Conservatism is an ideology - Republicans are nothing but a political party with roots in both a balance of conservative and liberal views (quite possibly the most import liberal view at the time of anti-slavery)

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

Neither the 1860 Republicans nor the 1860 Democrats could properly be called conservative.

The Republicans were determined to end Slavery. The Democrats were determined to end the Union.

From Britannica

Quote:

---

Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society; that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members.

---

So again, Rawhide is taking the political ideology of Republicans, such as being anti tax and anti government, and ascribing it to conservatism. Conservatism can widely vary in its specific theory, but generally pulls from established tradition and history.

So when I'm in favor of paying for environmental conservation by taxing those wrecking it the most, rather than taxing everyone for it, I am advocating for the fair taxation that oh say, every conservative since before the founding advocated for. It is a Republican position that would try to counter this, not a conservative one.

When I talk about giving both parents equal maternity leave, I am talking about strengthening and protecting the family unit from the inadvertent damage that competition from capitalism is causing, and you can see how closely that parallels with "the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members."

And when I say I'm in favor of eliminating private prisons, I am saying that connecting any of the justice system with for profit corporations is a huge mistake. Specifically it incentivizes longer sentencing and more convictions than is fair or equitable. Forget the founding, these are principles held by all of civilized society for millenia.

So get outta here with your pseudo-I know what conservatism is attitude. Just stop. Pick back up when you get to the libertarianism you claim to so closely adhere to lmao.

Porteroso said:

---

From Britannica

Quote:

---

Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society; that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members.

---

So again, Rawhide is taking the political ideology of Republicans, such as being anti tax and anti government, and ascribing it to conservatism. Conservatism can widely vary in its specific theory, but generally pulls from established tradition and history. Conservatives aren't anti gov't. They're anti big and bloated gov't. Same goes for taxes.

So when I'm in favor of paying for environmental conservation by taxing those wrecking it the most rather than taxing everyone for it, I am advocating for the fair taxation that oh say, every conservative since before the founding advocated for. It is a Republican position that would try to counter this, not a conservative one. Sorry scooter, you're stil confusing Republicans and Conseratives. There are plenty of Republicans that don't mind carbon emission taxes. Very very few conservatives are for it. You're overthinking every thing or trying to change the definition.

I'll repeat. Conservatives are for limited taxes and limited gov't. Republicans, especially this day and age. Not so much.

When I talk about giving both parents equal maternity leave, I am talking about strengthening and protecting the family unit from the inadvertent damage that competition from capitalism is causing, and you can see how closely that parallels with "the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members." Once again, conservatives are for limited gov't intrusion into their lives and pocket books.

And when I say I'm in favor of eliminating private prisons, I am saying that connecting any of the justice system with for profit corporations is a huge mistake. Specifically it incentivizes longer sentencing and more convictions than is fair or equitable. Forget the founding, these are principles held by all of civilized society for millenia. Once again. I've never heard of a conservative complain about private prisons but have heard conservatives complain there are not enough.

So get outta here with your pseudo-I know what conservatism is attitude. Just stop. Pick back up when you get to the libertarianism you claim to so closely adhere to lmao. Either you have no idea of what it means to be conservative or you're trying to change the definition of it, which wouldn't be surprising, you leftists tend to do that.

---

I don't buy for one second that you're a conservative. You may be moderate liberal on some issues, but conservative you are not.

Anyone here besides Porteroso believe he speaks for Libertarians?

Saying the same thing over and over isn't an argument, it's not a discussion. You can believe a thing is so, but your belief alone is not enough to make it so.

I've shown why fair taxation, supporting the family unit, and keeping the lure/incentivization of money out of the justice system are as conservative as it gets. If you disagree you can tell me why, but an explanation please, not nonsense over and over.

You have 'shown' nothing but your unsupported opinion, P.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone here besides Porteroso believe he speaks for Libertarians?

---

Isn't Raw claiming to be a Libertarian, too?

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone here besides Porteroso believe he speaks for Libertarians?

---

Isn't Raw claiming to be a Libertarian, too?

---

Quite the fashion these days. Personally, I like a lot of the Libertarian positions - the real ones, not the internet tough guy version, but I can't quite call myself one.

Kind of the problem, actually - most people don't check all the boxes for any specific group, and that's me too. I just vote for the candidate who best represents my views. Never have someone perfect, but waiting for perfect is just dumb.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone here besides Porteroso believe he speaks for Libertarians?

---

Isn't Raw claiming to be a Libertarian, too?

---

Yep. I lean a little to the right on a few things. But first and foremost I'm a firm believer in very very limited gov't.

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

Raw will probably compromise his staunch Libertarian principles on that one.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

You missed the part where I said adult. Try again.

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

Raw will probably compromise his staunch Libertarian principles on that one.

---

Sorry. Going to flag this one. Trying to insinuate that I would actually be for child molestion or statutory rape, is completely ridiculous, completely gross, inappropriate and very very low. Even for you, which is saying something.

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

You missed the part where I said adult. Try again.

---

I didn't miss that part. It seems that it is your argument, after all, that the government should give permission for you to marry someone.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

You missed the part where I said adult. Try again.

---

I didn't miss that part. It seems that it is your argument, after all, that the government should give permission for you to marry someone.

---

I specifically said ADULT. Sorry if you can't comprehend. As a matter I said adult marry adult. Lookie there, I said adult TWICE.

To just to be clear. Although I'm for very limited gov't, that does not mean I'm for no government. I have no problems with the government creating laws trying to protect children from sexual predators.

If you're trying to suggest I would think otherwise is sickening and I have no use for people like you.

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

You missed the part where I said adult. Try again.

---

I didn't miss that part. It seems that it is your argument, after all, that the government should give permission for you to marry someone.

---

I specifically said ADULT. Sorry if you can't comprehend. As a matter I said adult marry adult. Lookie there, I said adult TWICE.

To just to be clear. Although I'm for very limited gov't, that does not mean I'm for no government. I have no problems with the government creating laws trying to protect children from sexual predators.

If you're trying to suggest I would think otherwise is sickening and I have no use for people like you.

---

I am not suggesting that you would think otherwise. I am assuming that you would, in fact think it unacceptable. It doesn't really help to have the government simply "register" marriages vs. a license.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

You missed the part where I said adult. Try again.

---

I didn't miss that part. It seems that it is your argument, after all, that the government should give permission for you to marry someone.

---

I specifically said ADULT. Sorry if you can't comprehend. As a matter I said adult marry adult. Lookie there, I said adult TWICE.

To just to be clear. Although I'm for very limited gov't, that does not mean I'm for no government. I have no problems with the government creating laws trying to protect children from sexual predators.

If you're trying to suggest I would think otherwise is sickening and I have no use for people like you.

---

I am not suggesting that you would think otherwise. I am assuming that you would, in fact think it unacceptable. It doesn't really help to have the government simply "register" marriages vs. a license.

---

Let them register and then they can promptly be arrested as a pedophile.

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

OK, Raw and Porter identify as L

---

The Regan Republicans of 40 years ago, really need to consider the Libertarian Party.

In this day and age, to have a true free country requires a very limited government. And yes, that includes a limited gov't on social issues that a Republican might otherwise disagree with.

Gay marriage is one. I personally think it's gross. But I support not letting the government tell adults which other adults they are allowed or not allowed to be with. The gov't shouldn't issue a marriage license to gay couples though. They shouldn't issue marriage licenses to straight couples either. As a matter, they shouldn't be in the business of issuing a marriage "license" to anyone. For marriage, the couple should just need to file a matter of public record. That solution may not be perfect, perhaps there's a better answer, but it's better than looking to the gov't to give permission for you to marry someone.

---

And if someone wants to marry a 10-year-old?

---

You missed the part where I said adult. Try again.

---

I didn't miss that part. It seems that it is your argument, after all, that the government should give permission for you to marry someone.

---

I specifically said ADULT. Sorry if you can't comprehend. As a matter I said adult marry adult. Lookie there, I said adult TWICE.

To just to be clear. Although I'm for very limited gov't, that does not mean I'm for no government. I have no problems with the government creating laws trying to protect children from sexual predators.

If you're trying to suggest I would think otherwise is sickening and I have no use for people like you.

---

I am not suggesting that you would think otherwise. I am assuming that you would, in fact think it unacceptable. It doesn't really help to have the government simply "register" marriages vs. a license.

---

Let them register and then they can promptly be arrested as a pedophile.

---

Still don't see how the license vs. register makes a bit of difference.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?