HipHop Sesame Street: Voice Of Elmo Accused Of Gay With 16-Year-Old Boy

^^^You're wrong for thinking that's what I'm saying.

All i've said is what you learn when you're 2 with the toy with the different shape holesand pegs you put thru. You try to stuff a triangle into a square slot...you are no more right/wrong than someone who tries to shove a circle into a triangle slot. Sexual deviance covers EVERYTHING that isn't a triangle peg in a triangle slot. Human law decides what forms are right and wrong and it varies from state to state/country to country.

The point of my post was the problem isn't that we now know Elmo is gay....or that he likes them young. The only reason he's in trouble is because of the guy allegedly being under 18. Now it's been set straight(pun intended) we're supposed to go back to life as usual and pretend it isn't wierd that Elmo's voiced by...this guy. A guy waiting around for your son he's teaching to turn 18(or lie about it) to avoid jail time. Now WE HAVE TO BE COOL WITH THAT.

Meanwhile we find out that military guys who are away from their ugly wives get slightly nicer looking sidepieces(duh)and we gotta make this into the biggest scandal of the millennium. Getting grown poon is a bigger theat than 50 year olds f**king lil boys on their 18th b-day.

I guess people are too smart to really read what someone's posting. They already know what you meant without analyzing your words. Gotta make sure you jump right up on defence even when there isn't a fight, huh? :cheers:

That was exactly what you were saying, you were equating homosexuality with pedophilia by using the blanket term "sexual deviance" while making the argument that the acceptance of homosexuality leads to the acceptance of pedophilia, basically you were presenting the slippery slope fallacy.

You should probably stop trying to use messy analogies when making a point because you tend to use incompatible concepts that end up going all over the place.
 
the accuser came forth, and declared there relationship was legal and consensual ****ing faggot ass sissy skirt wearing attention seeking whore!
 
^hours after the lawyers meeting and making a 6 figure settlement, the guy caimed he was legal. So he probably wasnt legal, just shutting up for $$. ****ed up and sick world we live in
 
That was exactly what you were saying, you were equating homosexuality with pedophilia by using the blanket term "sexual deviance" while making the argument that the acceptance of homosexuality leads to the acceptance of pedophilia, basically you were presenting the slippery slope fallacy.

You should probably stop trying to use messy analogies when making a point because you tend to use incompatible concepts that end up going all over the place.

Sexual deviance is sexual deviance. Deviance equates to "anything not the norm'. That can be cheating on the wife who's grown rough over the years with a new bad chick, or anything else that isn't a stable consisting of one man and one woman.

I put no act above or below another while recognizing all. I just present factual placement and let onlookers come up with their own opinions while pointing out my own.

You're too bullheaded in your support of anything homo to see that. :cheers:

According to the topic I've brought forth, cheating on you wife with another chick is no different than 2 dudes or pedophilia, too bad the guy who just stuck the triangle peg in the wrong triangle hole(yet it still fit)get's put in special ed while the guys that can't fit anything get counciled and allowed back into regular classes. Lol. irony.


Even if you gay you should see that's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Sexual deviance is sexual deviance. Deviance equates to "anything not the norm'. That can be cheating on the wife who's grown rough over the years with a new bad chick, or anything else that isn't a stable consisting of one man and one woman.

I put no act above or below another while recognizing all. I just present factual placement and let onlookers come up with their own opinions while pointing out my own.

You're too bullheaded in your support of anything homo to see that. :cheers:

According to the topic I've brought forth, cheating on you wife with another chick is no different than 2 dudes or pedophilia, too bad the guy who just stuck the triangle peg in the wrong triangle hole(yet it still fit)get's put in special ed while the guys that can't fit anything get counciled and allowed back into regular classes. Lol. irony.


Even if you gay you should see that's wrong.

The reason I took issue with the way you related homosexuality to pedophilia is that you were presenting fallacious slippery slope arguments like this.......

F**king the same sex and wanting freedom is opening the gate to f**k other things and want freedom.

That's some bullshit right there, that's like saying smoking weed is a crime and murder is a crime therefore smoking weed will lead to murder.
 
^^^How so? Anal and oral sex with your wife is illegal in U.S. states. These are forms of sexual deviance. Just do them in the privacy of your own home. Instead you want to rally and make these things legal, by doing so, "you're opening the gate to f**k other things and want freedom".

You just stuck on the gay shyt. All sexual deviance is what it is. Keep it behind closed doors, who cares? Open doors for any of it and all doors get open.

"If prositution is legal in Nevada, why isn't same sex marriage?"

"If same sex marriage is legal in NYC why isn't polygamy(having more than 1 wife)?"

"If sex with my wife on holy days or while she's on her period is illegal in Israel, why can I marry a 12 year old?"

"if 2 guys can be married why can't I marry a 12 year old?"

"If a man can marry 2 wives why can't I marry my dog?"

"If nude beaches are legal, why isn't sex in public?'

You can interchange them all, so by giving one rights above the others, you give the others the right to want the same. SEXUAL DEVIANCE.

Why does it matter if it's illegal in my state for my wife to give me oral sex? I shouldn't be telling that much of our business for anyone to know I broke that damn law, I don't need the right to be proud to tell anyone if she does that or not.

Now apply that to any other form of sexual deviance, quit acting like this hasn't been discussed. If an innocent kid isn't getting hurt in the process I don't care what ges on behind your closed doors. But since this "young man" was of legal age(18) instead of 2 years younger(because if he was 17, no reason to prosecute)it's okay that the guy who voices my children's TV show was in his mid 50's f**king not only another man, but another man 1/3 his age? This really don't make sense?

Yet the double standard...let's use Krystal ball, she ran for senate, a pic of her and her husband showed up from a college Christmas party they attended close to a decade before where he wore a red sex toy on his nose and dressed as rudolph(coulda stayed behind closed doors, but hey), she was dropped.

You really don't see the way the world is going. "Welcome back, Elmo we thought you were f**king underage boys, but since it's just boys 1/3 your age we're all gonna act like nothing ever happened".

I'm so illogical here, I know, because gays are so weak they need defence and protection from ever having to keep things to themselves. Everyone else gets ran in the ground when things they keep to themselves are exposed to others.

The only form of sexual deviance it's acceptable to put pride behind is homosexuality. Guys don't walk around talking about how their wife sucks them off or take it in the butt as regular practice. No one talks about how sexy 5 year olds are even if they're sick enough to think it. Polygamists keep marriages hidden beyond their own community. You get the exceptions, but most of society keeps it to themselves.

Don't gotta do that when you DEVIANCE of choice is homosexuality.

Because of that, Logic should tell you before long others who feel their DEVIANCE is more logical(because you're gonna agree with what you do)are going to look for the same rights and find loopholes to get the rights they want just like gays have done. A day will come when you can't pick on people who f**k their pets, it will be worse than picking on gays because they'll have a harder struggle to prove to you they're "NORMAL".

Somehow you seem to take this as my war on homosexuality. it's my war on not wanting to have to know all of your business. I would be just as annoyed if I found out Elmo was a swinger, a dog f**ker, even liked using whips and chains on his wife. The point is, none of it is my business and when it becomes my business my right to judge you for it SHOULD outwiegh your right not to be judged for shyt you allowed to be put out there.

You should be able to be fired or at least ridiculed as a voice for a child icon like Elmo when we find out you f**k DUDES who are 1/3 your age. No different than R. Kelly was when we found out he f**ked 14 year olds and peed on them. Both are the same degree of "wierd" to a heterosexual who is outside the realms of all this "sexual deviance".

de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

You're way too stuck on gays not being the same, they're all out the norm aka DEVIANT.


And to clarify, that's like saying smoking weed is a crime like smoking crack is a crime. True.

Or Shooting someone is a crime like stabbing someone is a crime like hitting someone is a crime. TRUE.

So legalizing weed can lead to other criminal wanting their crimes legalized. "If weed is legal now why am I sitting in jail on a coke charge, or for running a shothouse, it's not far from weed" sounds like a pretty valid debate to me.

So WTF is your problem with comprehension? You wanna beleive gates aren't opened? Look at Colorado right now!
 
Last edited:
Patraeus on the other hand had an ugly out of shape wife while practically running the world and got in a buncha headline news and trouble for getting some side poon from a woman who's more up to his speed than his wife coulda ever been. Tell me WTF's wrong.

Right, i mean...why cant a mufukka even get laid these days without getting laid-off....wut does sex have to do with ur job?

WAS PETRAUES BREAKING THE LAW??? THE MEDIA IS RUINING THIS POOR GUYS IMAGE BECAUSE OF AN AFFAIR...its sickening, ...and brutal...imagine how he's feeling right now, .... its a personal issue and they should respect his privacy...am i missing something here...

I know its a moral thing and all but i mean, ... alot of guys cheat on their wives....and they should be able to, if you got some piece of sh!t hoe layin around the crib not suckin ur dick cuz u been livin together for 30 years and ur sick of each-other, ...i just dont get it, ....thats why im happy im not famous, .... i woulda long been categorized as "bad" by the media by now....but f the media, ... people shouldnt even pay it attention. its too freakin powerful, ... and people base alot of their decisions on it...like how they was all on obamas side, but im glad they were cuz he was the right choice, ..... from the media perspective u have to be an angel to not get on it, ...but some people love the attention, ...15 minutes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Problem with the norm, deranged, is that it is a statistical concept not a real concept - the deviation from norm and therefore abnormal is not considered psychologically or medically until it is out beyond an acceptable limit, usually 2 standard deviations from the "middle" value

Anyone over 6 foot is statistically abnormal, especially if there mass is either very low or very high - how do we know this to be "true"? - because over many decades, doctors have measured patients heights and weights and their age at measurement and made some statistical correlations between the three factors. The correlations ignore socio-economic background and ethnicity.

Deviancy is movement away from the norm. However you project deviancy as a one-sided coin, moving to the "negative", when in fact it can move in the positive as well: celibacy is a deviant practice - it is not the norm and it is certainly not a negative practice (although some would argue that it is, as such people are also usually highly intelligent and fit and proper persons in all other respects and by denying the opportunity for their genetic profile to be transmitted to future generations is an act of selfishness at a negative level).

I guess what I am trying to say here, is that confusing different types of deviancy as ultimately being about the same purpose and having a negative impact on society in general is a solipsism: a logical incongruity.

Being homosexual does not make you more or less prone to be a kiddy-fiddler.

The overwhelming majority of kiddy-fiddlers are identified first and foremost as heterosexuals - their brains end up being wired wrong and they see pre-pubescent males as being female in gender.

Then there are the kiddy-fiddlers who are into it for the power trip: they get off on the absolute power of having their way with children of either gender.

Lastly you have those who don't have the social awareness to understand that having sex with persons under a certain age is wrong - they do not have the capacity to see it as right or wrong just as fun and pleasurable

These three types are of course only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sexual deviance.

I would reiterate for those who are unaware, the DSM-IV does not distinguish homosexuality as a mental disorder and therefore is not considered to be deviant behaviour in medical terms.

It is, however, viewed as deviant behaviour because of various references to it being morally wrong in a book borrowed from the Judaic religion. As a result it is entrenched in common law principles and also in man-made law.

But, and this has to be clearly understood, there is no accepted precedent in either form of the law or any moral code, that a homosexual is automatically a kiddy-fiddler, in fact just the opposite.

By the same token, the degree to which we witness incest, adultery and murder in this same borrowed book that is justified on the grounds of promulgating the genetic heritage of individuals involved in the various acts, is staggering - here we see true deviance that is lauded and proper and right conduct, but which we know at least at the level of the first and last, to be wrongful conduct.
 
^^^I agree with everything you just said completely. That doesn't mean others can't manipulate things put in place for one out of the norm sexual preference for their own benefit. You're crazy if you don't think polygamists beleive they are more deserving of every right that a gay couple has. When they fight and win, swingers are gonna want the same, before long others follow.

Same is going to occur with Marijuana legalization. It takes every drug a step closer to being socially accepted. As much as I love weed, I can see that going to shyt as well.

But I always end up getting misinterperated as a homophobe or hate-monger. I'll withdraw from the convo. I've gone in depth on this before it never ends good.

It's like all i'm saying is "we need some rules and structure", and I'll be looked at as the closed minded one until there is NO RULES AND STRUCTURE.
 
Last edited:
There is a big difference between 'a big age gap', and statutory rape. A really really HUGE difference, both legally and morally.
Adults are allowed to be deviant together. That is ok. No one else should be able to judge that.

The young fling thought he could cash out off of the older boss man. Plain, simple.

Anyway, I suggest anyone interested in this story check out the documentary about this guy before passing too much pre-judgment on it.
Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey - Rotten Tomatoes
Its a really good docu, but besides that, it shows a little of what this guy is really like.
 
^^^FYI further investigation proves the guy was paid $125k to recant his story.

My point has nothing to do with what's legally right. Laws change everyday. If dude lived in the middle east he could f**k 15 year old girls all day but the second he did anything with another man he'd be stoned in public. Because, see, over there, they prioritize "wrong" differently. That goes back to everything I've said in this post. Guys in the middle east be like "if I can f**k 12 year old little girls, why can't I f**k grown men?" like guys in the states be like "if he can marry another man, why can't I marry my daughter/a 12 year old/my dog?" Your own personal morals are the only thing that makes one "out of the norm sexual practice" acceptable while dismissing another as unethical, in 2012 we're losing all our ethics.

My point has been if the age of consent was 16 in whatever state this Elmo crap occured in, you guys would see no problem with any of this, even though this guy is the voice of a child puppet. SMH, I'm done.

Logic should tell any grown man an 18 year old can be manipulated just as easily as a 16 year old, the law simply says otherwise. I don't want a guy running around f**kin dudes a 3rd his age voicing my kid's puppets. If he voiced Brian Griffin on Family guy, I wouldn't care. Just my own MORALS. But that's right, we're not allowed to have those when it comes to anything homo, we just gotta accept it or we're "close minded".
 
Last edited:
Oh you got a point. I wasnt really talkin right at you. I totally see the other side of it.

I definitely dont think there is 'no problem' with it.
It is a lil dirty, no matter what. I just dont know that it is something he should be in jail for. Or lose his entire life over. He didnt rape anyone.
They had a relationship. It was not a grown man hustlin a little kid pedo-type thing. If people believe that a person that young cant mentally understand 'a relationship', and that that makes it 'more wrong', thats another issue, but either way, the youngster does not feel victimized.

Oh wait-
What you guys think about R. Kelly? :P
 
Last edited:
My point has nothing to do with what's legally right. Laws change everyday. If dude lived in the middle east he could f**k 15 year old girls all day but the second he did anything with another man he'd be stoned in public. Because, see, over there, they prioritize "wrong" differently. That goes back to everything I've said in this post. Guys in the middle east be like "if I can f**k 12 year old little girls, why can't I f**k grown men?" like guys in the states be like "if he can marry another man, why can't I marry my daughter/a 12 year old/my dog?" Your own personal morals are the only thing that makes one "out of the norm sexual practice" acceptable while dismissing another as unethical, in 2012 we're losing all our ethics.

Your above statement demonstrates the problem with the slippery slope argument because the acceptance of one behavior does not necessarily lead to the acceptance of some other behavior and so your proposition is based on little more than an assumption.

I can concede that it's possible for perverts to use the argument "If they can do X, why can't I do Y?" so your emphasis on that argument being made by perverts is not unreasonable at all, however the point I am making is that such an argument would be knocked flat because there is no reason to assume that one behavior should legitimize another......the same is true of anyone who proposes that social acceptance of homosexuality puts society on a slippery slope towards the acceptance of pedophilia etc, also if the only way you can link the two together is based on a lack of social acceptance and the social acceptance of one changes in what way would they still be related?
 
^^^You can't really think you're that smart and believe the words you're typing...unless you DON'T live in america. Then i get why we bump heads.

I'll put it like this. Polygamy and incest now have a foundation in this country to be treated no different than homosexuals. that will lead down a long slope FACTUALLY.

In the middle east I can have 6 wives all under the age of 18...they can be shot for cheating on me...but the second I look at another dude...I can be shot as well.

So to try to tell me any argument can be "knocked flat" is B.S. especially when in other parts of the world what we're talking about "knocking flat" is accepted and homosexuality is not.

Y'all wanna make it seem like I'm 'anti something" when all I'm saying is we need to quit sitting down for everything. I'm just as offended by a man saying "I'm gay and proud" as I am by a guy saying "I f**k my wife while on her period, love when my wife let's me squirt in her face, eats her cooch even when she's stinking". Why is any of this "acceptable" beyond the confines of your home?

I'm saying we've become a society of too much acceptance.

Face covered in tats...it's just trendy
Drug usage...just recreational
No ambition in life...still young(even in your 30s)
Homosexual...who cares/trendier than face tats
Break a few petty laws...rebellious, might as well brag about it
Casual sex with ridiculous ammounts of partners...it's just sex/being young
Multiple babydaddies...lookin for the right guy
Gang affiliation...just reppin a hood(don't even gotta do nothing for it anymore)
Chick got a train ran on her...just had too much to drink

How long will it be before

F**king your sister?...it's just practice
F**kin your pet?...lmao can't even think of one.

My point is, we've become so immune as a society to so much that in 2012 the voice of Elmo can f**k 16-18 year old BOYS in his 50s and people brush it under the rug and call anything negative said about it "ignorant".

I remember a time when talk shows could get shock value out of putting a 50 year old male and his 20 year old wife on a stage for 30 minutes. Now we get "elmo didn't do anything wrong".

But I'm the crazy one.

FYI my morals are f**ked. One of the main reason I see the rift is because of how wierd it was for everyone to accept things I was doing growing up and how now it means nothing. But todays society is immune to everything. When my grandma drove by the corner where I sold dope, I had to pretend I was doing something else. No I could just say, "hey G-Ma, I got dem red tops!!! and throw a gang sign at her." That time I blew weed smoke in a cops face would be an everyday event instead of making me a legend among the kids I used to hang out with skipping school. I wouldn't be able to tell all my other 12 year old friends what cooch was like because they'd just go out and get some like it was nothing, lol. Friends in middle school wouldn't have all waited after school to go behind the dumpsters so I could show them that old .22 I just got off a crackhead with the broken handle and been shocked when they saw it...they'd all have their own nicer shyt by 13. Immunity. Sad thing is, with all of that, kids of today don't got the heart we had, they get too many passes.

Teachers f**k kids, in the news today, gone tomorrow. Parents killing their children...one good article and it's on to the next story. Even that Batman shooting didn't stay in the news longer than the movie was in theatres.

Words of a crazy man, I get it. I should just be open to everything. Good for elmo. He's twice my age from an even more confined time than I'm from yet manages to have more f**ked morals than me, lol.
 
Last edited:
The fact that one country accepts what another rejects and vice versa demonstrates that there is no slippery slope from one behavior to another.

The issue is not weather or not we find two things equally repulsive, it's how does the acceptance of one lead to the acceptance of the other?

If the only way you can link homosexuality to paraphilia is by establishing that they are both socially unacceptable, how can they both continue to be linked if one becomes socially acceptable and the other does not?
 
^^^You can't be dumb. Reword your question into an answer. If homosexuality was once linked to paraphilia and looked at as socially unacceptable they will both continue to be linked when homosexaulity is deemed "socially acceptable".

Now my question is, when this occurs, who benefits?

Keep playin dumb. no reason to keep the convo on repeat. I've overexplained my stance while you continuoulsy try to convince me the 2 furthest ends of the spectrum share no common ground. That's why no one seems to point out similarities between the rights of polygamists and homosexuals in a negative light. Instead you try to pretend the only comparison I'm making is pedophilia, f**kin animals, and anything taken in a negative light.

But do you really believe polygamists aren't getting the shaft when states are legalizing and recognizing gay marriages as the same union as straight ones? They're next to be recognized, then someone else. THEN SOMEONE ELSE.

It's like the weed legalization argument. Before it was "if salvia is legal, why isn't weed"? "blah blah opiate is legal, why isn't weed". "weed comes from the ground like blah blah and it effects you, so why is it legal and weed not?"

The second weed is legal, you can count on coke users to want the same legalization. Then they'll want to be able to legally cook it into crack. Take one rule away and more follow.

At this point it's sad you guys are pretending to be oblivious to what I'm saying, I'd have no problem agreeing to disagree, the problem is you continue to push your agenda like I'm WRONG. You and i both know who's pushing the bullshyt. It just sounds better than the truth when you're trying to be "openminded". :cheers:

100% FACT: homosexuality was once a textbook case of Paraphilia, the fact it isn't anymore supports my statements, not yours.
 
Last edited:
I dont think the slope is so slippery in reality.
There are not millions of people who want to 'marry their toaster' just because gay marriage is ok.
There are not millions of cokeheads who are proposing legal coke just because of weed.

But approaching this discussion with the premise that homosexuality is ethically wrong obviously slants it.
Approaching it with the idea that homosexuality is a 'fad' or a choice sort of voids the whole thing.

What if Elmo was straight, and this was a legal 16 year old girl?
What if Elmo was female, and this was a legal 16 year old boy?
Same? Different?

I agree that there will always be a tiny sliver of doubt about homosexuality in society. I dont think that its right. We should strive to move beyond that. And no, that is not one step from allowing pedos or cokeheads. Reasonable heads sometimes prevail, at least when making law.
Sure, there is always going to be some hick yelling 'fag!' out his window, but there will always be assholes.


push your agenda like I'm WRONG. You and i both know who's pushing the bullshyt. It just sounds better than the truth when you're trying to be "openminded". :cheers:

100% FACT: homosexuality was once a textbook case of Paraphilia, the fact it isn't anymore supports my statements, not yours.

But, you are a bit wrong, just like the textbooks and society was. Thats the point.
It is not paraphilia, it is not a sickness, or a fad, or wrong.

No one is 'pushing an agenda' except the old christian guard pushing their 2000 year old agenda.

Yes, it does sound better to be "openminded", because it IS better to be openminded.
 
Last edited:
What if Elmo was straight, and this was a legal 16 year old girl?
What if Elmo was female, and this was a legal 16 year old boy?
Same? Different?
Same.

If it was a 40 year old man, different. I would've asked why it was even news that elmo was gay, that's his business. I have nothing against homosexuality. I'm not as "closeminded" as you guys think. I do have a problem with someone who preys on youths having an occupation that permits access to the youth. If you 52 f**kin 18 year olds, you'd f**k a 16 year old if you could get away with it. If you'd f**k a 16 year old, you'd prolly f**k a 14 year old.

I'm 33 and you gotta be a grown lookin' 25 year old to catch my interest. Most 18 year olds look like 14 year olds when you my age. There are guys my age who make comments that go right along with this. "i met this 22 year old, i feel like I', in high school again", I be like WTF? Not college? "Nah this feel like a high school crush". I don't look at the dude I had that convo with the same no more either.

And weed's not legal yet, but one of the biggest current debates is that Bathsalts are accessable, Salvia isn't illegal, Spice products, ect. and they have heavier effects on the mind and your health than marijuana. The second one thing gets a pass, others who don't get the same for their choice are gonna want it. THAT GOES FOR ANYTHING>

OCCUPY WALL STREET WAS ABOUT EVERYONE WHO WASN'T in the 1percentile of wealthy in this country wanting to be. Kanye and Russle Simmons were there. They worth half a billion together so you tell me my logic is ridiculous.

And I've indicated no ties to Christianity, that's not the only place one can gain morals from. According to christian faith you can be 50 with a 14 year old wife, but don't you dare mess with your neighbor's wife who's the same age as you and been throwing it at you every chance she get, even if you're single, it's obvious I don't agree with that.

But even these final issues adressed support what I'm saying. Denouncing god doesn't even carry any shock value anymore. We've become numb and immune to everything that once gave us some foundation to be morally sound beings(don't overread that, i'm not just saying religion that's no more the tip of the iceberg than homosexuality or drug abuse or punching people in the face to make a video for youtube, I mean everything).

One day when you're the only guy in a thread opposing people f**king their pets, or casually using coke, or beating on their girls and you say "I don't really care, doesn't effect me, but damn, just 10 years ago I wouldn't be alone" it will make sense to you what point I've attempted to make in vain.
 
Last edited:
^^^You can't be dumb. Reword your question into an answer. If homosexuality was once linked to paraphilia and looked at as socially unacceptable they will both continue to be linked when homosexaulity is deemed "socially acceptable".

Your answer does not adress the issue I am taking with your argument.....I am specifically attacking the link you make between homosexuality and paraphilia....tactically speaking I am trying to demonstrate that your slippery slope argument is based on a correlation that has been disestablished rather than based on causation, which would make for a perfectly acceptable argument.

If the correlation (socially unacceptable link) between homosexuality and paraphila gets disestablished when homosexuality becomes socially acceptable then homosexuality no longer has anything in common with paraphilia does it? so you must demonstrate that there is a cause and effect link between homosexuality and paraphilia otherwise your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

Keep playin dumb. no reason to keep the convo on repeat. I've overexplained my stance while you continuoulsy try to convince me the 2 furthest ends of the spectrum share no common ground. That's why no one seems to point out similarities between the rights of polygamists and homosexuals in a negative light. Instead you try to pretend the only comparison I'm making is pedophilia, f**kin animals, and anything taken in a negative light.

We have already established that being socially unacceptable is what homosexuality has in common with a host of other socially unacceptable things, but that correlation gets canceled out if homosexuality changes from being unacceptable to acceptable, so please feel free to point out the similarities between the rights of polygamists and homosexuals should homosexuality become socially acceptable and polygamy does not.

But do you really believe polygamists aren't getting the shaft when states are legalizing and recognizing gay marriages as the same union as straight ones? They're next to be recognized, then someone else. THEN SOMEONE ELSE.

Polygamy can only be judged on it's own merits, not based on having the same legal status as something else.

It's like the weed legalization argument. Before it was "if salvia is legal, why isn't weed"? "blah blah opiate is legal, why isn't weed". "weed comes from the ground like blah blah and it effects you, so why is it legal and weed not?"

The second weed is legal, you can count on coke users to want the same legalization. Then they'll want to be able to legally cook it into crack. Take one rule away and more follow.

People can use any argument they like but it doesn't mean it will get them what they want, especially when there are some quite strong moral objections towards a proposal.

At this point it's sad you guys are pretending to be oblivious to what I'm saying, I'd have no problem agreeing to disagree, the problem is you continue to push your agenda like I'm WRONG. You and i both know who's pushing the bullshyt. It just sounds better than the truth when you're trying to be "openminded".

The reason we are bumping heads is simply because we think differently, now that doesn't mean one of us is more or less intelligent than the other it just means that one of us is using the brain God gave him and the other is using logic to overcome the flaws common to the way humans think by default......for example some folks have a tendency to conveniently ignore causality so that what ever they want to believe can continue to be true.

100% FACT: homosexuality was once a textbook case of Paraphilia, the fact it isn't anymore supports my statements, not yours.

In order for that fact to support your position you need to demonstrate how it relates to the slippery slope argument we are discussing.
 
How can you not understand that if homosexuality was once a textbook case of paraphilia and no longer is(btw you brought that to the discussion) that apparently nothing is etched in stone? Why does that simple logic keep escape you with your stubbrn defence of something that isn't even being singled out and attacked.

I'm done with this discussion, reread my prior posts, I've covered everything there is to cover, you just keep saying "no, that's not right". While your own attempts to debunk my statements support what I'm saying.

Let's start all over, forget everything I've said and agree or disagree with just this statement.

We as a society continue to become immune to things that once had a shock value and would impact us differently. That can have negative results socially on our society and how we handle situations based on our morals and merit.
 
Back
Top