Now that same sex marriages are legal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 01:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Which part of "consenting adults" do you not understand?

I understanding what consenting adults means. I am just probing how strong your convictions are. I take it then, you would be okay with two consenting adults drawing pictures of themselves having sex with children....because no actual children are being harmed or involved.

Suppose those pictures were extremely lifelike....so much so that you couldn't tell the difference from a real photograph without diligent scrutiny. Would you be okay with those adults inviting their friends over to view their drawings of child pornography?

Art of that nature is classified as child pornography actually.

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)." This mentions computer-generated but it's apart of codes against art in general and is notably as intentionally adding that "virtually indistinguishable" point.

Like the the whole thread and dealing with what states/areas have relative marriage rules. I know law doesn't mean someone will agree with it, but it helps discuss things when you know what you're talking about if you want to act questioning.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
11-09-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 01:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I understanding what consenting adults means. I am just probing how strong your convictions are. I take it then, you would be okay with two consenting adults drawing pictures of themselves having sex with children....because no actual children are being harmed or involved.

Suppose those pictures were extremely lifelike....so much so that you couldn't tell the difference from a real photograph without diligent scrutiny. Would you be okay with those adults inviting their friends over to view their drawings of child pornography?

Art of that nature is classified as child pornography actually.

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)." This mentions computer-generated but it's apart of codes against art in general and is notably as intentionally adding that "virtually indistinguishable" point.

Like the the whole thread and dealing with what states/areas have relative marriage rules. I know law doesn't mean someone will agree with it, but it helps discuss things when you know what you're talking about if you want to act questioning.

Juliet was 14 (even if the actress portraying her was older), and in the movie it shows her boobs for a second after she has sex with Romeo.

Again no relevant point, just a random fact Tongue

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 12:52 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 09:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  People get married for all sorts of reasons, its not always about love and sex.

Should same sex siblings be allowed to marry? What about same sex parent / child marriages(assuming both are consenting adults). I think you could argue in good faith that heterosexual incestual marriages should be illegal but what is the good faith argument that same sex incestual marriages should be illegal?

Hmm, is there such thing as "immorality" according to atheists? I don't think so.
so, you are asking the wrong crowd.

So you haven't even bothered to develop a personal ethical code? Pity… That's kind of lazy, don't you think? Scary that the only thing keeping you from, say, killing another human is that your religion says that it's wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 01:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Art of that nature is classified as child pornography actually.

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)." This mentions computer-generated but it's apart of codes against art in general and is notably as intentionally adding that "virtually indistinguishable" point.

Like the the whole thread and dealing with what states/areas have relative marriage rules. I know law doesn't mean someone will agree with it, but it helps discuss things when you know what you're talking about if you want to act questioning.

ClydeLee, we are not talking about what the law says. This is a question about Momsurroundedbyboys personal convictions. She said she doesn't care what two consenting adults do in their own home....if this is true, she shouldn't care if consenting adults create, without using actual children, child pornography.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 02:00 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Art of that nature is classified as child pornography actually.

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)." This mentions computer-generated but it's apart of codes against art in general and is notably as intentionally adding that "virtually indistinguishable" point.

Like the the whole thread and dealing with what states/areas have relative marriage rules. I know law doesn't mean someone will agree with it, but it helps discuss things when you know what you're talking about if you want to act questioning.

Juliet was 14 (even if the actress portraying her was older), and in the movie it shows her boobs for a second after she has sex with Romeo.

Again no relevant point, just a random fact Tongue

They give it what I call the "TITanic" clause. As Titanic circumvented an R rating and was given a PG13 rating despite the long drawing nude scene and multiple Fucks said because it was such a historic educationally piece kids should be able to see. That has happened a few times, at least it was in the late 90s.

Though that reasoning seemed to get shifted after that and it changed to the movie theaters themselves in these cases like allowing High School students access to see The Passion Of Christ despite it's R because JEEEEESUS.

That's not pornography.. that's art. As we all know, Pornography is classified as, "I know it when I see it" as a former Supreme Court Chief Justice said.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
11-09-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 02:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 02:00 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Juliet was 14 (even if the actress portraying her was older), and in the movie it shows her boobs for a second after she has sex with Romeo.

Again no relevant point, just a random fact Tongue

They give it what I call the "TITanic" clause. As Titanic circumvented an R rating and was given a PG13 rating despite the long drawing nude scene and multiple Fucks said because it was such a historic educationally piece kids should be able to see. That has happened a few times, at least it was in the late 90s.

Though that reasoning seemed to get shifted after that and it changed to the movie theaters themselves in these cases like allowing High School students access to see The Passion Of Christ despite it's R because JEEEEESUS.

That's not pornography.. that's art. As we all know, Pornography is classified as, "I know it when I see it" as a former Supreme Court Chief Justice said.

If I play with myself while watching it, it's just me expressing my appreciation for the arts. Role-playing, in a sense. It's only masturbation if it's pornography.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
11-09-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 12:52 PM)Alla Wrote:  Hmm, is there such thing as "immorality" according to atheists? I don't think so.
so, you are asking the wrong crowd.
I was confused until I saw your negative popularity.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
11-09-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 02:05 PM)julep Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:52 PM)Alla Wrote:  Hmm, is there such thing as "immorality" according to atheists? I don't think so.
so, you are asking the wrong crowd.
So you haven't even bothered to develop a personal ethical code? Pity… That's kind of lazy, don't you think?
my ethical code says that it is OK to have sex with children.
(11-09-2015 02:05 PM)julep Wrote:  Scary that the only thing keeping you from, say, killing another human is that your religion says that it's wrong.
there is another thing - I didn't have desire to kill another person. not yet.
is it immoral to kill another?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 02:30 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
Fucking Heywood. Laugh out load

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Now that same sex marriages are legal
(11-09-2015 02:26 PM)Alla Wrote:  there is another thing - I didn't have desire to kill another person. not yet.
is it immoral to kill another?

I've spent most of my adult life among killers. Most were religious, some were not. Either was capable of enjoying it and finding a way to rationalize it as morally acceptable. No one is wrong in their own eyes, religious or not.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: