Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

[quote='Anima' pid='995563' dateline='1437148539']

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!"

Rule 3? I was focusing on Rules 1 (timing is everything) and 2 (turn about is fair play). Maybe we have different rule books...

Perhaps you are right. What was the non-fallacious argument in their favor. Keep it simple for this idiot. Was it all are or should be treated equally regardless of their qualities or conduct (false equivalency). The idea that one does not want to be on the wrong side of history (appeal to novelty). The bullying claims of where is my empathy (appeal to pity). Or was it the whole everyone else agrees so you should too (appeal to popularity)? Was there another one which was not a fallacy?

"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!"

Ha ha. Appeal to fear? Not at all. Explanation of precedential jurisprudence. I am not saying what if someone sues for these so be afraid!!. I am saying people will and have already filed suits using the reasoning of obergefell. You stated you had no moral qualms with X so you were okay with it. I am stating a la Lawrence V. Texas your moral qualms are not sufficient justification for permission or prohibition and you would be wise to consider the unintended impacts of what you permit and prohibit prior to doing so, rather than solely focusing on the impacts desired.

Seriously...are you stupid?

Very much so. And I find it highly offensive to my fundamental right to dignity and security for you to comment on it. Stupid people have as much right to expression without ridicule as everyone else. Just because I do not conform to your beliefs of intelligence does not mean I am not intelligent in my own way. (he tries to make another funny. ho ho....ooooohhhhh )

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.

Inbred? My parents are from entirely different countries and races. How does that work?

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.

Ha ha. As has been discussed before in this thread. A child is deemed at law to have informed consent to a fundamental right at the age of 5 years or greater. Furthermore a parent may act on behalf of the child to ensure their dignity and security by contraction into a relationship which conveys as much. This is in the law now.

I like your argument to ignorance to prove you wrong. Tell you what; show me proof of one country with legalized same sex marriage prior to 1990. I'll wait. Nothing? But it is legal in 21 developed countries now. How can this be? When 1990 was the present it did not exist anywhere so according to your logic it should have never happened. Oh wait. Equality won and bigotry lost, so gays may now get married.

So what of a child's right to equality? Why do you discriminate against that? Are you some sort of bigot? Surely children have a right to dignity and security and historical precedence does show this has been met through child marriages. Hmm? I wonder if we will finally stop being bigots and recognize a child's right to equality. Where can I find some mature looking 15 year old to marry a young looking 18 year old to put in front of the news to get sympathy for the cause of child equality!! Preferably one whose evil oppressive parents refuse to grant parental consent to the marriage.

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.

Ha ha. You need to let Equilax know that as he said I was an unfeeling monster who has less emotion than a wasp that lays eggs in a spiders brain. Did you think the arguments to atheism and recognition of same sex were founded on logic? The former is based upon an argument to ignorance (because I have not experienced it directly, it must not be) the latter is based on the aforementioned fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, appeal to pity, and (more recently) appeal to numbers/popularity.

A house built on logic?!

HA HA!! You are definitely a better comedian than I am!