I mostly realized it was bullshit early on. My computer screen cracked so I was out of commission for a while. When I got back I didn't have the energy to read through all the blocks of text. Instead I opted to respond to the specific disagreement anima and I were having. Maybe that nugget of wisdom can be provided in a concise and elegant response to my question from one of the detractors! I won't hold my breath waiting though.

I've read through the whole of this thread (and the others on this subject) and I've not been convinced of one tiny valid objection. Even the reasons we had posted from one of the high court judges in opposition read like a logical fallacy wish list.

These are all ways of tiptoeing around the fact that they hate gays and want them to be treated worse. At some points the tiptoeing stops, the facade is dropped and the agenda is revealed. Once this is apparent, it's clear their objections are nothing to do with gay marriage. It's to do with them wanting gays to be treated worse because they are worse, in their eyes.

(July 26, 2015 at 8:18 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 26, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I am confused.  I haven't read every single block of text in this thread, so maybe I missed it somewhere.

How does giving a group of people the right to legal marriage make equality worse?

It doesn't.  Your reply tells us that you apparently have not wasted too much time reading a lot of bullshit nonsense that has been posted in this thread.  If you doubt it is bullshit nonsense, read it for yourself and then feel free to tell me that I am wrong, that some great pearl of wisdom was posted which shows that giving gay people the right to marry somehow ruins my heterosexual marriage.  I hope that is not the case, as I would hate to think that I must divorce my wife because of some nugget of wisdom you manage to find in this thread.

Pyrrho, do you not think it rude to speak for someone? Expectantly if you already harbor a bias ideology of assumption towards the individual's ideas. I find it funny how this disrespectful act is done very often in this country, for you are not the only one to do this, in fact many on this board do. Since I have never or will never assume to speak for you or for someone else, with just my personal assumption of their own ideas, would you please extent me the respect and not speak for me.
Thank you

[/quote]

(July 26, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Ace Wrote:

(July 26, 2015 at 3:25 pm)robvalue Wrote: What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

Hmm inserting idea (but not like). It would be very nice if the laws that were far more for equality were put back. This idea of segregation is only going to either get bigger of more relationships or added or will effect other aspects of domestic life. Either way segregation is not the were to achieve equality, we know that from out segregated history in the past.

Sorry I misread your statment.

However it would be very nice if the laws that were far more for equality were put back into place. This idea of segregation, dehumanization, second class citizens is only going to either get bigger if more different from of sexual preferences relationships are added. We have yet to see the full effect in all aspects of domestic life. Either way segregation dehumanization, second class citizenship is not the way to achieve equality, we know that from our segregated, dehumanization, second class citizens history of the past.

(July 25, 2015 at 11:32 am)Aristocatt Wrote: Child marriage is an essentially different conversation.  It has this thing called consent attached to it, a word tied to maturity which allows different people to reasonably consent to different thing at different stages of their life.

(July 25, 2015 at 12:42 pm)robvalue Wrote: I made that point right near the start of this thread but even now it's not been acknowledged. The slippery slope is the only thing they've got, so they must continue to pretend they are somehow the same thing. Even after the legal decision they said was impossible has been made.

Even a monkey in a suit like me can suss this out.

I do so get a kick out of a group that does not believe in freewill arguing consent. As stated in the law:

"A person consents to the act if they desire the act, permit the act, or stay/remain knowing the likely outcome of the act."

Furthermore, as stated in the very beginning when consent was brought up. A child may consent to a contract (you know what marriage is) especially if the contract is to protect the dignity or security (sound familiar) of the child without parental consent over the age of 5. The age ban on marriage was under the procreative definition and was only a rational basis age discrimination.

I notice you guys keep going to the age of sexual consent. Again as I have already stated. The state argued marriage is procreation centric and thus it had a compelling and legitimate interest allowing it to discriminate who could enter into the marriage contract. The petitioner (same sex couples) argued marriage is not procreation centric and is instead dignity and security centric; thus the State does not have compelling or legitimate interest in discriminating who may enter into the marriage contract. The petitioners won (as you have all celebrated) and the court ruled the Constitution protects a person right to dignity and security, therefore the State discriminations denying such dignity and security are unconstitutional (and must meet strict scrutiny from here on).

I keep telling you guys the law is integrated. Changes in one thing causes changes in many other places. Now if you guys want to argue the age of sexual consent than you would be saying marriage is procreation based (the old definition) and the States have a compelling and legitimate interest in discriminating which parties may enter into the marriage contract. If so the State may once again enact the same sex marriage bans along with age restrictions. So I have to assume you do not want to argue that (though you each keep running to it).

If you are trying to argue there are laws in place than it is to be pointed out there were democratically approved bans in place against same sex marriage. So arguing consent is already recognized at age X avails you not since marriage was already recognized as consisting of parties X and Y.

(July 25, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Entire thread has, from beginning to end, been variations of-

"Next thing you know, blacks will be marrying whites and civilization will crumble."

It was transparent from the word go.  Need to stop hatin on gays, period.  

Actually what you guys refer to as the slippery slope was discussed at most in regard to the law (since that is how precedential jurisprudence works). I find it interesting how people are still trying to argue this is not the case when you can see it readily from Lawrence V. Texas to US V. Windsor to Obergefell V. Hodges to Brown V. Buhman. Now in my understanding three points are sufficient to define a trending function for predicting a trend.

But I would like to ask something. When is something not a slippery slope to you? The definition of a slippery slope is when one states a subsequent resultant shall follow for no other reason than the first has occurred. I have not done that. I have explained how the first leads to logical and legal permission of the second and have even given examples. The way you guys seem to use slippery slope is to state any reference to a potential outcome is a slippery slope. If I said a guy stabbed in the heart will die you will argue it is a slippery slope? He might die; he is likely to die; he may even be dying as we speak; but it is a slippery slope fallacy to say he will die. He might live! We have to wait and see.

Free will and consent are not at all related. Your definition of consent itself has no qualms with rejecting free will.

Why, is that a man of straw I see swaying in the wind?

Who says we don't believe in free will? I absolutely believe that all organisms have free will to live and behave in whatever way they wish, so long as their physiology and comprehension permit it.

What I DON'T believe is the notion that this free will is a gift from your tantrum-throwing death-monster of a Gaud, or that its purpose is to be the deciding factor of the "Are You Going To Hell" test. Rather, I believe it's a product of the simple facts that we're here and we have the ability and will to act. Nothing more.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Anima Wrote: Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details.  Which would you like to argue?

Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

---

(July 27, 2015 at 11:23 am)Aristocatt Wrote: Free will and consent are not at all related.  Your definition of consent itself has no qualms with rejecting free will.

What? (Consent) it is my own decision to engage in or agree with a said act. (Free) I freely, on my own decide what I wish to do. Both ask the the individual chose what they want.

Also if consent is not free will and the opposite to act free will is coercion, you do know that no marry can be granted if any party is coerced or are not acting in free will, right? The person then is not of sound mind and body; un-coerced, of free will.

Consent is just accepting that someone is capable of having a certain level of understanding of the decision they make. It has nothing to do with freedom.

Coercion also has nothing to do with free will.

If we are having a real disagreement here, it is because we have two different understandings of free will.