Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[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.

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?

The simple and practical fact is that children of certain ages do not show evidence of having the understanding and mental capacity to make informed decisions on certain topics. Because of the evidence that this is the case, modern pluralistic societies have determined that the age of consent for sexual and marriage relationships should be in the late teens (at the youngest), and that decisions on how that right is to be exercised must be reserved for when the person reaches that age. Not every fundamental right has the same age of exercise, and with good reason. We've pretty much already been over this, too.

In the case of emancipated minors, the situation is similar. The age at which minors can emancipate themselves is generally 16 or 17, again recognizing that this is probably the earliest age at which adult decisions are even remotely possible. I think it's 14 in California, but let's face it, California can be kind of insane. Nobody is pushing for 10-year-olds to be able to emancipate themselves, and no right-minded person would, and even if they did the rest of society would probably think that's a dumb idea and nix it.

You have no evidence of your claims. Pro-homosexual legislation has not led to legalized bestial or child marriages in any country. Homosexual behavior has never been even a minor contributing factor to the decline or extinction of any species we know of. Until you can prove the contrary, your argument is from hypothetical consequences that we have no reason to suspect will ever come to pass.