It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

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..

You keep making your predictions of doom- based entirely upon your anti-gay paranoia.

There is nothing serious to take about your posts- you just say you believe this will happen- even though there is absolutely no evidence it will. Why should anyone take that crap seriously?

You don't understand what the Supreme Courts decision actually was. You can't seem to tell the difference between a homosexual and a rapist.

Why should we take anything you say seriously?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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..

We have laws regarding the humane treatment of animals. But bestiality?

Alabama just outlawed bestiality in 2014. 13 states have no laws against bestiality.

So tell me- how does homosexuality being legal somehow mean the end of laws against bestiality when the law is moving the other direction.

As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.

The trends are opposite.

Each of your posts just demonstrates that you do not understand what the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell- and also clearly in Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[Syriusly]

[
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?
.

Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Why do you- and pretty much every homophobe- either not understand what consent is- or care what consent is?

Why do you equate consensual sex between two adult women with a 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl?

 

[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.

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?

You're making all sorts of wild ass assumptions about what I've said. I did not say the sky was falling. I said there would be ramifications and consequences by legitimizing homosexuality through marriage. There are already legal cases in the works for polygamy. I never said anything about a "flood of depravity" it's going to take some time but it will eventually come because you've removed the barriers.

I did not say bestiality would be legalized "because ...the gays." That's a smart ass sarcastic quip designed to marginalize the point I made. It's just another of your dishonest attempts to deflect an opposing opinion. The SCOTUS has established as matter of law that marriage is a right which must be afforded on the basis of sexuality instead of being the union of a male and female. Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles, zoophiliacs, necrophiliacs or any other sexual preference. ALL of them were completely able to obtain a marriage license without discrimination in all 50 states... MARRIAGE being the union of a man and woman. Heterosexuals weren't being allowed to have same-sex unions to the exclusion of gays. THAT is the dynamic you would need in order to claim an inequality. BUT... the way you have defined it, the "right" must also extend to anyone else who wants it. We don't have laws that apply to THIS group but not THAT group. It's the Equal Protection clause and this will come back to haunt you.

And again... I fully understand consent. Just like I understand marriage is the union of a male and female. What I have learned is, it really doesn't matter what I currently understand, the SCOTUS has made it clear they can redefine words to mean what they want them to. In fact, "consent" is an easier parameter to change than "marriage."

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?

We can trot it out if you like... as soon as you show me a moral we have that isn't rooted in a religious philosophy, I will admit that religion has nothing to do with morals. Until then, you're pissing in the wind. Every moral of western civilization is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious principle. That's just a fact of life. Sorry if that bothers you. I'm not a religious person, I am not here to argue religion... to the contrary, I am saying that we have now established that religion can't have a place at the table anymore when it comes to Constitutional rights. Therefore, your legitimate arguments against things like zoophilia have been destroyed.

What you seem to be doing now is playing favorites with sexual proclivities. Homosexuality has somehow been raised above all others and legitimized. On what Constitutional basis are you doing this? You don't really have an answer, just more bluster and sarcasm.

 

[Boss]

Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Again...

1) Animals do not have to give consent since they are not under jurisdiction of the law.
2) The legal definition of consent can be changed even easier than the definition of marriage.

 

[Boss]

As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.

And it's "unconstitutional" now. You can't give rights to one group and exclude another similar group. Sexual proclivities constitute the group in this context. Under the SCOTUS ruling, all sexual proclivities have the same marital rights as homosexuals if we adhere to the Constitution.

It's like trying to say women have equal pay rights as long as they are blond and have big tits... brunettes and flat-chested women aren't included because we don't like how they look. You see... this is unconstitutional... we're discriminating against a similar group. As much as you may not like zoophiliacs, they have the same Constitutional rights as homosexual people. Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc. It includes incest relationships and polygamy as well. All of them now have a legitimate Constitutional claim to rights through marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.

And it's "unconstitutional" now. You can't give rights to one group and exclude another similar group. Sexual proclivities constitute the group in this context. Under the SCOTUS ruling, all sexual proclivities have the same marital rights as homosexuals if we adhere to the Constitution.

Again you are just demonstrating you do not have a clue what the Supreme Court ruled in either Obergefell or Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[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?

You're making all sorts of wild ass assumptions about what I've said. I did not say the sky was falling. I said there would be ramifications and consequences by legitimizing homosexuality through marriage. There are already legal cases in the works for polygamy. I never said anything about a "flood of depravity" it's going to take some time but it will eventually come because you've removed the barriers.

I did not say bestiality would be legalized "because ...the gays." That's a smart ass sarcastic quip designed to marginalize the point I made. It's just another of your dishonest attempts to deflect an opposing opinion. The SCOTUS has established as matter of law that marriage is a right which must be afforded on the basis of sexuality instead of being the union of a male and female. Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles, zoophiliacs, necrophiliacs or any other sexual preference. ALL of them were completely able to obtain a marriage license without discrimination in all 50 states... MARRIAGE being the union of a man and woman. Heterosexuals weren't being allowed to have same-sex unions to the exclusion of gays. THAT is the dynamic you would need in order to claim an inequality. BUT... the way you have defined it, the "right" must also extend to anyone else who wants it. We don't have laws that apply to THIS group but not THAT group. It's the Equal Protection clause and this will come back to haunt you.

And again... I fully understand consent. Just like I understand marriage is the union of a male and female. What I have learned is, it really doesn't matter what I currently understand, the SCOTUS has made it clear they can redefine words to mean what they want them to. In fact, "consent" is an easier parameter to change than "marriage."

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?

We can trot it out if you like... as soon as you show me a moral we have that isn't rooted in a religious philosophy, I will admit that religion has nothing to do with morals. Until then, you're pissing in the wind. Every moral of western civilization is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious principle. That's just a fact of life. Sorry if that bothers you. I'm not a religious person, I am not here to argue religion... to the contrary, I am saying that we have now established that religion can't have a place at the table anymore when it comes to Constitutional rights. Therefore, your legitimate arguments against things like zoophilia have been destroyed.

What you seem to be doing now is playing favorites with sexual proclivities. Homosexuality has somehow been raised above all others and legitimized. On what Constitutional basis are you doing this? You don't really have an answer, just more bluster and sarcasm.

I have already given an example of how equal protection could be argued for same sex marriage without using sexuality as the basis. Gender works as a basis. That, however, is immaterial as the USSC ruled that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

So because you disagree with a Supreme Court decision, all laws are meaningless? Sorry, not a particularly compelling argument.

Your lack of religion is as convincing as your tolerance.

You never used the phrase flood of depravity. However, in this very post, you have strongly implied that pedophiles, zoophiles, and necrophiliacs must end up being allowed to marry the person or object of their choice because of the ruling about same sex marriage.

I didn't remove any barriers. I haven't defined any rights. I am not a member of the Supreme Court, nor am I a lawyer, nor was I one of the parties involved in Obergefell. I guess you find it easier to put anyone who disagrees with you into the same box?

If you are really so terrified that these kinds of non-consenting relationships are going to be found as rights by the court, perhaps you should push for a new constitutional amendment.

I just have bluster and sarcasm? Actually, I have the decision of the Supreme Court and various state and federal laws upon which I can base my argument. You are the one who is blustering and wailing about pedophiles and necrophiliacs being granted the ability to ignore laws of consent. I do have sarcasm, but what can I say? Your posts invite it.

 

[Syriusly]

Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Again...

1) Animals do not have to give consent since they are not under jurisdiction of the law.
2) The legal definition of consent can be changed even easier than the definition of marriage.

Marriage is a consensual relationship. You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage- no matter how much you want to marry your favorite cow.

The legal definition of consent can change- of course it can- and that has absolutely nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage.

The only person seeming to have issues with the concept of consent here in this thread is you.

Two men consenting to marry each other- that is an action with consent.
A 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl- that is an action without consent.

You do not seem to understand the difference.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

You're making all sorts of wild ass assumptions about what I've said. I did not say the sky was falling. I said there would be ramifications and consequences by legitimizing homosexuality through marriage. There are already legal cases in the works for polygamy. I never said anything about a "flood of depravity" it's going to take some time but it will eventually come because you've removed the barriers..

Removed what barriers?

Same gender couples can now marry. 50 years ago mixed race couples were allowed to legally marry. Barriers do get removed.

 

[Syriusly]

As homosexuals were gaining legal protection from discriminatory laws, laws were being passed to outlaw sex with animals.

. Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality,.

When did that happen?

Please feel free to refer to the court decision, and a quote from that decision.

 

[Boss]

Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Again...

1) Animals do not have to give consent since they are not under jurisdiction of the law.
2) The legal definition of consent can be changed even easier than the definition of marriage.

Marriage is a consensual relationship. You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage- no matter how much you want to marry your favorite cow.

The legal definition of consent can change- of course it can- and that has absolutely nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage.

The only person seeming to have issues with the concept of consent here in this thread is you.

Two men consenting to marry each other- that is an action with consent.
A 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl- that is an action without consent.

You do not seem to understand the difference.

...You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage...

That is YOUR opinion. You're not a radical liberal Supreme Court in 12 years, faced with giving a poor discriminated-against zoophiliac the "right" to marry the pig he loves... the same as homosexuals have. Now... You might be a Conservative by then and you might be telling some smart ass know-it-all punk Liberal that this is crazy and ridiculous and wasn't what gay marriage ever intended to cause, and they might call you a bigoted zooaphobe.

91-year-old senile Justice Kennedy will posit that marriage is a consensual relationship but since animals have no wherewithal to legally consent, nor an obligation under the law to do so, that this criteria defaults to their owners. No different than dressing your poodle in tiny costumes or entering your horse in a race. Consent is not needed from an animal other than another human, nor is it required (or can it be) under the law. He will find that this cannot interfere with the "right" of the person to legitimately marry the animal he/she loves.

Again... parameters of "consent" are easier to change than parameters of "marriage."

 

[Syriusly]

Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Again...

1) Animals do not have to give consent since they are not under jurisdiction of the law.
2) The legal definition of consent can be changed even easier than the definition of marriage.

Marriage is a consensual relationship. You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage- no matter how much you want to marry your favorite cow.

The legal definition of consent can change- of course it can- and that has absolutely nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage.

The only person seeming to have issues with the concept of consent here in this thread is you.

Two men consenting to marry each other- that is an action with consent.
A 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl- that is an action without consent.

You do not seem to understand the difference.

...You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage...

That is YOUR opinion. You're not a radical liberal Supreme Court in 12 years, faced with giving a poor discriminated-against zoophiliac the "right" to marry the pig he loves... the same as homosexuals have. Now... You might be a Conservative by then and you might be telling some smart ass know-it-all punk Liberal that this is crazy and ridiculous and wasn't what gay marriage ever intended to cause, and they might call you a bigoted zooaphobe.

91-year-old senile Justice Kennedy will posit that marriage is a consensual relationship but since animals have no wherewithal to legally consent, nor an obligation under the law to do so, that this criteria defaults to their owners. No different than dressing your poodle in tiny costumes or entering your horse in a race. Consent is not needed from an animal other than another human, nor is it required (or can it be) under the law. He will find that this cannot interfere with the "right" of the person to legitimately marry the animal he/she loves.

Again... parameters of "consent" are easier to change than parameters of "marriage."

Yes that is my opinion- based upon the actual law right now. Your opinion is based upon your fantasy.

This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.

If you want to change consent so you can marry your cow- your burden is the same now as it was before Obergefell. There is nothing about the Obergefell decision that changes in anyway the legal barriers to you marrying your cow.

 

[Syriusly]

Animals cannot consent to be married, children cannot consent to be married, and of course rape by definition is sex without consent.

Again...

1) Animals do not have to give consent since they are not under jurisdiction of the law.
2) The legal definition of consent can be changed even easier than the definition of marriage.

Marriage is a consensual relationship. You are right- animals do not have to- nor can they give consent- hence they cannot enter into marriage- no matter how much you want to marry your favorite cow.

The legal definition of consent can change- of course it can- and that has absolutely nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage.

The only person seeming to have issues with the concept of consent here in this thread is you.

Two men consenting to marry each other- that is an action with consent.
A 50 year old man raping a 4 year old girl- that is an action without consent.

You do not seem to understand the difference.

Again... parameters of "consent" are easier to change than parameters of "marriage."

And changing the parameters of 'consent' have nothing to do with whether gay couples can legally marry or not.

You want to change consent laws- you have the same exact burden now as you did before Obergefell.

 

[Boss]

Yes that is my opinion- based upon the actual law right now.

No... based on YOUR interpretation of the law. You are not a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes that is my opinion- based upon the actual law right now.

No... based on YOUR interpretation of the law. You are not a Supreme Court justice.

True- and neither are you.

However there is no Supreme Court justice which has said that they agree with you.

But the majority of Supreme Court justices said that marriage is a right- and that right cannot be denied to same gender couples.

That really bothers you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Tolerance of degeneracy is a vice... not a virtue.

 

[Boss]

This whole thread is nothing more than you projecting your anti-homosexual paranoia.

Actually it's not and it offends me that this keeps being implied. I have patiently gone out of my way to explain that I have no problem with gay people and some of my dearest friends are gay. It hurts my heart that people are so closed-minded on this that they don't understand my position is not homophobia. But I can't do anything about your bigotry toward me personally. That is something YOU have to answer for, not me.

MY state is taking the initiative to change the laws so that the State doesn't issue marriage licenses anymore. Done... we're out of the marriage business, as all government should be! All throughout the course of this debate, I have been a staunch supporter of some kind of civil union contract to completely replace marriage licenses and government only recognizing civil partnerships. People and churches can call marriage whatever they want to. It resolves the problem for everyone and ostensibly gives all sides what they claim to want.... but no one was interested in my idea.

You and Montro along with the rest of your Merry Band, are political hacks who are exploiting this issue in order to bash Christians and Conservatives and generate buzz among your voting base. That's really ALL it's about for you... none of you give two shits about gay people.

 

[Boss]

However there is no Supreme Court justice which has said that they agree with you.

It's because the case hasn't come before them yet, idiot.

 

[Boss]

But the majority of Supreme Court justices said that marriage is a right- and that right cannot be denied to same gender couples.

All I've said is it can't be denied to other couples.

So far, I have not seen any sufficient explanation given as to why it can be.