Jack Thompson Submits Gay Porn to District Court Judge, Judge is Outraged.

[PlagueOfLocust]

Rath said:

Laws against having sex with a minor exist for two reasons. Because at a young age a child can be manipulated in such a way that they will have 'consensual' sex even when they dont want it and because a child having sex causes huge amounts of emotional and mental harm to said child. The age of 16 (or whatever it is in your country) is only chosen because there has to be some barrier, its not because the child magically matures at that age.

"Can be manipulated..." So the mere possibility of it stemming from manipulation is justification to make all forms of sex with children, even cases where it does not stem from manipulation, illegal? Doesn't make much sense. I think it makes more sense to suggest that we just have an inherent sense that it's wrong... And a child having sex causes huge amounts of emotional and mental harm? You mean if done *improperly* I hope... plenty of kids under 18 can have sex without "huge amounts" of harm. And again the fact emerges that there are *improper* ways to have sex.

There is no reason for laws against homosexuality as adult males both have the ability to reason and will not be caused the mental and emotional harm.

Here we go again. I'm not advocating laws against homosexuality. I never have said anything to that effect. And I could go deeper into levels of harm when it comes to sex to make an argument that harm can indeed be caused by homosexuality, but I won't so don't worry about it. I got video games to play.

Also your a fool if you think stealing doesnt hurt somebody, it hurts the person from which it was stolen. Not in a physical way but in emotional and mental ways as well as potentially lowering their quality of life (depending on what was stolen).

The example(s) and argument he was giving seemed to apply to physical harm alone, so I made a point. I also addressed the other finer points of this argument of stealing in my response to him above. The only thing I'll say extracted from that is that stealing $10 from a billionaire doesn't hurt him. Read above for more.

Your last rant seems to be purely based on that you want the world to be run under a religious (I'm guessing Christian?) government. Look at the middle east to see how religious govts. turn out, it aint pretty. 

I'm in no way ranting, trust me. I'm quite calmly building and supporting one side in a debate, sitting here at my keyboard with tea and a scone. That said, the American government was *created* as "One Nation, under God..." I believe, and hey... democracy turned out pretty well under such conditions (ah, glorious freedom of speech). I don't want the church to run the government; but I would want a government more based on its own founding principles and spirit of love than it is today. And I could say so much highlighting what a poor example the middle east makes for your argument, but I'll stick with two. One: different religion, and Two: you're referring to the radicals within that religion. It blows me away that we're comparing a terrorist or someone with an ideology of hate, to a church pastor. Do I need to point out a difference or two between them? Do I really? I hope not.

I should just keep my mouth shut, but no... gotta go against the grain all the time. Sorry about the off-topic everyone. Wanted to take it to PM, but..