Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Redbeard The Pink]

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

Not "Rule 3." The "Rule OF 3." Reading, bro.

The Rule of 3 dictates that, in the vast majority of cases, comedy is funniest when presented with a rhythm of 3. If you had followed this rule, you might have built a shorter quip that built up to the "fuck off" in 3 stages, used the phrase 3 times with steadily increasing humor value (or changed the formula to something unexpected on phase 3), or any number of other options. Instead, you shit out a good paragraph or so worth of overkill. 

Nice job.

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?

Where are the non-fallacious arguments in YOUR favor?


Nobody is claiming that everyone should be treated the same regardless of their conduct. That's a Straw Man. What marriage-equality-proponents are claiming is that every adult, consenting couple that wants to get legally married should be able to regardless of their genders.


The idea that one does not want to be one the "wrong side of history" isn't an appeal to novelty, it's an appeal to fear. Get your fallacies straight. Furthermore, that isn't an argument for allowing gay marriage, but for supporting it. Anti-gay thinkers are objectively on the wrong side of history right now, and it's clearly pissing them off. Nobody is saying that's why gays should be allowed to marry, though, so again...Straw Man.


As for the empathy thing, secular morality is primarily sourced by empathy toward the suffering of others. You may feel bullied when someone questions your empathy, but if you show such a lack of it, then those questions are rightly asked. Nobody is trying to make you feel sorry for gay people. They're trying to make you understand and empathize with their suffering. If you do not have the capacity to do that, then you lack empathy, plain and simple.


As for the appeal to popularity, that only applies to ideas that are popular for bad reasons. If the consensus claim is based on little to no evidence, and/or a bad interpretation of that evidence, and/or logical fallacy, then it makes sense to redress that claim and examine it more closely. Those are not the reasons for the consensus claim on homosexuality, though. That consensus claim is generated by experts looking at evidence and finding that homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout both nature and human culture, that it is essentially harmless to the success of any species where it appears, that sexual orientation is set long before choice is a meaningful factor, and that it is generally harmful to force individuals to change or ignore their sexual orientation. In short, the current, secular claims regarding homosexuality are popular for some really, really good reasons.

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.  

Suits filed and suits won are not the same thing. Until a polygamist or child marriage advocate wins their case and gets the marriage they want, your argument is a Slippery Slope Fallacy. Period.

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 )

To put it bluntly, I do not care. Nobody has a right to express themselves without ridicule. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reactions to your speech.


I don't believe that everyone who doesn't share my beliefs is inherently unintelligent. I do believe, however, that people who repeatedly and routinely display unintelligence are unintelligent. Because evidence.

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.

For guns. A child can make an informed decision about whether to handle a firearm at a much younger age than they can make an informed decision about who to marry. Furthermore, there are states in America where the age of sexual consent is lower than the age of legal adulthood, and in some states parents can actually consent to have their children married off younger than 18 (unless that's been fixed since I was a kid). The age of consent is still generally 16 or 17 in those states, though, indicating that virtually all of modern America is agreeing on the fact that informed sexual consent isn't possible until at least one's late teens. To be frank, the scenario you're describing is already in place for adolescents who are old and mature enough to make informed decisions about their futures. There is no evidence to suggest that the new ruling will somehow expand this to include younger children.


Slippery. Fucking. Slope.

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.

 

This is in no way a response to the point I made. It is also a barely intelligible word salad. Get it together.

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.

See above argument pertaining to guns and informed consent by minors. Nice attempt at appeal to emotion, though (not really).

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.

You can be an emotionless, non-empathetic dick and still construct arguments that are designed to appeal to the emotions of others (apparently). 

A house built on logic?!  

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

That much is certainly true.

[Ace]

Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details.  Which would you like to argue?

Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

---

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

Not "Rule 3." The "Rule OF 3." Reading, bro.

The Rule of 3 dictates that, in the vast majority of cases, comedy is funniest when presented with a rhythm of 3. If you had followed this rule, you might have built a shorter quip that built up to the "fuck off" in 3 stages, used the phrase 3 times with steadily increasing humor value (or changed the formula to something unexpected on phase 3), or any number of other options. Instead, you shit out a good paragraph or so worth of overkill. 

Nice job.

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?

Where are the non-fallacious arguments in YOUR favor?


Nobody is claiming that everyone should be treated the same regardless of their conduct. That's a Straw Man. What marriage-equality-proponents are claiming is that every adult, consenting couple that wants to get legally married should be able to regardless of their genders.


The idea that one does not want to be one the "wrong side of history" isn't an appeal to novelty, it's an appeal to fear. Get your fallacies straight. Furthermore, that isn't an argument for allowing gay marriage, but for supporting it. Anti-gay thinkers are objectively on the wrong side of history right now, and it's clearly pissing them off. Nobody is saying that's why gays should be allowed to marry, though, so again...Straw Man.


As for the empathy thing, secular morality is primarily sourced by empathy toward the suffering of others. You may feel bullied when someone questions your empathy, but if you show such a lack of it, then those questions are rightly asked. Nobody is trying to make you feel sorry for gay people. They're trying to make you understand and empathize with their suffering. If you do not have the capacity to do that, then you lack empathy, plain and simple.


As for the appeal to popularity, that only applies to ideas that are popular for bad reasons. If the consensus claim is based on little to no evidence, and/or a bad interpretation of that evidence, and/or logical fallacy, then it makes sense to redress that claim and examine it more closely. Those are not the reasons for the consensus claim on homosexuality, though. That consensus claim is generated by experts looking at evidence and finding that homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout both nature and human culture, that it is essentially harmless to the success of any species where it appears, that sexual orientation is set long before choice is a meaningful factor, and that it is generally harmful to force individuals to change or ignore their sexual orientation. In short, the current, secular claims regarding homosexuality are popular for some really, really good reasons.

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.  

Suits filed and suits won are not the same thing. Until a polygamist or child marriage advocate wins their case and gets the marriage they want, your argument is a Slippery Slope Fallacy. Period.

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 )

To put it bluntly, I do not care. Nobody has a right to express themselves without ridicule. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reactions to your speech.


I don't believe that everyone who doesn't share my beliefs is inherently unintelligent. I do believe, however, that people who repeatedly and routinely display unintelligence are unintelligent. Because evidence.

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.

For guns. A child can make an informed decision about whether to handle a firearm at a much younger age than they can make an informed decision about who to marry. Furthermore, there are states in America where the age of sexual consent is lower than the age of legal adulthood, and in some states parents can actually consent to have their children married off younger than 18 (unless that's been fixed since I was a kid). The age of consent is still generally 16 or 17 in those states, though, indicating that virtually all of modern America is agreeing on the fact that informed sexual consent isn't possible until at least one's late teens. To be frank, the scenario you're describing is already in place for adolescents who are old and mature enough to make informed decisions about their futures. There is no evidence to suggest that the new ruling will somehow expand this to include younger children.


Slippery. Fucking. Slope.

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.

 

This is in no way a response to the point I made. It is also a barely intelligible word salad. Get it together.

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.

See above argument pertaining to guns and informed consent by minors. Nice attempt at appeal to emotion, though (not really).

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.

You can be an emotionless, non-empathetic dick and still construct arguments that are designed to appeal to the emotions of others (apparently). 

A house built on logic?!  

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

That much is certainly true.

Just a question. Why do you use bible quote's when Anima has used none in his argument, even when he/she did insert a bit of a theist ideology. From what I gather you are atheist, interesting that an atheist world even use that book much less know were the quote is in the damn thing. Yes I have , as many have done, read the thing but I count not tell you in what chapter was said what. At max I can probably distinguish old from the new testament, and I will not even clam that as being 100% true.

Just wondering that's all.

[Anima]

Nobody is claiming that everyone should be treated the same regardless of their conduct. That's a Straw Man. What marriage-equality-proponents are claiming is that every adult, consenting couple that wants to get legally married should be able to regardless of their genders.

Oh?  So we may say they only want equality in the status of marriage and nothing more?  They do not want equal access to tax breaks, benefits, adoption, or social status?  Clearly their claim is to equality in every regard and not to marriage alone.  But if you want to stick with delusion of marriage alone so be it.

They were able to get married regardless of their genders.  Marriage, traditionally by definition required the participation of all genders (male and female).  Now prior to you going on your tirade about how this is not what you meant (which I realize) why should marriage be granted to all consenting couples?  Not all couplings are of value to the State such that the State should sanction them.  Just because they want to get legally married is no reason why the State should have to grant them legal recognition.  

Furthermore as stated in Maher v. Roe if a State may not have input into the situation it is generally held it is not required to be involved in the situation.  So if you do not have a say then you do not have to pay!  To which I imagine your response is to an idea of equality which we know is not present in the inherent condition of the parties.  To which I expect there to be a an appeal to equality of citizens.  

While it may be said hetero and homo are alike in their status as citizens, it may not be said our society (or any society for that matter) treats all citizens equally regardless of their inherent conditions.  In our society alone we treat the citizens differently based on their criminal status, disability, gender, and age.  So determining my theory of differential treatment of citizens is sound in theory (as exhibited by actual practice) now we are just haggling over price.  Again we recognize citizens are treated differently based on their inherent conditions.  Social treatment of a condition may be determined in terms of the utility which the condition provides or detracts from society.  

In this regards we may readily recognize hetero pairings by their very nature sustain and/or increase population of the state which serves as it labor/military force and tax base.  So there is utility in State encouragement of these pairing.  Homo pairings by their very nature neither sustain and/or increase population of the State.  This may be argued as a null or detrimental impact.  In either case it is not a positive impact as is naturally derived by the hetero pairing.  Now in order to maintain a claim of State sanction for conduct which makes no or detracts from the State one is forced to express a false equivalency to equate two unequal things to one another and then say because one is granted so should the other.  Since both groups are "citizens" no citizen of the State should be denied a benefit or legal recognition granted to another citizen of the state.

"Democracy is the foolish notion because men are equal in one regard they are equal in all." - Aristotle

The idea that one does not want to be one the "wrong side of history" isn't an appeal to novelty, it's an appeal to fear. Get your fallacies straight. Furthermore, that isn't an argument for allowing gay marriage, but for supporting it. Anti-gay thinkers are objectively on the wrong side of history right now, and it's clearly pissing them off. Nobody is saying that's why gays should be allowed to marry, though, so again...Straw Man.

This is an appeal to novelty because it is saying the new view is superior to the old view and you do not want to be remember for holding the old view so you should accept as truth the new view.  It may also be considered as an appeal to fear by means of novelty if you like (since it does not make it any less fallacious).  I do not see your distinction between in support of gay marriage and an argument for allowing gay marriage.  I have literally heard on numerous occasions, "This is the way things are going and people should just accept gay marriage because times have changed and the old thinking is exactly that old and wrong.  I mean do they want to be on the wrong side of history?"  But if you wish to hold unto support rather than allow I am fine with that and this fallacious argument is not in their favor either.

As for the empathy thing, secular morality is primarily sourced by empathy toward the suffering of others. You may feel bullied when someone questions your empathy, but if you show such a lack of it, then those questions are rightly asked. Nobody is trying to make you feel sorry for gay people. They're trying to make you understand and empathize with their suffering. If you do not have the capacity to do that, then you lack empathy, plain and simple.

Ah.  Secular morality.  The newest name for old ideas of ethical utility and subjective morality.  Which type of secular morality are you referring too?  In general each system of secular morality does not consider empathy in their criterion.  Most are based upon ethical utility (which as shown above and in previous posts does not support their recognition)  

You stress empathy so it seems to me you mean a type of secular morality which is akin to subjective morality.  Now I have heard it said time and again that one's personal views, feelings, or empathetic view of specific conduct is not to be imposed on the rest (particularly if the rest do not share this view).  (This is an inherent flaw with any subjective criterion.  If all criterion are right than what is to be said of the criterion that states it is the only correct criterion?  It cannot be wrong, but if it is right than all the others are wrong...)  

Being subjective you may not stipulate that I lack empathy.  As my empathy may simply be of a different sort with a different focus than your own, but it may not be denigrated as inferior because it does not match yours or the majority.  None the less if you wish to say I lack empathy than I would say while I recognize your empathy for one group I would say you are lacking empathy in consideration of the others.  You empathize with homo, but refuse to empathize with pedo, necro, rape, and homicidal.  (Why are you such a bigot )  As it is my empathy considers the homo, pedo, necro, rape, homicidal, and hetero.  

I am reminded of a quote by Stalin, "One person dead is a tragedy.  A million dead is a statistic."  The point of the quote being people may readily empathize subjectively with particular persons and then determine decision by means of a fallacy of composition to the universal while ignoring the impact to the whole.  I am in agreement with the argument that optimization of the macro system does not consists of optimization of each micro component and that when one determines their laws they should empathize with the worst of mankind and what they would do if given free reign.  In this manner I endeavor to empathize to a macro and many groups rather than a micro and single group.  

Now if your argument in support of them and moral system is contingent upon the empathy of people.  In general this is an argumentum ad passiones (an appeal to emotion) and is more specifically an appeal to pity (where one endeavors to justify or gain support for an argument by invoking the sympathy or feelings of guilt for not agreeing.  Such argument is not only a fallacy, but requires you to then impose your views based upon your personal feelings (you know that thing you hate christians for doing).  To which we may say you are likely to make some kind of special pleading by which you may impose your beliefs on others, but others are not to impose their beliefs upon you.

As for the appeal to popularity, that only applies to ideas that are popular for bad reasons. If the consensus claim is based on little to no evidence, and/or a bad interpretation of that evidence, and/or logical fallacy, then it makes sense to redress that claim and examine it more closely. Those are not the reasons for the consensus claim on homosexuality, though. That consensus claim is generated by experts looking at evidence and finding that homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout both nature and human culture, that it is essentially harmless to the success of any species where it appears, that sexual orientation is set long before choice is a meaningful factor, and that it is generally harmful to force individuals to change or ignore their sexual orientation. In short, the current, secular claims regarding homosexuality are popular for some really, really good reasons.

Ha ha.  First, as has already been shown, the argument of the majority for recognition are based on fallacies (you have not refuted this in anyway) and thus to argue a majority of consensus based upon fallacies is a logical fallacy appealing to popularity.  Now let us regard your argument of ubiquity.

Ubiquitous through both nature and human culture?  And throughout nature and human culture how has this ubiquitous thing (which comprises less than 10% of the population size and is a statistical outlier) been treated?  Is it any different than say pedophilia or murder which are also ubiquitous to nature and human culture and occur at similar rates in the population size?  

Now you wish to argue it is essentially harmless to any species it appears (which is not to say it is harmless, but more to say it is effectively so while still being harmful).  And in this regard you would be right if and only if its presence is not prevalent (the same may be said for pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, and murder.  Overall the impacts of these conditions do not present a threat to any species as a whole so long as its presence is not prevalent, so why prohibit them?  Are you going to special plead again?)  Now throughout nature and cultures the world over the treatment of this particular harmless ubiquity (and the others) is to eliminate it or to at minimum isolate it from doing harm in the given society.

As already covered in regards to the posts of not hurting anyone.  If we are considering a metaphysical harm by not allowing individuals to act according to their inclination we must deal with two problems.  One, we must deal with the extension of the argument to the pedo, necro, rapist, and homicidal who may readily state not allowing to act according to their irresistible impulse causes them harm leading them to other self destructive behaviors.  Two, we must deal with the fact that nature (yes nature by natural selection seeks to weed it out) and human cultures the world over find allowing these individuals to engage according to their inclination as inherently offensive, insulting, and harmful.  Should we not let this majority act in response to their disgust then we build resentment in the populace which shall result in self destructive behaviors or even worse socially destructive behaviors.  

"Funny thing about love, HA HA, is sometimes we express it in a physical way...  You better not be saying what I think you are saying.  Because I'll be mad; and funny thing about mad, ha ha, sometimes I express it in a physical way."
4:04 to 4:40 if you would
https://youtu.be/DB-y4ydQb9I?t=4m4s

I would be interested to hear your response to these two issues.  I imagine you will special plead both cases.  In the former you will say they are different (when they may just as readily argue they were that way from birth and their conduct does not effectively harm the species as whole, while not allowing them to act according to their inherent inclination causes emotional harm which they manifest as physical harm against themselves).  Furthermore if you are like many others on this site who believe there is no free will than we may not even say they chose a course of action or their acts need consent (which is a choice to agree) to action such that they have done no wrong.   (We may also state no one is bigoted because they had no choice in their opposition to the same sex position.  If there is no free will that is.)

In the latter I imagine you will special plead to say the suffering of the sexual minority is of greater acuity than the indignity suffered by the majority.  So now we are arguing a matter of utility by which we endeavor to minimize suffering overall and may respond by saying the acuity of pain suffered by the sexual minority readily pales in comparison to the pain suffered by the vast majority in having to endure for a minority, due to the sheer number of majority (particularly if that majority is not allowed to act according to its inclination for the sake of the inclinations of the minority).

Since the arguments for homosexuality are not based on really,really good reasons but rather fallacies this is an argument to popularity, which is a fallacy.  Even if you wish to argue it is not a fallacy the argument is not in their favor but rather in the favor of the majority the world over which is in opposition (regardless of the rationality of that opposition just as we disregard the rationality of homos harming themselves being more of a personal problem of a minority of a minority than a social problem requiring change impacting a great majority).

Suits filed and suits won are not the same thing. Until a polygamist or child marriage advocate wins their case and gets the marriage they want, your argument is a Slippery Slope Fallacy. Period.

"Your ignorance, which finds not till it feels,
Making not reservation of yourselves,
Still your own foes, deliver you as most
Abated captives to some nation
That won you without blows!" - Shakespeare

Ha ha.  And I bet you would have said the same thing in 90-00's about same sex marriage when they lost various suits and ballot initiatives all across the country by large margins.  Seems rather foolish to wait for something to become a problem before dealing with it.  But I guess that is the American way.

To put it bluntly, I do not care. Nobody has a right to express themselves without ridicule. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reactions to your speech.


I don't believe that everyone who doesn't share my beliefs is inherently unintelligent. I do believe, however, that people who repeatedly and routinely display unintelligence are unintelligent. Because evidence.

Careful now!  I will not be offended (though going ad hominem is a waste of your time and effort), but I am sure there is someone who is friends and or related to one who is stupid who takes offense at your insult to their dignity.

For guns. A child can make an informed decision about whether to handle a firearm at a much younger age than they can make an informed decision about who to marry. Furthermore, there are states in America where the age of sexual consent is lower than the age of legal adulthood, and in some states parents can actually consent to have their children married off younger than 18 (unless that's been fixed since I was a kid). The age of consent is still generally 16 or 17 in those states, though, indicating that virtually all of modern America is agreeing on the fact that informed sexual consent isn't possible until at least one's late teens. To be frank, the scenario you're describing is already in place for adolescents who are old and mature enough to make informed decisions about their futures. There is no evidence to suggest that the new ruling will somehow expand this to include younger children.

First, you need to get the idea that marriage is consent to sexual intimacy out of your head.  That was the old procreation centric definition.  Marriage is now about dignity and security.  Second, the prohibitions on the age of parties to marriage were under rational basis and the procreative definition.   In which case the State had a legitimate interest and the restriction was reasonably related to that interest.  Now the state must have a compelling interest, that is narrowly tailored, is the least restrictive means, of satisfying the compelling interest.

As asked before so restated, what is the States compelling interest in not recognizing a relationship which conveys additional dignity and security to the parties involved?  This is how the homo won their case.  Because the state has no compelling interest in denying recognition of a relationship which conveys additional dignity and security to the parties involved restriction on same sex parties do not pass strict scrutiny and thus violate the 14th Amendment.  Well this logic is applicable to age restrictions as well.  And if the State does not have an answer the restriction bans go away as well.  

(All of humanity including modern America and Europe agreed homos were not equal to heteros and should not be married. This changed just recently and even then without all agreeing to it.  Only 1 State agreed by democratic majority, 3 States agreed by slim legislative majority, the other 46 were forced by State or Federal court order.  So saying the majority agree children may not consent to the additional dignity and security conveyed by marriage, as we are not talking about sexual intimacy, and the law should reflect that majority opinion would argue against same sex marriage itself, which is not your goal.)  

Now If you want to continue to argue consent then I take it you do believe there is free will and that a person may choose a course of action (if not one cannot consent or choose to engage in the act).  I fail to see how you may argue a child has sufficient comprehension to engage in a lethal activity of using and owning a gun or terminating a pregnancy without parental consent (a more recent ruling) or to engage in contracts for professional activities or necessaries (thing concerning the child's security, which they may do) without parental consent, but just cannot seem to have sufficient comprehension to consent to a legal relationship which conveys additional security and dignity and is not an implicit agreement to sex (marriage).  How did Ace put it? "Bang it's dead, married means we play house."

So the ruling does evidence this will likely change.  Because the age restrictions are not likely to stand up to strict scrutiny any more than the gender restrictions were.  Furthermore there is far more precedential legal support in regards to child marriages than same sex marriages.  As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts, "It is impossible to see how this Court can make the big leap and fail to make the little one."

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.

 

This is in no way a response to the point I made. It is also a barely intelligible word salad. Get it together.

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.

See above argument pertaining to guns and informed consent by minors. Nice attempt at appeal to emotion, though (not really).

Oh?  I believe your point was to imply there is not a single case right now so there is no way what I was talking about would happen.  To which I responded by saying when then was the present there was not a single case for same sex marriage, which people are praising as equality won and bigotry lost.  So it is time to stop the discrimination of our youth they deserve equality and to not be under the oppressive yoke of their parents, we can all look forward to the day when equality over comes bigotry once again and our youth are recognize with the same dignity and security as their older counterparts.

I recognize this an appeal to emotion and thus a logical fallacy.  It is also the logical fallacy utilized by same sex marriage proponents and has resulted in law being made in regards to something people never would have thought would happen.  I know you realize the argument to child marriages is not much of a stretch of the petitioners argument.  Just imagine Courtney Stodden (16) wanting to get married to Doug Hutchinson (51) and her parents not giving their consent in a State that limits consent without a parent to 18.  Now we start our lawsuit and away we go.

[Losty]

You made the assertion so feel free to back it up with a credible source.

It is not a pretty picture!! I DO NOT LIKE LOOKING IT UP!!!

"Adults who as children were incestuously victimized by adults often suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction, and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[41][68][69] Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

What does this have to do with adults who are in consensual incestuous relationships? Nothing.

[Ace]

It is not a pretty picture!!  I DO NOT LIKE LOOKING IT UP!!!

"Adults who as children were incestuously victimized by adults often suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction, and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[41][68][69] Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

What does this have to do with adults who are in consensual incestuous relationships? Nothing.

The thing is that those who did engage in such relations are of "consensual age" and many did, (originally) given their full consent to that type of kingship interaction. To assume that it is only none consensual sexual relations that are kin related can cause emotional and physical pain is an extreme fallacy . There are many, (more then one would even wish to image) relationship that the parties are legal in all aspects of the law, (consent and of age) that participated in conduct that  Anima  is mentioning. The many who end or break free from that life style are found to be deeply pained emotionally and physically that both self harm and suicide is frightfully high among these individuals.

There are many help organizations thought out that have been formed to help those who have been deeply hurt from such sexual relations of kinship.

[Losty]

Your post is kind of hard to follow, but I think I got the gist. There are, I am sure, people who were abused as children and later consent as adults, who fit your description. There are also people who married their first cousin and went on to have children and happy marriages/families. What I am looking for is evidence that supports the claim that consensual incestuous relationships cause psychological damage especially to the resultant children. I don't believe that is true without other circumstances and I have yet to see any verifiable evidence that supports the claim.

[Aristocatt]

Child marriage is an essentially different conversation. It has this thing called consent attached to it, a word tied to maturity which allows different people to reasonably consent to different thing at different stages of their life.

[robvalue]

I made that point right near the start of this thread but even now it's not been acknowledged. The slippery slope is the only thing they've got, so they must continue to pretend they are somehow the same thing. Even after the legal decision they said was impossible has been made.

Even a monkey in a suit like me can suss this out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Entire thread has, from beginning to end, been variations of-

"Next thing you know, blacks will be marrying whites and civilization will crumble."

It was transparent from the word go. Need to stop hatin on gays, period.

[robvalue]

The accusations have changed from "you don't understand the law" to "the Supreme Court doesn't understand the law".

Hmm.