Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gay rights ? take action...think

[pumpkinshellz]

Wow......Shane you are to my Youtube favorites what Data is to TNG. Your logic and clarity rock. You must get a kick out of the logical fallacies people resort to when they can't argue.

[interstate317]

three years of being on youtube has drastically improved shanes speaking ability without saying um 30 times.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

@interstate317

Really?

Damn. Maybe if I wasn't such a chicken and afraid of people I know irl recognizing me, and of false DMCA stuff, I oughta start posting videos myself.

[rebelq1]

And ,

'Do you want me to dig up the headlines from all the horrors the minimum age has caused?'

Please, do!

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Search for "When Young Love Is a Sex Crime." Read about two childhood sweethearts, now married, who have the stigma of him being a child rapist just because there was one point where he was over the age of consent and she wasn't. The horrible thing was all of the people trying to convince this young woman she was raped, when the sex was HER idea. He wasn't even permitted to be near his younger sister as a result. He's on the sex offender registry for LIFE.

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Or try, "Teen girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet." Here, a 15-year-old girl was charged with sexual abuse of children. The child she supposedly abused? HERSELF. She took naked pictures of herself and sent them to people on the internet.

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Or search for Damon Hadley, a 17-year-old who was arrested for having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. Or Justin Layman, sentenced to 120 years in prison for having sex with his girlfriend; he was 17 and she was 14. Or "Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim" when she had sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

Need more examples? How many lives and families have to be ruined before you go against your cult?

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

Now that really is stomach-churning!

[rebelq1]

What minimum marriageable age do you support?

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 I don't think it should be the job of government to set arbitrary minimums like that.

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

Say, what?

Are you saying that people should marry at any age or something?

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Ah, so, those are the only two options, are there? Total arbitrary government limits or marrying little children?

And people wonder why I call it dogmatism...

[Virgil0211]

@rebelq1 He already answered you.

"I don't think it should be the job of government to set arbitrary minimums like that. "

You've tried about three times to get an answer you can twist into something else, so it's pretty obvious what your intentions are. I'd ask that you leave and stop wasting our time.

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Again, since when are those the only two options? It's clear you're using the political false dichotomy again as an excuse to try and discredit Libertarians because you can't refute our actual arguments.

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Let me ask YOU this: why do you think that it's okay for someone to have sex with an 18-year-old, but we have to put this very same person IN PRISON (and brand him as a sex offender FOR LIFE) when he has sex with someone who's 17 years and 364 days old? Do you REALLY think that's rational?

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

You FOOL! I didn't imply that!

I meant that it's not appropriate for people who are sexually mature to engage in sex with sexually immature people!

Have some common sense!

[rebelq1]

@rebelq1,

Because that's pedophilia, in case you didn't know that either!

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Oh, and false accusations like that are against the rules of this channel. First warning.

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

False accusations like, what?

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 Accusing people of supporting pedophilia when they aren't.

Pedophilia, BTW, is sex with PREPUBESCENT boys and girls. NOT with people 17 years and 364 days old.

Do you want me to dig up the headlines from all the horrors the minimum age has caused?

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

Sorry, if you misunderstood me somewhere, well actually you misunderstood me a lot, but I never accused you of supporting pedophilia!

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 I asked you why it's okay to have sex with an 18-year-old but not a 17-year-and-364-day-year-old, and you said, EXACT QUOTE, "Because that's pedophilia."

Don't backpedal. YOU SAID IT.

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

I never said that's pedophilia! An 18 year old with a 17 year old!

I just apparently misunderstood you a little bit because you said that there should be no minimum age of consent, so I thought that you meant that people should marry at any age, not when they reach sexual maturity!

LOL

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 And the ONLY way you could have thought that was that if you equated marrying a 17-year-old with pedophilia. You can't worm out of it now.

You've been presented with FACTS as to why age of consent laws are bogus. Why don't you respond to them?

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

@shanedk

Answer: Because, like every other dogmatist, he doesn't HAVE an honest non-woo answer.

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 No, YOU are arguing for the MINIMUM AGE. People mature at different rates, and maturity is NOT like throwing a switch. You are using skepticism about the minimum age to imply that we believe it's OK to have sex with immature people. That's DISGUSTINGLY dishonest.

[shanedk]

@rebelq1 You REALLY think you're stopping teens from having sex? You REALLY think you're stopping ANYTHING?

ALL you're doing is destroying lives and families. That's IT.

[rebelq1]

@shanedk,

And you're saying that I'm making false accusations!

[Fernoe]

@rebelq1 technically people can still have a religious marriages at any age, they just aren't recognised legally. there's nothing stopping people from marrying whoever or whatever they want, it's just legally recognised marriages that recieve certain government benefits.

[rebelq1]

@Fernoe,

Religious marriages? Now what do you think I am? A religious missionary, just like this guy thinks?

[Fernoe]

@rebelq1 marriage is a religious ceremony

[shanedk]

@Fernoe Well, a wedding is a religious ceremony. The concept of marriage exists all over human society going back to prehistoric times independently of any religion.

[shanedk]

@shanedk Oh, and just so we're clear, marriage has always existed independently of any government, too.

[rebelq1]

@Fernoe, What shanedk said!

[Fernoe]

@rebelq1 well ok, anyone can wed anyone or aything, at any age. the government doesn't intervene there, how much abuse does that cause?

[rebelq1]

@Fernoe,

Ah, scumbrain, weddings are religulous ceremonies not marriages!

[Fernoe]

@rebelq1 so what happens when atheists have a wedding when they get married? is that religious too?

[Virgil0211]

@rebelq1 Just because I don't think it's the government's job to fund space exploration with tax money doesn't mean I think space flight shouldn't occur.

[Virgil0211]

@rebelq1 I wasn't comparing marriage with space flight. I was pointing out how you were trying to push Shane into a false dichotomy. Moron.

[Clemburke1111]

I am learning too much here. I can not believe how little I know, and I have a degree, thanks.

[Duckhugger]

shanedk, you need to read into what modern marriage licenses entail and what rights are granted with them in order to have a more informed view on this. Heterosexuals take alot of the rights that come with marriage certificates for granted... but modern marriage is not like what it was back in the old days (where wives were more like property than equal citizens). Joint tax filing, being able to apply together for houses and loans, medical benefits, the list goes on.

[shanedk]

Tax filing would be irrelevant if not for the Income Tax, which is a horrible thing and should be abolished. As for the rest, there would be nothing stopping a mortgage company or insurance provider or whatever of recognizing whatever they want in a free market.

As someone once said, "Freedom is the answer. Now, what was the question?"

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

That quote is fucking awesome. XD

Do you know who first said that? :)

[shanedk]

No, I think it's a bumper sticker.

[dechha1981]

I thought that was the scariest part of Farenheight 9/11, not the mombings, not bush, not the soldiers recruiting people while pretending they're just taking their name so they won't bother them. The scariest part was when the people running the planet, the people using OUR troops for their killing, are so incompetent that they will vote on things without even reading them.

[Princess6125]

you have a weirD shapped head!!

IT LOOKS LIEKA EGG,

i like eggs

im hungry can i eat your head??

EGG HEAD!!!!

sexxaffender *cough*

EGGG

[shanedk]

Well, some days I do feel as if my brain is scrambled...

[hostofsouls]

lol great response

[007jack1]

i agree, we should take over and kill all sosadges and maybe a few eggs

[jergsden]

Every single politician that voted for the Patriot Act and did not read it should be OUT OF OFFICE due to dereliction of duty.

[LoveMaslow]

you're not gay but I think you will be when u meet me

[KeyNesew]

The issue of marriage is the legal family connections that is essencial to all States. Without marriage certifications, what would happen if someone dies without presenting inheritance? In those cases, generally it would go to the legal sons or daughters, and later husbands or wifes.

That is why marriage certificate is very important for existance.

[shanedk]

Again, this was not a problem before marriage licenses.

[rextrek]

I liked your comments...but I gotta' ask....do people "assume" you are gay...cause as a gay man myself...I thought you were gay,until u said u weren't. Have u ever been on the recieving end of "remarks" of people assuming u were gay.??

[shanedk]

Occasionally. I had one gay guy one time insist that I was really gay. It doesn't really bother me, but I do wonder why some people think that.

[zdeswarte]

I didn't think he was gay and my gadar's pretty accurate :P

[loveisallneed]

Yes, we have birth certificates, social security#, all kinds of legal docs. We can have birth without certificates as well. let's just do away with citizenship.

[loveisallneed]

I disagree. Government is by the people for the people. Marriage is a good thing, IMO. The rights NewYork is talking about are legal, not natural. Unless you want anarchy with no laws, government has a place in legal rights.

[shanedk]

Why, then, did our country not have marriage licenses for decades? Why only when they were afraid of blacks marrying whites?

You can have marriage without government. Saying that makes me no more of an anarchist than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, neither of whom had marriage licenses.