It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If 'Trans' is the new gay. whats next?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66
IT is always utterly amazing to see that some folks apparently can't discern the difference between what adults are, what they do with each other, and how they identify themselves ... and the clear predatory crimes against children or animals or corpses that are so commonly brought into these discussions. (Bestiality and necrophila haven't shown up in this discussion yet, but they usually go hand-in-hand in these sorts of discussion).

Once again, the clear dividing line, clearly visible and comprehensible to almost everyone, is the ability to consent.

Children (animals, dead bodies) cannot give their consent to sexual intercourse ... by legal definition.

I find it shocking and disturbing that this is so unclear or uncertain for some.



I think you are making a similar mistake as several othe rmembers. This thread isn't positing child molestation (or the thread would be 404'd). Its discussing a grown man who believes he is a girl. I.e., delusional.



Actually BFT, I think that poster was responding to another post in this OP that said child abuse and bestiality were the next things on the 'slippery slope'.




posted on May, 3 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Children (animals, dead bodies) cannot give their consent to sexual intercourse ... by legal definition.



These Marxist movements aim to change the legal definitions. See gay marriage laws. Also see Sodomy laws going the way of the dodo bird.
The really powerful tend to have scandals with pedophilia, they have the money and power to hide it the best but it still gets found there, see Catholic clergy also see Royalty scandals and other rich and famous. Government officials getting rounded up for child pornography is common enough to expect to find cases of it every year. The Subway spokesman is a posterboy for pedophilia. The list goes on.

What is illegal today is trendy tomorrow so using legality as an argument against a possibility is false.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Five years ago, I thought the same thing. I do hope you are right, but frankly, the people writing the rules and controlling the narrative are the biggest bunch of pedofiles there are.

Look at the high profile scandals over the last decade here and in the UK. Think that is a smear campaign? I don't. Look at this crap with Hastert. He is getting a slap on the wrist.

We see it time and again. They get light sentences or everything comes out posthumously.


I hope people physically fight it, and I hope you are right.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What are you talking about? I'm referring to laws tightening up regarding things like child porn or increased penalties for statutory rape. These things are occurring in our own country because we take age of consent laws VERY seriously here. My point is that trend isn't relaxing. It's getting tighter.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yea I don't have a problem with it either. I DO have a problem with forced polygamy like some religions like to practice, but if all parties are agreeable to it, then I have no problem with 3 or more people getting married together.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

I'd count on something you weren't expecting to become the social issue of the next generation. That's usually how it works. People always incorrectly assume how their slippery slope ideas will turn out as consequences unforeseen by either of them pull the slope in a direction that people didn't see before. That's how skin color equality morphed into gay equality. The transition from gay equality to trans equality though was kind of inevitable since gblt has been the acronym for quite a while, and while during the 2000's people usually just used it to talk about gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals are also included in that list. It was only a matter of time before those demographics would be addressed.

Of all the identities covered under that acronym though, I feel for the bisexuals the most. Even homosexual people don't believe that bisexuality is a thing.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
"Trans" is not a new thing, it has been around forever.

It is just that now we can help people surgically and medically.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
If a grown-up child and one of its parents wished to engage in sexual acts with each other, how many would find that acceptable?

Just asking.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Kind of redundant as its illegal.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: redshoes
So you're morality is detemined by law-makers?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Robert Reynolds

If they are both adults when they do it, I actually wouldn't care. I would hope they'd use protection so that they don't risk having kid with birth defects, but also as redshoes pointed out incest is illegal.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
If a grown-up child and one of its parents wished to engage in sexual acts with each other, how many would find that acceptable?

Just asking.


Obviously most would find such behavior repulsive. Thats just the way we are. Unless you get all Freudian, anyway.

But in the end...what the world doesn't know it cannot condemn. So it would stand to reason that someone in such a situation would rather not have it be known, as it is repulsive and it is likely that they would have the villagers storm their gates with pitchforks and torches for their bestial acts.

My view: i can hold an opinion without trying to enforce said opinion on others. I happen to find drunkeness obnoxiously repulsive. Its just the way i feel. I don't have to take that on a crusade against drunkeness, however. Ill just choose to not hang around drunks and problem solved.

What is being asked here is: should we legally enforce the common morality of a nation. And that is a very interesting question when you get to the granular level of it.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0tWhy bring leagilty into it? I was interested in whether you were morally opposed to it or not.

You wouldn't mind two of your children indulging in incestuous acts?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: Krazysh0tWhy bring leagilty into it? I was interested in whether you were morally opposed to it or not.

You wouldn't mind two of your children indulging in incestuous acts?



Well it being my own two children is a different story. I can't say I'd approve of such things, but again, if they are just two random adults (who happen to be related), I really wouldn't care if they did anything. Outside of wanting them to practice safe sex that is.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
If a grown-up child and one of its parents wished to engage in sexual acts with each other, how many would find that acceptable?

Just asking.



Obviously most would find such behavior repulsive. Thats just the way we are. Unless you get all Freudian, anyway.
What do you think?


But in the end...what the world doesn't know it cannot condemn.
I'm not sure of the point being made here. Are you suggesting that if one is to get away with something, then it's acceptable?


So it would stand to reason that someone in such a situation would rather not have it be known, as it is repulsive and it is likely that they would have the villagers storm their gates with pitchforks and torches for their bestial acts.
Do you genuinely believe that angry mobs would form in such a situation?


My view: i can hold an opinion without trying to enforce said opinion on others.
Me too.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0tSo you're not morally opposed to it, but for some reason you wouldn't like your children indulging in it? Is this merely a vanity issue?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: Krazysh0tSo you're not morally opposed to it, but for some reason you wouldn't like your children indulging in it? Is this merely a vanity issue?


I wouldn't want my children doing it for the scientific reasons against it, in that it drastically ups your chances for birth defects. Even with protection, you aren't 100% safe from pregnancy. So there would always be a risk they'd bring a baby like that into the world and that isn't a hardship I'd want for my children. So if they aren't my children, I could care less if they want to tempt fate like that. It has nothing to do with morality since I don't see sex as a moral issue.
edit on 3-5-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

I'm not sure of the point being made here. Are you suggesting that if one is to get away with something, then it's acceptable?


No, that if you aren't aware of it, you can't form an opinion on it either way. I'd believe that such people currently exist, and we just don't know because they are more interested in each other and less interested in spectacle.



Do you genuinely believe that angry mobs would form in such a situation?


Well, im seeing people enrolling in concealed carry classes solely for the reason of protecting themselves in bathrooms. Humans are prone to mania. The stupider, the better.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0tSo your objection would be on purely cold and rational terms? you wouldn't mind oral sex? You wouldn't mind homosexual incest?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: Krazysh0tSo your objection would be on purely cold and rational terms? you wouldn't mind oral sex? You wouldn't mind homosexual incest?



I'd probably find it discomforting to know that they are engaging in such a behavior, but without the risk of pregnancy I could force myself to get over it. Since that feeling is the result of social norms and all and if them being together like that makes them happy, then I can look past it. There would also be the legal aspect since incest is illegal and all.
edit on 3-5-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join