Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

I thought the conversation could use a touch of the (deliberately, as opposed to accidentally) absurd.

Good one.

However, it is a little funny that those who deliberately add absurdity to the argument are not who you assume do. When in actuality it is the ones who are replying to both Anima and myself and give you kudos.  

Instead of addressing and keeping with the concept of the argument, tangents and distractions are constantly being thrown into the discussion. This is done usually when the replierinstead takes the example given in the argument, dismissing the actual concept of the argument altogether and leading the discussion (which I agree with you) on some absurd tangent debate . . .

For example, if you please:

 For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well.

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

However, if it could somehow be proved that a guy was really totally fine with being sacrificed, and he was in sound mind and there was no coercion, then I have no moral problem with it. The guy who did the killing handing over some scribbled note in the dead guy's handwriting afterwards would not be sufficient.

May I ask who took the example of the discussion and turn the topic of the discussion into something different?

Really? do we really have to discuss what is so obvious in regarding the damn law that "prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well" and  that, yea hopefully, most people should or do agree with it. Really?  

But because some wish to be fucking Neo (the one) who "hey I am different, because just maybe I may not accept what is the  obvious"

Or the more childish one that many always use, " no because I know or have a friend that . . . [oh lets say playing Russian roulette is very dangerous because it can kill you] . . . plays all the time and they never have died. So, no it is not dangerous."

Are you fucking joking?  . . . .Really, we have to now argue this stupid remark to the statement given now?