Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Losty]

If no one took a shit, ever, mankind would be extinct a hell of a lot faster than if people stopped having babies.

Yes my thing was silly, but my point stands. Biology cannot prove the purpose of existence. It can only tell you what is necessary to exist and continue existing. The only way that would make sense is if existing is actually our purpose and you can argue that it is, but you can't prove it.

Biology defines the very purpose of BIOLOGICAL EXISTENCE. You see your biological being is designed to do a certain thing and is orientated to accomplish that very thing. It is why you do not breath water, drink arsenic, and humans are not created without the combination of male sperma and female ovum.

Do not confuse biological purpose with metaphysical purpose beyond the biological. You see the former is a fact of existence and the latter is some fanciful shit devoid of proof and to an atheist should be on par with believing the purpose of existence is to please god.

[siderant]You have no business telling anyone else how they should feel about metaphysical purpose. Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with that. Are you seriously trying to say atheists cannot believe in having a predestined purpose? Have you learned nothing since you got here?[/siderant]

Human beings have no biological purpose. We have biological functions. You can say, the biological purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. I don't see how you can say the biological purpose for the existence of human beings is anything. I don't think we have a biological purpose.

[Losty]

"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."

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

[robvalue]

The problem with legally granting someone the right to sacrifice someone else who has given consent is establishing a lack of coercion and mental stability. The level to which one should be sceptical about those things is much higher than something with far lesser consequences, such as marriage.

However, if it could somehow be proved that a guy was really totally fine with being sacrificed, and he was in sound mind and there was no coercion, then I have no moral problem with it. The guy who did the killing handing over some scribbled note in the dead guy's handwriting afterwards would not be sufficient.

[Ace]

Ace? Citation? Pt 2?

My apologies, life was happening, (work, school, home).

Ok. What did you need citations on and given the separation of time since our last post between each other, do you still wish to discuss the topic? I am fine either way.

[Ace]

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

However, if it could somehow be proved that a guy was really totally fine with being sacrificed, and he was in sound mind and there was no coercion, then I have no moral problem with it. The guy who did the killing handing over some scribbled note in the dead guy's handwriting afterwards would not be sufficient.

Hmmm?
My I ask if you are the type of person who “does not like to be told to do anything"?

Just wondering, because at times your replies do not seem to very realistic or believe to accept as your point of view given some of you own personal views that you have stated on this board. It seems that there is more foe the need to be in such resistance to even have a hint of agreement with Anima on anything. The goal seems to be as long as it opposes Anima, that any reply to the opposite is good and is not in need of any true reason or logic embedded into it.  

In not agreeing with another’s ideas or arguments does not mean that one should be in such opposition to forgo reason or logic to make it impossible to have any correlation with your adversary and there can not even be an agreement of how many eyes people usually have or if the body ever sleeps.  

No, it should not be considered acceptable for anyone to allow any person, even with their freely give consent, to be sacrificed. It is no different than allowing a person to have their arms amputated because they don't like them and it is their body to do as the wish.

This idea that consent, legal, is all that is required to make any situation ok or morally right to occur nor does it provided grounds for any logical or reasonable to agree to and accept all "legal consenting" things. Any issue that is occurring has more elements to it in deciding what action to take and what is moral, just, negative, right or wrong, then just consent. The issue that occur in one's life , is not always so simple, many times they are very difficult that a person must be taken into consideration any possible effects that are negative or positive to allow.  Numerous factors need to be taken into consideration on the  issues face in their lives that consent is either never thought of or pertains to the situation.

[Losty]

It's not about not liking to be told what to do as much as not liking to tell others what to do.

Why can't we allow a person to amputate their arms??

Why do you think you should get to decide what is moral, just, negative, right or wrong for other people?

When an adult person who is mentally competent wants to do something that affect no one else but that person, then they should be allowed to do it. The only time anyone should be allowed to intervene is if the person is a child, is not mentally competent, or what they're doing affects someone other than themself.

[Ace]

No Ace has not, it was a stupid argument with no rationality or reason. You guys lost, child marriage will remain illegal. Get over it.

Really, my discussion of others wanting to legalise other sexual orientation was not rational or reasonable even  providing articles and sources about how others are making arguments to have their "orientations" legalized based on the same arguments made by homosexuals.  

May I ask when and where is it lacking in rationality or reason?

Stupid

Hmmm I can agree that people should not be fighting to legalize every orientation under the sun or in darkness. But that my argument is stupid? How so? Given the fact that it is actually occurring in both the law, congress and mental health.

[Ace]

Why can't we allow a person to amputate their arms??

Many time when a person wishes to have a type of mutation to one's body, the argument is that their could be other issues. Now if it is proven that they are in the right state of mind, keep in mind that the "assumed right" to self harm is not legal and in any governmental society the people are never their own rulers of himself but is a citizen of the state.

Also the Hippocratic oath . . .a doctor is charged to "do no harm"

Why do you think you should get to decide what is moral, just, negative, right or wrong for other people?

Under the same thought that others have in what they think they have a right to do what they want and have an extreme fault assuming that it does not affect others including myself.

When an adult person who is mentally competent wants to do something that affect no one else but that person, then they should be allowed to do it. The only time anyone should be allowed to intervene is if the person is a child, is not mentally competent, or what they're doing affects someone other than themself.

Hahaha I think it will scare you if you actually know how much society and the government can and does intervene in everyone's life. Like it or not.

So one can self harm? Hmm? interesting? Keep in mind that some people actually like to hurt them self and see nothing wrong with it. i.e. the lady known as "cat women" because of all the f-up surgery she has hand on her face. Which she still wish to have more done to her but, outrageously is denied the right to do so. Hmmm?

Also what are you counting as affecting another person? right when the act occurred, a month from then, a couple of years, what? Because affects can and do take some times to reveal them self

[Losty]

Why can't we allow a person to amputate their arms??

Many time when a person wishes to have a type of mutation to one's body, the argument is that their could be other issues. Now if it is proven that they are in the right state of mind, keep in mind that the "assumed right" to self harm is not legal and in any governmental society the people are never their own rulers of himself but is a citizen of the state.

Also the Hippocratic oath . . .a doctor is charged to "do no harm"

Obviously, a doctor is different, but I never mentioned a doctor. You didn't even make an argument. Why shouldn't a person be able to amputate their own arm?

You didn't answer the question all you did was say it's illegal in every country. My question was, why should it be illegal? How is it morally wrong?

Why do you think you should get to decide what is moral, just, negative, right or wrong for other people?

Under the same thought that others have in what they think they have a right to do what they want and have an extreme fault assuming that it does not affect others including myself.

Again, you didn't answer my question, but instead told me that others agree with you. I don't care. I want to know why you think people should get to decide for other people.

When an adult person who is mentally competent wants to do something that affect no one else but that person, then they should be allowed to do it. The only time anyone should be allowed to intervene is if the person is a child, is not mentally competent, or what they're doing affects someone other than themself.

Hahaha I think it will scare you if you actually know how much society and the government can and does intervene in everyone's life. Like it or not.

Why do you assume I don't already know that? I am not discussing what laws exist. I know that a person cannot legally do whatever they want to their own body, even if it affects no one else, but what I was saying is that they should be allowed to.

From your response to my post, it appears that you believe that the mere existence of a law makes that law right and moral.

So one can self harm? Hmm? interesting? Keep in mind that some people actually like to hurt them self and see nothing wrong with it. i.e. the lady known as "cat women" because of all the f-up surgery she has had on her face. Which she still wish to have more done to her but, outrageously is denied the right to do so. Hmmm?

Where is your mind right now? I never said people are not, denied the right to self harm. I said people should not be denied the right to self harm. Also, your cat woman example is not a good example because that woman wants a doctor to perform surgeries on her. Doctors are held to different standards for obvious reasons. If she wanted to perform surgeries on her self then she should be allowed to.

Also what are you counting as affecting another person? right when the act occurred, a month from then, a couple of years, what? Because affects can and do take some times to reveal them self

In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

Except the people on the bus you're driving!