It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?

I don't know... did people think 12 years ago that the illegal act of homosexuality would be cauterized into law, legitimized through marriage and made a Constitutional right by an activist Supreme Court?

Age of consent used to be MUCH lower. In fact, a naturalist would argue the age of consent, when it comes to sexual relations, should be set at puberty because that is when females and males become physically and sexually mature. It is only the aspects of religiously-based morality that prevents such things now. And the same goes for zoophilia.

Now you can argue that under current definition, animals cannot consent... but as we see, current definitions can be changed on a whim by an activist court. If animals cannot consent, then no one should be able to "own" animals. If they are unable to give consent, they are unable to be held accountable to the law and therefore, are not subject to the law... they don't have to give consent. How is it harming others? What's the compelling state interests to prevent it? There are none, especially since you've legitimized sexual behavior as a Constitutional right. You're going to have to live with that... we all are. Thanks!

Wait, did you actually just argue that in order to own an animal it must be able to give consent? So owning animals is disallowed, unless it constitutes slavery?

You are correct, age of consent used to be lower. That, of course, means that it has been raised. Yet here you are, terrified that it is going to go down again because gays can marry. Again .

Animals are not subject to the laws governing human behavior. We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.

What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape? Oh, I'm sure you'll argue that somehow gay marriage makes those things no longer of import, as though allowing homosexuals to have civil marriage is an end to the rule of law. I'm not sure why this particular issue destroys all possible arguments for regulations on marriage or sex but other changes to laws about sex didn't. It couldn't have anything to do with a bias against homosexuals on your part, though, since you are so much more tolerant that most people!

The Supreme Court legitimized a right to privacy in striking down state sodomy laws. Obergefell was about equal access to marriage contract law, not sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not marriage, nor is any particular sexual behavior required for marriage.

 

[Montrovant]

I suspect that what you call laws of nature are rarely laws or rules.

I hear ya...

Sadly your suspicions are baseless. Allow me to demonstrate:

What law of nature is broken by homosexuality?

That would be the law of nature wherein the human species was designed with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each specifically and respectively designed to join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.

It's the same law, which establishes monogamy as the sustainable behavior, in terms of human sexual behavior.

We know this because where the law is respected, one will never be infected by a venereal disease... just as we know that the human sexual standard is sustainable, as absent homosexuals being entered into the mix; which is to say those that reject adherence to the human sexual standard, one has roughly zero chance of contracting THE HIV; which is among the deadliest viruses on earth; which is just one, among the host of unenviable consequences that come with ignoring the law of nature that establish the human sexual norm.

See how that works?

Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior? I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition? Has every human who has ever had sexual relations outside a single monogamous relationship been breaking a law of nature? Not a particularly compelling law, is it?

I still consider your 'laws of nature' to be little more than your own belief about the optimal human relationship. I can accept the requirement for a male and female to procreate as a law of nature, but beyond that, it's a question of morality, not natural law. The two seem to be one and the same in your mind.

 

[skye]

It's harder

it's harder to condemn homos when you have a loved one being homo.....and all that...etc...etc...

life is not an easy thing................oh well

 

[Syriusly]

Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?

Because marriage wasn't changed to accommodate sexual behavior. Now that it has been,r.

Marriage never was- and still hasn't been about sexual behavior.

 

[skye]

I hate all this thing.... I do not want to know your likes in sex ok?

I am so old fashion.....

do not dare

to ask


and so


don;t have to tell shit

I like it like that ...for them

 

[Syriusly]

... until a mere 12 years ago, it was still illegal to have homosexual sex in some places. Now, suddenly, you are talking about present day?

You're right, today, it is unconstitutional to arrest someone for being gay or having sex with someone of the same gender. That doesn't mean that everything is now hunky-dory, gays are treated equally...

I hate to break this to you but gays are never going to be treated equally..

I see gays being treated equally every day by basically everyone around me.

You say you have gay friends- but apparently you don't treat them equally?

See- I treat my friends equally- regardless of their color, their religion, gender, sexual preference, hair color, height.

It seems to me that the problem is not with gays- but with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Why was Pandora's Box not opened when marriage laws were changed in the past?

Because marriage wasn't changed to accommodate sexual behavior. Now that it has been, you have disenfranchised all other sexual behavior. The Equal Protection clause says you can't do that. Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles and then those who like to fuck pigs. This doesn't end with homosexuals living happily ever after.

You keep saying that like your statement means something.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for some 11 years- still no legalization of polygamy- still no legal sibling marriage.

And why is it you can't tell the difference between consenting adults getting married- and men raping 4 year old girls?

 

[skye]

Keep yourself in the closet

ok?

do all of us a favor!

do not ask do not tell!

ok?

 

[Syriusly]

Actually... in reality...
.

Not a single one of your posts bears any resemblence to reality.

Not one.

 

[skye]

all is ok

but

please

do not shove your shit

down our throats

is that fair?

yes it is

 

[Syriusly]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior?

Well lets break your comparisons down- shall we?

Homosexual behavior versus 'pedophilia behavior'- i.e. sex between two consenting adults versus a man raping a 4 year old girl.

What in your eyes makes these two acts 'similar'?

You say you have friends that are homosexuals.

Do you have friends that are pedophiles?

Would you accept as your friend a man who was raping 4 year old girls?

Since you think of homosexuality and pedophilia as 'similar'?

 

[Syriusly]

Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?

No... I think that other similar sexual lifestyles will now start to 'come out of the closet' and push for their "rights" to be legitimized through marriage, same as homosexuals. They will do this using the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, and I have warned of this from the beginning.

Next up are the Polygamists, they've already started "petitioning for redress" and there is no stopping this choo-choo baby.... it's going to continue. After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.... Oh my! Boss, you're just being an alarmist, that'll never happen... yet we're only 12 years removed from homosexuality being illegal. Am I being an alarmist? Read your Constitution... you've legitimized homosexuality through marriage... the consequence of that action is something society is going to regret and it will happen very quickly.

Not alarmists- you are just demonstrating you cannot differentiate between consensual sex between adults- and child rape.

And that is scary.

 

[skye]

homosexuals can go on doing what they do

only

don't try to shove it

down our throats

that is all

 

[skye]

I have a problem with that ok?

 

[Seawytch]

homosexuals can go on doing what they do

only

don't try to shove it

down our throats

that is all

Oh, you mean like introducing our spouses as our spouses and stuff?

Why do you folks always use such homoerotic imagery?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior? I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?

What evidence are you using to conclude that humanity is presently operating on a sustainable course?

Has every human who has ever had sexual relations outside a single monogamous relationship been breaking a law of nature? Not a particularly compelling law, is it?

Yes... and yes.

I'd submit the kids who find themselves knocked up and married scuttling their would-be plans to become something other than what they've become... married and ignorant, in low paying jobs, living in squaller with little hope of escaping... because they violated that law.

I'd also submit the little girl who sits in shame, a paper gown, alone... waiting for some pathetic wretch to come disembowel her first child and scrape it from her womb; from which she leaves, still immersed in shame, forced to bear her secret that she murdered her first child... over a life of irretrievable regret.

Pretty steep price for a little sweaty wigglin'.

I still consider your 'laws of nature' to be little more than your own belief about the optimal human relationship.

Of course ya do... you're animated largely by evil... having lost kinship with your own soul.

The good news is that it's there... you just need to find the strength of courage to reason objectively and it will come to you.

The bad news is that absent the means to do so, you'll be less likely to adhere to those laws and subsequently be subjected to the heavy price of a lifetime of experiences, subject to that failure.

 

[Boss]

Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?

I don't know... did people think 12 years ago that the illegal act of homosexuality would be cauterized into law, legitimized through marriage and made a Constitutional right by an activist Supreme Court?

Age of consent used to be MUCH lower. In fact, a naturalist would argue the age of consent, when it comes to sexual relations, should be set at puberty because that is when females and males become physically and sexually mature. It is only the aspects of religiously-based morality that prevents such things now. And the same goes for zoophilia.

Now you can argue that under current definition, animals cannot consent... but as we see, current definitions can be changed on a whim by an activist court. If animals cannot consent, then no one should be able to "own" animals. If they are unable to give consent, they are unable to be held accountable to the law and therefore, are not subject to the law... they don't have to give consent. How is it harming others? What's the compelling state interests to prevent it? There are none, especially since you've legitimized sexual behavior as a Constitutional right. You're going to have to live with that... we all are. Thanks!

Wait, did you actually just argue that in order to own an animal it must be able to give consent? So owning animals is disallowed, unless it constitutes slavery?

You are correct, age of consent used to be lower. That, of course, means that it has been raised. Yet here you are, terrified that it is going to go down again because gays can marry. Again .

Animals are not subject to the laws governing human behavior. We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.

What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape? Oh, I'm sure you'll argue that somehow gay marriage makes those things no longer of import, as though allowing homosexuals to have civil marriage is an end to the rule of law. I'm not sure why this particular issue destroys all possible arguments for regulations on marriage or sex but other changes to laws about sex didn't. It couldn't have anything to do with a bias against homosexuals on your part, though, since you are so much more tolerant that most people!

The Supreme Court legitimized a right to privacy in striking down state sodomy laws. Obergefell was about equal access to marriage contract law, not sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not marriage, nor is any particular sexual behavior required for marriage.

Again, you're not thinking past the head of your gay dick. You view this as some isolated thing that doesn't have any effect on anything else because you've convinced yourself that is the case. I'm trying to explain how something like this has ramifications but instead of taking my points seriously, you simply dismiss them because they haven't yet happened.

We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.

Which of our laws are animals expected to obey, dipshit? Let's try to stay in context. We have laws regarding human treatment of animals. Most of those are based on some religious moral foundation... so there goes THAT! Animals can't be required to give consent for the same reason they aren't expected to follow the law. They are not under jurisdiction of the law so consent simply doesn't apply. With the consent issue rendered invalid, the only constraint is a moral religious belief that humans shouldn't fuck animals.

As with gay marriage, all we need is a group who claims discrimination. Presto-chango... zoophilia becomes legalized then legitimized through marriage. In 20 years, people can't be denied the right to marry the pig they love. You can't stop this ride because you don't like it anymore. You are strapped in and you're going to ride it all the way down.

What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?

What the hell are you mumbling around about here? Spit it out, boy! Make your case! We've already established that animals can't give consent and aren't subject to rule of law... so there goes that reason... gone! *POOF!* What is this "maintain the viability of other laws" shit? It's too late to be worrying about maintaining viability of other laws, you've struck them down on the basis that you want homosexuals to have the right to legitimize their behavior through marriage, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Oh, you can hem-haw around and jawbone about maintaining viability... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again, it seems to be YOU living in DENAIL of the ramifications of your actions.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?

I don't know... did people think 12 years ago that the illegal act of homosexuality would be cauterized into law, legitimized through marriage and made a Constitutional right by an activist Supreme Court?

Age of consent used to be MUCH lower. In fact, a naturalist would argue the age of consent, when it comes to sexual relations, should be set at puberty because that is when females and males become physically and sexually mature. It is only the aspects of religiously-based morality that prevents such things now. And the same goes for zoophilia.

Now you can argue that under current definition, animals cannot consent... but as we see, current definitions can be changed on a whim by an activist court. If animals cannot consent, then no one should be able to "own" animals. If they are unable to give consent, they are unable to be held accountable to the law and therefore, are not subject to the law... they don't have to give consent. How is it harming others? What's the compelling state interests to prevent it? There are none, especially since you've legitimized sexual behavior as a Constitutional right. You're going to have to live with that... we all are. Thanks!

Wait, did you actually just argue that in order to own an animal it must be able to give consent? So owning animals is disallowed, unless it constitutes slavery?

You are correct, age of consent used to be lower. That, of course, means that it has been raised. Yet here you are, terrified that it is going to go down again because gays can marry. Again .

Animals are not subject to the laws governing human behavior. We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.

What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape? Oh, I'm sure you'll argue that somehow gay marriage makes those things no longer of import, as though allowing homosexuals to have civil marriage is an end to the rule of law. I'm not sure why this particular issue destroys all possible arguments for regulations on marriage or sex but other changes to laws about sex didn't. It couldn't have anything to do with a bias against homosexuals on your part, though, since you are so much more tolerant that most people!

The Supreme Court legitimized a right to privacy in striking down state sodomy laws. Obergefell was about equal access to marriage contract law, not sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not marriage, nor is any particular sexual behavior required for marriage.

Again, you're not thinking past the head of your gay dick. You view this as some isolated thing that doesn't have any effect on anything else because you've convinced yourself that is the case. I'm trying to explain how something like this has ramifications but instead of taking my points seriously, you simply dismiss them because they haven't yet happened.

We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.

Which of our laws are animals expected to obey, dipshit? Let's try to stay in context. We have laws regarding human treatment of animals. Most of those are based on some religious moral foundation... so there goes THAT! Animals can't be required to give consent for the same reason they aren't expected to follow the law. They are not under jurisdiction of the law so consent simply doesn't apply. With the consent issue rendered invalid, the only constraint is a moral religious belief that humans shouldn't fuck animals.

As with gay marriage, all we need is a group who claims discrimination. Presto-chango... zoophilia becomes legalized then legitimized through marriage. In 20 years, people can't be denied the right to marry the pig they love. You can't stop this ride because you don't like it anymore. You are strapped in and you're going to ride it all the way down.

What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?

What the hell are you mumbling around about here? Spit it out, boy! Make your case! We've already established that animals can't give consent and aren't subject to rule of law... so there goes that reason... gone! *POOF!* What is this "maintain the viability of other laws" shit? It's too late to be worrying about maintaining viability of other laws, you've struck them down on the basis that you want homosexuals to have the right to legitimize their behavior through marriage, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Oh, you can hem-haw around and jawbone about maintaining viability... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again, it seems to be YOU living in DENAIL of the ramifications of your actions.

Your veneer of tolerance (which, admittedly, was thin to begin with) is starting to slip.

You are trying to explain that you think the sky is falling. I can see that. In your opinion, allowing same sex marriage requires all forms of marriage to be legal. That is clearly nonsense, but you're free to believe it. I've already happily conceded that it is possible for consent laws to be changed. What you dismiss is the fact that they could have been changed without any gay marriage ruling. You ignore the fact that marriage laws have changed in various ways over time, assuming that only THIS particular change is going to cause a flood of depravity.

You assume bestiality will be legalized because.....the gays! Obviously any claim of discrimination for any reason is automatically accepted by the USSC, right?

You continue to show that you have no real concept of consent. As far as you are concerned it is a meaningless concept now that same sex marriage is legal. Your reasoning behind that is.....well, I'm still not sure how you have decided the two are connected. Because denying same sex couples access to marriage laws was deemed unconstitutional, consent laws are unconstitutional? Again, that's nonsense, but have fun with it. Why don't you get together with Silhouette and exchange idiotic legal predictions?

Oh, and I see the religion coming to the fore, as is usual for you. There can be no morality without religion, are you really going to trot that one out?

 

[Syriusly]

homosexuals can go on doing what they do

only

don't try to shove it

down our throats

that is all

Oh, you mean like introducing our spouses as our spouses and stuff?

Why do you folks always use such homoerotic imagery?

Why are you bothering to respond to Skye's odd haiku?

 

[Syriusly]

Monogamy is 'the' sustainable behavior? I wonder how humanity has managed to maintain viability considering monogamy has never been anything like a universal condition?

What evidence are you using to conclude that humanity is presently operating on a sustainable course?
.

Sustainable? Well we certainly are producing more humans than necessary to maintain our population.

Sustainable- in the long term, environmentally its questionable.

Somehow I doubt your concerns are for anything so concrete as the health of the human population.