isn't it molestation only if there's no intercourse, then rape when there is?
?=/

Rape is any act of sexual intercourse which has been forced on someone, isn't it?

Anyways isn't this discussion drifting form the actual topic.

But seriously on the thing bout same sex marriages, If 2 people of the same sex decided to get married to show the extent of affection they have towards one another. How does this really affect you as an individual enough to cause this much conflict.

I made an exception if that's okay with you. This is another one of those exceptions I was talking about. Did the admins delete the other thread?
I want to see what was written there again.

________________
~~~the world it is a dyin'~~ so let's just enjoy the view~~~

well if there was intercourse then its considered statutory rape but only if it was consentual. And even if the younger person was past the age of consent but not legally an adult, if his/her partner was I think 5 or more years older then it would still be considered statutory rape I think.

________________
A battle has been fought, and is now over.
Place your sword upon the ground, and rest in the temporal peace. After dozing in the warmth of a dream, a new day will begin.

I have only deleted one thread, and that was a pure spam thread...

________________
A just ruler amongst tyrants

i didnt mean to change the topic ._.

@ares6
you shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that quickly, and since you didn't even bother trying to read my thread, because it's full of crap, i don't think you have any right to criticize anything about me nor the point i made....now if everyone just take some random stuff out of a person's post and start judging he/she based on that without reading the whole thing, even if it's crap, wouldn't that be judging the book by its cover? i'm a bit disappointed that you didn't even seriously consider reading my post...meh, even if it's full of crap, that would shows that you respect other people's view or opinion...now coming back to the matter concerning solid facts and rumors, i think if you had tried to read my previous post, you would see that i had asked you what kind of resource or website can you recommend on finding about "solid facts"...i admit, i don't know whether those were rumors about da vinci or newton's interest in other males, that's where wikipedia, my usual main website of resource, comes in...i don't believe that solid facts are everything, since you said that wikipedia's info can be change by other people, so da vinci could've been straigh or gay, and i wouldn't even realize the truth, since it can be taint by anything, anytime....unless we were at that period of time, observing da vinci or newton, we wouldn't be able to know the solid facts about neither of them....so the best i can do is to cite to the most popular resource site (wiki)....i'm confuse about what you meant by solid facts, furthermore, because it seemed to be mockery to me , coming from you, just after you stated that wikipedia's info is changeable...if you think of it this way, everything can be modify over the internet, and even if there were books about the guy, don't you think that whether da vinci is gay or not can be rumors, which would lead the author to put it in his/her book....glad to continue to chat over this with you again, however, if you hadn't even bother to read this whole post, and just pull out some stuff randomly to your advantage in order to make me look stupid, then i won't even bother contributing to this thread anymore...meh, i'm barely a kid who live in this world for under 15 years, but i hate it when people don't value my opinion, or don't think that the stuff i spout out is worthy enough of listening/reading/seeing....

________________
The Deviant

wow everyone, chill out. your at each other's virtual throats. ;o

What the hell... The bigotry in some of these posts makes my brain explode. Why on earth does it matter so much to people what other people do in their private lives? We've all got different ways to seek happiness, and I don't see what the problem is if some people find love with others of the same sex. As long as people are happy, what difference does it make? As long as no one's hurting other people or stealing from them or whatever, who cares who they marry?

You know, my parents came from different races and their familes were dead against their marrying each other. Both my mother and my father went through ridiculous amounts of bigoted sh*t just to stay together. After seeing their love prevail, I can only hope that other people are allowed to love and to marry freely. It doesn't matter what sex they are. It doesn't matter what class/caste they are, or if they're from different cultures or races. As long as people care about one another and want to get married, they should be allowed to get married. What gives anyone the right to deny another person happiness? What gives anyone the right to stop someone from marrying the one they love?

The institutionalized homophobia that controls government legislation pisses me off. We should be more concerned, as a society, about things like violence, drugs, street gangs and crime -- we should be busy stopping criminals instead of people who just want to love each other and live in peace.

Here's a quote that some of you might find pertinent:

"They gave me a medal for killing a man, and a discharge for loving one." - Sargeant Leonard Matlovich.

________________
"They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm." - Dorothy Parker.

Well, biologically, homosexuality is out of the norm.

________________
Life, what would it be without so much wrongs and rights?


Star Trek XI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZiR-NETDr0

So is albinism -- but you don't see people making albinism illegal.

There are a whole lot of things that are biological rarities or that are unusual, ranging from physical attributes to behavioral traits to congenital conditions. But that doesn't make it okay to discriminate against someone just because they're different from the norm. That's a kind of biological elitism or apartheid, and it's very, very stupid.

No one is better than anyone else because their biological traits are "more common". What the hell does commonality have to do with anything? That's as silly as saying that right-handers are better than left-handers, only because there are more right-handers in the world. You don't see left-handers getting banned from marrying just because they're in the minority. The same should go for other people who are unusual in different ways.

Being in the minority (racially, culturally, linguistically, biologically, whatever) doesn't immediately imply that one does not deserve the same political, economic and social rights as everyone else.

In most countries, marriage entails a series of legal and economic rights that make it easier for a couple to live together. That's basically what marriage is -- a legal contract that gives couples the ability to share financial and other responsibilities. There is no rational reason for refusing to give the same rights to homosexual couples.

Last edited by pearlesque at 4:14 am, Apr 17 2007

________________
"They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm." - Dorothy Parker.

(sorry, this is a bit OT)



how can it be so difficult to understand that in most cases it's impossibile to have "solid facts" about this subject? Unless someone happened to be arrested for it (ie. Wilde) or publicy declared it (very much unlikely, the act of "coming out" is very recent) there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty one's sexuality. Da Vinci is considered a homosexual man by (almost) all of his biographers. why? because all hints lead to it.
you don't want to believe it? it's ok. you're just one of many who refuse to acknowledge that a successful person can have different sexual preferences from yours (just go to wikipedia, in the discussion section of any famous "gay" historical people, ie. in this case Da Vinci, and you'll see what I mean. There is ALWAYS someone saying "I don't believe it... you're trying to "ruin" their reputation).
(just a question: what is "evidence" for you? if I told you that "x" famous person lived for years with another man, or that he never had a romantic relationship with a woman.. would that be enough for you?)

One more thing: wikipedia is quite good for superficial research. It's true, everybody can change the content of a topic but if the changes aren't supported by "good" sources, the text is reverted back to its original form. You can't just go there and write what you want without anybody noticing.

for males, yes!
for females, no!

XD

ofc. they should be allowed, there is NOTHING to debate AT ALL. They should be able to adopt children as well~ (no irony!)
> no tolerance for intolerance < ...


Last edited by Invalent at 6:13 am, Apr 17 2007

________________
Well, here I am, I'm back again
From the Deadlands I descend'
back from the dead, back from The End
'I'm here to take Revenge!

Should this even be a question, of course it should be allowed. What's the problem if two males or females want to get marrried. You, a heterosexual man/woman, will turn gay over night? I have difficult to see what is the problem with this. If it is a religious thing I BET that if god/gods think it is wrong she will object when the priest or whoever asks if anyone objects to the marriage.

And that has to do what with samesex marriage?