Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Still waiting on all these child marriages that were apparently inevitable should this decision be made...

I suspect you are also still waiting for monkeys in the zoo to evolve into humans. Any minutes now.... Wait for it.... Maybe if you hold your breath it will happen faster...

And bestial marriages, rob dear, don't forget those.

Animal rights activist will first have to succeed in their cases to give animals civil rights. They lost the most recent case in New York district court. The judge stipulated civic rights are granted to those who comply with a civic duty. Since animals may not agree to or be held accountable for performing a civic duty they may not be given civic rights.

I have faith PETA will keep trying for animal equality.

Great, now I just gotta find someone to marry

*looks around  menacingly*

ಠ_ಠ

You tell them Booger (Revenge of the Nerds):

"I have been trying. I have been out coming the high schools all day."

[robvalue]

Err...

So you cover your failure in prediction about child marriage by trying to strawman evolution?

Come on man. I've had enough of you too, goodbye.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Still waiting on all these child marriages that were apparently inevitable should this decision be made...

I suspect you are also still waiting for monkeys in the zoo to evolve into humans.  Any minutes now....  Wait for it....  Maybe if you hold your breath it will happen faster...

Wait...you don't believe in Evolution, either? Without Evolution, how to you form an argument about what is and isn't harmful to the continued survival of a species? Evolution is entirely concerned with the survival, replication and genetic content of species. Without believing any of that, why would you formulate an argument from the genetic survival and improvement of a species at all?

[Ace]

Err...

So you cover your failure in prediction about child marriage by trying to strawman evolution?

Come on man. I've had enough of you too, goodbye.

really you don't get what he means? . . . come on - - -things take time, things take time is what he is saying. Nothing happens over night.

Man if you could not get that, no wonder you are misunderstanding and misreading shit. Idiom's, there called idiom's. people use idiom's when they talk, you know
Hahahahaha because the world sounds so close to idiot you might not understand that statement either. Don't worry I did that my self when I first heard the word Idiom.

[Anima]

This thread is endless.  I'm not combing 70 pages to figure out what biological harm.  Tell me.  Harm to the voluntary participants doesn't count.  Neither does hurt feelings, that icky feeling some people get imagining gay sex, or lack of fertility (there is no shortage of people on the planet).

I. So let me try to provide a summarize for those who are late to the game. Current argument being presented is in terms of biology and takes the following form of intent/orientation to action to particular resultant to normalized universal resultant:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

By which it is exhibited the orientation leads to an action with a negative particular resultant that remains negative if made universal; as such we may say the orientation is harmful from a biological perspective. Verification of the logic utilized is made by supplanting of same sex with another orientation in this case murder viewed in biological terms:

4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).


Once again it is exhibited the orientation leads to an action with a negative particular resultant that remains negative if made universal; such that it may be said the orientation to murder is harmful from a biological perspective.

II. Regarding the subject of not hurting anyone we provided two arguments in regards to Physical and Meta-Physical harm as follows:

1. Physical Harm - The argument of condoning activity which does not result in physical harm is invalid prima facia. It is readily exhibited that abuse, molestation, rape, child pornography, fraud, perjury, assault, larceney, trespass to land, trespass to chattel, conversion, etcetera are all acts prohibited by law or socially unacceptable while being acts which may or are commonly done in such a manner as to not result in physical harm to another's person. It may be further argued that any crime which does not result in a permanent harm to the person of another does not constitute a physical harm (So nothing short of mayhem - the intentional disabling, disfiguring, or dismembering of another. or murder - the act of homicide with malice aforethought. would constitute a physical harm.

Should one wishes to contend a physical harm is manifest as a burden upon a person than the argument shall become one of ethical utility in which we endeavor to minimize burden overall as:

Total Burden = (quality of burden)*(quantity burdened)

In which case it is readily argued that it is a greater burden to impose a change upon 90% of the population for 10%. I would like an answer to the following question?

Question 1: What is the physical harm cause to homosexuals which marriage will rectify?

2. Meta-Physical Harm: In regards to the subject of meta-physical harm we may simply make reference back to ethical utility. In which case our goal is to minimize the meta-physical harm imposed as:

Total Meta-Physical Harm = (Quality of Harm)*(Quantity Harmed)

While it may constitute a meta-physical harm to not allow homosexuals to act according to their inclination (just as it must cause a meta-physical harm to not allow anyone inclined to a specific conduct to not act according to their inclination, which would include heterosexuals as well as murders, rapists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etcetera). It may be said to cause a metaphysical harm to not allow persons who find homosexuality repugnant (aka icky) to condone or engage with such persons (or would you be okay with the law compelling you to condone pedophilia and to associate with such persons?). Leading to the two following questions:

Question 2: Without special pleading, how are we to argue not allowing homosexuals to act according to their inclination is a metaphysical harm while denying the same to murders, rapist, pedos, necros, and so forth is not a metaphysical harm?

Question 3: Without special pleading, how are we to argue not allowing homosexuals to act and associate according to their inclination or desire (because they do not find it icky) is a metaphysical harm while denying the populace not so inclined to act and assocate according to their inclination and desire (to stay away from icky) is not a metaphysical harm?

We do not prohibit things because it upsets mommy and daddy.  If we did, not changing religions, keeping the family business alive, going to med school because daddy really wants you to and mommy scrubbed floors so you could, would be moral imperatives.  They aren't.

Uh... Actually we do prohibit things because it upsets mommy and daddy. In fact the law commonly defers to parental judgment on the raising of children.

[Anima]

Err...

So you cover your failure in prediction about child marriage by trying to strawman evolution?

Come on man. I've had enough of you too, goodbye.

really you don't get what he means? . . .  come on  - - -things take time, things take time is what he is saying. Nothing happens over night.

Man if you could not get that, no wonder you are misunderstanding and misreading shit

Thank you Ace.

[Anima]

I'm tired of explaining to these people that there is absolutely no danger of child marriage being legalised anytime soon. Relationships that would now be described as "pedophilia" used to be normal and commonplace across all cultures, but it is now strongly stigmatised and illegal in most cultures. That's the complete reverse of what has happened with attitudes to homosexuality.

HA HA!!! Did you really just write that? Seriously? You are trying to say something will never happened because what was stigmatized is not being stigmatized any more and what wasn't now is.

Doesn't this simply become a function of time? In the future they will say how primitive and backwards we were for not recognizing the equality of children and adults?

"Every man despises his father. And in so doing becomes his grandfather." - Plato

It's gone the other way. Why? Because people have woke up and noticed that there is a victim in one and no victim in the other, and they had it the wrong way round before.

HAAAAAA!!! HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!



And what is to keep them from "waking up" again and noticing the child wants to be in a relationship with the adult? Or are we going to act like there are no cases where a 10 year old wants to have sex with their 24 year old baby sitter or be married to them?

(I personally had a thing for my first grade teacher and my friends incredibly hot mom.)

https://youtu.be/dZLfasMPOU4

Since you are effectually arguing the willing cannot be a victim. So if the 10 year old and the 24 year old are willing what is the problem. There is no victim. Are you going to say the 10 year old may not act according to his desire or is unsure of what he desires?

[Longhorn]

10 year olds do not have the mental capacity to give informed consent. Animals cannot communicate consent.

Jesus cocksucking Christ.

You cannot equal consenting adults to an adult and a child or an adult and an animal. Stop. It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

[Redbeard The Pink]

10 year olds do not have the mental capacity to give informed consent. Animals cannot communicate consent.

Jesus cocksucking Christ.

You cannot equal consenting adults to an adult and a child or an adult and an animal. Stop. It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Dude...I tried. Either he's willfully ignorant of this fact even when it's presented to him, or he's pretending to be because it would be devastating to his argument to acknowledge it.

[Anima]

10 year olds do not have the mental capacity to give informed consent. Animals cannot communicate consent.

Jesus cocksucking Christ.

You cannot equal consenting adults to an adult and a child or an adult and an animal. Stop. It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Really? Half of the country does not have the mental capacity to give informed consent. They sign contracts with legal language the do not understand and agree to mortgages they cannot afford based on math they cannot understand.

Now for the 5th time at least:

1. The legal age of consent is arbitrary we all agreed it was 13 years old at one time and there is no reason why we may not agree it is higher or lower than 18 in the future, but why should they be forced to conform to society's norms on when they are mature enough to consent or not?

2. What constitutes consent varies from state to state. With that said it is generally held consent may be denoted explicitly by written or verbal expression (this is generally applicable in bilateral contracts) or implicitly by conduct (generally applicable in unilateral contracts) or in the event of unconsciousness a reasonable assumption the other party would consent (this one generally comes into play when a doctor is performing surgery for X; notice and takes care of Y while they are in there).

3. Children may consent to the exercise of a fundamental right at 5 years of age or older. If we are going to argue marriage and exercising of sexual identity is a fundamental right, then guess what.

4. Children may also enter into contracts with adults. It is even for this reason that if a child may show they have contracted for necessities and their own security they may be emancipated from their parents under the age of 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors, http://www.newser.com/story/168574/11-ch...ation.html You will see several emancipated themselves to avoid child labor laws.

Would you like to present your argument for why a child's consent choice is less than an "adults"? Or are you just assuming the continued stigmatization of children's decisions is okay?