(September 8, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:(September 8, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Anima Wrote: My apologies for the typo. Thankfully you were here to point it out lest all come to ruin!
Now I doubt that. You see you will curtail the freedome of flesh and blood consenting adults should they consent to acts you deem to deontologically unethical. For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well. So now that we have establishy my theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price or if you would the deontological ethics of the matter.
I am more than happy to intellectualize an issue as my desire is not to be viceral, but rather to be reasonable, rational, and logical. After all i would not want to be some kind of fervent nut who keeps affirming a position without any justification and in the face of facts and reason to the contrary.
Typo my ass. But what the hell . . . I'll give you an 8.0 for the recovery.
Ritual sacrifice if both parties consent? Assuming they are competent to consent to such a thing (not insane, no coercion), and their decision does not cause pain/suffering to others, why not? Fuck 'em. If the religious nuts want to weed themselves out . . .
It's funny you think I'm a fervent nut on the issue of marriage equality. My position is -- and has been for years -- that it needs to be granted because I value equality under the law (yeah, yeah -- I know that wasn't the legal basis of the SC decision but I'm not arguing a legal position so much as a meta-legal position).
Anyway, I'm not really concerned to justify my views to you. And that sound you hear? That's history leaving you in its wake. Have fun with your lost cause.
Who said they were religious nuts? Turns out the are into extreme S&M.
Ah but the very belief that there needs to be equality under the law needs to be justified. You cannot simply assert it. Furthermore there was no violation of equality under the law. You see you cannot just throw out a platitude and accept someone to believe it because you have said it.
You say equality under the law but then when someone talks about a child consenting to marry an adult you disagree. Thus you are saying parties under the law are to be treated unequally (to which I agree). Now you may want to limit it to equality of consenting adults (without giving any argument or justification for this limitation) by saying adult consent. This ignores that the age of consent is arbitrary and that the law recognizes children may consent to enter into contracts with adults (marriage is still a contract). Saying informed consent does not aid your position anymore as has already been discussed in this thread. Furthermore we have laws intended and constructed to affect some adults and not other (American with Disabilities Act... Guess who that is for... Everyone?). Everyone is treated equally who fall into the category of those laws but not everyone is granted to the benefits conveyed by those laws.
I am sorry but the equality argument is nothing more than the fallacy of false equivalency until you make argument of how they are equal and should be treated equally by the state. Something you guys seem terrified to do as I have asked for it many times and have not received it once (even now you are not concerned to justify your views). At what point may we say it is a baseless belief devoid of reason and is simply a pathos desire?
