditional conservative viewpoint? One might even call it liberal
So wrong again. I think stem cell is fantastic and will save many people. I personally don't care if gays have their own kids or not. Just make them behave in restaurants and don't take them to the theater at night.
funny, i've been to restaurants and worked in restaurants and have never seen gays acting in any kind of disruptive fashion. what the hell are you even talking about, bigot?