Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Redbeard The Pink]

I really wish it was special pleading.  Alas it is reality and more to the point what precedential jurisprudence is and was designed to be.  Like I said we already see it in regards to polygamous lawsuits in Montana, Utah, and Colorado.  You are fine with polygamy so you do not care, but are you so short sighted to believe that no one will sue for something you are not fine with?

But by your own statement will you be fucking off?  I have already shown the pro position is contingent upon one of three fallacies of false equivalency, argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to novelty), or argumentum ad misericordiem (appeal to pity).  Since your position is based on fallacies (I have not heard a single argument otherwise) than according to you, you should fuck off.  And when you are done fucking off you should fuck off from there.  And when you get back from fucking off from there you should fuck off again ad infinitum.

Aw. Look at that. He took my comment and tried to turn it into a joke by repeating it a bunch of different ways, indicating that he doesn't understand the most basic rules of humor (starting with the Rule of 3). Furthermore, that whole second paragraph simply displays that you didn't comprehend or didn't read what I (or anyone else) said, and that you don't know what many of the words in your own vocabulary actually mean.

 Good job.

"Well, if that slippery slope doesn't bother you, then what about a slippery slope with an ill-defined Appeal to Fear of the unknown? You've got to be not fine with something, right? What if they legalize that? Isn't that scary?! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!"

Seriously...are you stupid?

Where?  The polygamous communities in northern Arizona and southern Utah.  You cannot honestly believe the next time they do a raid on those compounds these people are not going to try to argue in accordance with the law that the age restriction on marriage is a violation of their fundamental rights.  That they had the consent of the parents and the relationship was meant to convey dignity and security to the parties involved.  For being so empathetic you guys seem to be exceptionally bad at empathizing with those who think or would do what you would not.

Furthermore, you are basing your comments on how you understood the law to be.  But under that law same sex marriage was prohibited.  They has changed the law to make it legal.  You need to look at the situation in accordance to how the law has been changed and not how it was.  It seem each of you think you could just make this small change and not effect anything else.  You would each be right had this been done through the states themselves.  Since the change was made at the federal level it will not be nuanced as you wish to believe and will have more unintended consequences than each of your are considering.

Listen to me very carefully...you inbred idiot.

Child marriage will never be legal in a civilized, modern, Western country because of the concept of informed consent. Pedophiles of various persuasions may try to use the new ruling to argue for their "right" to multiple child marriages with dogs involved or whatever, but they will never win because of informed consent. We know this because America is only, like, the 21st developed country to legalize this kind of union, and in NO other gay-marriage-legal countries do we see any of the shit you're talking about. Prove me wrong. Show me one example of somebody winning a pro-child-marriage case in a modern, gay-legal country. I'll wait.

Your arguments are nothing but appeals to emotion and ignorance, you stupid little shit. Big words will not save you from an argument built on a sandy foundation, but a house built on the rock of logic can stand the storm of your religious bigotry and ignorant bullshit.