Opinions concerning the attached article? (NSFW)

Umm… how are they going to get around the whole “consent” thing? This shouldn’t even be taken seriously.

Who are we to judge?

Yeah… meh. It’ll never happen and with good reason. Acting pedophiles harm children, homosexuals don’t. So even if one could use the argument that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, it stops there.

That sounds like trolling. The right wing have always tried to muddy the waters by comparing gay people (consenting adults) to pedophiles (sexual abusers and criminals).

wow now i get the straight people’s “its none of my business” thoughts

First, consider the source.
Second, close the link.
That was easy.

@dappled leaves gets the cigar. While there may be a powerful argument that pedophiles should not be persecuted nor punished for their beliefs, it’s important to remember that pedophilia is a crime. It isn’t the desire to have sex with children that’s criminal. Regardless of my criminal tendencies, I can’t be prosecuted for wanting to steal a television.

It’s just bullshit.

Actually it is quite funny, like confirmation. Some pastors, Brethren and I were speaking on that and one of the pastors alluded to this very thing, that people with pedophilia would be next to jump on the wagon, myself, I believe it would be those wanting to marry their kin or have multiple husbands or wives (though I believe mine is more plausible). If the Supreme Court wants to keep up their façade as being just for equality, then they cannot pose any opposition. If stipulations were in place with inbreeding to keep genetic disposition from running amuck, there is no reason why cousins or even brothers and sister should not marry in a secular world separate from faith.

Someone mentioned how to get pass the consent thing, you lower it or if not make violating it equal to a traffic ticket. A guy boinks a runaway in trade for a hamburger, there was no force, she was hungry, wanted a hamburger out of him, and offered him her body, he gets a fine because there was no force.

If people who believe they were born in the wrong body or the right body just no desire for the opposite sex in which there body was biologically designed to be used for, then who can say those with pedophilia is not just ”wired that way” and for them it is normal. If that is just the way they are wired, if we are going with this latest court debacle ruling, you can’t penalize someone for being who they are…..

The court can’t use the illegality as it is now of having sex with people below a certain age, because to have pedophilia is not criminal, no more than having murderous intentions, it is only a crime to act on it. Didn’t at one time, being gay was criminal? My how quick we forget ~~

There are five main approaches the justices can take to find a nationwide right to gay marriage, Carpenter told me:

Discrimination. If the court finds sexual orientation to be a so-called “suspect category,” like race or sex, it could subject gay marriage bans to heightened scrutiny and strike them down as with other discriminatory laws.
Sex discrimination. This argument is slightly different because it says male and female homosexuals are being discriminated against because of their sex when they aren’t allowed to marry.
Anti-gay animus. This was the basis of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in Romer vs. Evans, a 1995 decision striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation. The amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause, the court ruled, because it was aimed at a “politically unpopular group.”
Irrationality. The Supreme Court can strike down laws that have no rational basis, although the bar in this area is extremely low. As long as legislators had some conceivable reason to pass a law, the court lets them stand.
Marriage is a fundamental right.

The first four approaches would allow the court to strike down gay-marriage bans without opening the door to polygamy, cousin marriage or other possibilities. But they carry risks. The court hasn’t carved out homosexuality as a suspect category yet, and doing so would open up all sorts of other state laws and practices to challenge, such as religiously affiliated adoption agencies that refuse to serve same-sex couples.

Forbes

@Hypocrisy_Central I could see making a case for polygamy (though I suspect it will not be upheld), but pedophilia? That makes no sense. Gay marriage is a commitment between two consenting individuals, just like any marriage. A pedophile’s victim, by definition, cannot consent to the abuse. There is no analogy to be drawn here.

@dappled_leaves A pedophile’s victim, by definition, cannot consent to the abuse.
If one goes off ideology over biology and logic, one can make something of anything and take a fact an toss it out, and supplant the truth one wants.

^^^^ Like Christians do all the time.

@Hypocrisy_Central you got it that’s thing that worries me, it’s something in the works and possibly it may not even be something that happens in our lifetimes but it may very happen in the future. What a way to strip a baby/toddler/child out of their childhood…..like seriously taking away their innocence and damaging them psychologically….....

“Consenting adults” is still a stretch in a decent part of the world, where marriages are arranged and the female is chattel, given no choice.

So. Broadening marriage to include all adults that consent to traditional marriage is going to legalize pedophilia?

I do not get how you get from “consenting adults’ to adults fucking children?
Seems like equating Christianity with Westboro Baptist Church, or The People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ.

I’m sorry, but this is like saying “Since they legalized marijuana they will legalize meth next.” Absolutely no comparison.

@Dutchess_III No, it’s like saying “Since they legalized marijuana they will legalize murder next”.

There is an excellent post (I’m sure you read) in another thread about the fear of moral decay. This is the only way I can make sense of this kind of leap in “logic”. It’s like they’re saying “People are now capable of anything.” There doesn’t even need to be an analogy. They can’t see that the two things are not connected, because to them, everything is connected.

^^ I’m sorry, but this is like saying “Since they legalized marijuana they will legalize meth next.” Absolutely no comparison.
Are you really sure? Look at the debacle situation we have now. I am sure back in the 30s-50s they would have thought same-sex marriages would never be on US soil…..but…...

Child abuse will never change from anything but a crime. If it does, then our country is finished.

It is unlikely the story is true, but there is no way pedophiles will be granted the right to marry. I’m not sure if this is a troll post or not, but the source of the article is highly questionable: a far-right, homophobic, and some might say racist site. So please think twice before posting or before giving the “argument” any credence.