---

Like I said before, I thought dont have sex with a child is kind of implied, but apparently not

---

You need to defend your position better.

You take the position that homosexuality and paedophilia are morally distinct for granted. You shouldn't. You need justification for that belief beyond simply "they're different."

I'll save you the trouble and sum up your argument for you.

You don't believe a child (even as old as twelve) can give consent or you believe that in a sexual interaction between an adult and a child, the power-difference/maturity difference negates the consent of the child and that's why paedophilia and homosexuality between adults are different.

What he said  

-------
Dun wry its k

---

I agree, a child the age of 12 classifies as legally retarded and cannot consent to having sex with anyone, a pervert or some curious other 12 year old.

---

It's obviously not the same issue when there's two children involved. Yes, the age difference does make a difference.

---

Like I said before, I thought dont have sex with a child is kind of implied, but apparently not

---

So you're changing your stance.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

So you're changing your stance.

---

No, he just formulated and expressed it poorly.

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 5:58 pm on Aug. 27, 2008

---

So you're changing your stance.

---

No, he just formulated and expressed it poorly.

---

Mmm, I'd say it's less a case of expressing it poorly and more a case of not thinking the implications through. If he meant "two consenting adults" he should have said, "two consenting adults" from the get go.

As it is, his opinion on what should and shouldn't be a sin is moot.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Mmm, I'd say it's less a case of expressing it poorly and more a case of not thinking the implications through. If he meant "two consenting adults" he should have said, "two consenting adults" from the get go.

---

I did say that he formulated [and] expressed it poorly. The formulation bit would've been not saying "consenting adults" from the get go.

---

As it is, his opinion on what should and shouldn't be a sin is moot.

---

Didn't stop you from arguing the point with him, did it?

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:04 pm on Aug. 27, 2008

---

Mmm, I'd say it's less a case of expressing it poorly and more a case of not thinking the implications through. If he meant "two consenting adults" he should have said, "two consenting adults" from the get go.

---

I did say that he formulated [and] expressed it poorly. The formulation bit would've been not saying "consenting adults" from the get go.  

---

As it is, his opinion on what should and shouldn't be a sin is moot.

---

Didn't stop you from arguing the point with him, did it?

---

Largely because he didn't think before he typed, and I was trying to get him to do so. You defeated the purpose. Now he has not learned to think, only to be a Me-Too. Good job.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

I don't think? Wow thats ironic

---

Obviously not, as you had to change your statement in order for it to actually encompass your moral beliefs. You were so upset over what you perceived to be an "injustice" that you made a blanket statement without thinking and proceeded to make yourself look extremely foolish in your following posts.

So no, you don't think. Perhaps you should take your cue from those of us who do think and not let your emotions get in the way of making rational posts.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

harhar

-------
join this group only if youre a mod