It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

RE pedo: Not allowing 13 year olds to marry isn't a "moral" issue, it's a consent issue, it's a matter of if the child in question is mentally able to consent or not.

Nonsense. It is a moral determination you've arbitrarily made that has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's personal mental ability. As I pointed out, a 13-year-old is apparently "mentally able" enough to give their consent for an abortion without their parent's permission. So it depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it? And it's funny how this "mental ability" changes suddenly for all individuals when the calendar reaches a certain date corresponding coincidentally with one's date of birth.

It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.

Of course people don't have a sudden change in maturity on a certain date. The age is set (one would hope) at a level when the great majority of people would be mature enough for whatever activity the age based law revolves around.

 

[Syriusly]

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

It is against the law.

YOu and your sibling have every right to go to court to argue that you have the constitutional right to marry each other.

IF Alabama cannot come up with a sufficient reason why you cannot marry your beloved sibling- then the State does not have a good reason- so why should it be illegal?

Your reasoning is that sibling marriage should be illegal because it is icky- which is the basis of your objection to 'gay marriage'- you equate the two.

But the courts- and the State will not.

 

[Syriusly]

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?

You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

Why are you so eager for siblings to marry?

Why aren't you?

It makes at least as much sense as same sex marriage, don't you think?

Clearly to you same sex marriage is the same thing as a brother marrying his sister.

The courts and states disagree.

If you can't think of any reason why siblings should not marry- that is not our problem.

 

[Boss]

Since age based laws are generalizations, parental permission is likely a way to allow for exceptions. Practically speaking the courts cannot determine the maturity level of every individual for every age-based law or regulation. Parental consent allows for mature youths to get an exception to the normal age of consent. That would be my guess as to the intent.

Intent and legal justification are two completely different things. You are clearly saying that we "allow for" all kinds of arbitrary changes regarding legal consent. On what basis are you "allowing" someone to freely consent or disallowing said consent? You admit that it's generalized and government cannot determine maturity level of every individual. And yet, that is your main #1 argument (maturity level) for not allowing change?

Parental consent allows for mature youths to get an exception to the normal age of consent.

How do we know the youths are mature? On what basis is that determination being made? And why do some people get an exception while others are denied their right to consent? Because of the parent? Have we tested the maturity level of the parent? And what would constitute a good test of maturity in your mind? Define that for us... what does "sufficient maturity level to legally consent" look like?

 

[Syriusly]

After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?

Well, I think it becomes "okay" when they turn in to authoritarian and totalitarian fascists and stop being people we can reason with .

I.E. Boss objects when gay Americans are treated equally before the law.

As long as Gays 'knew their place' he says he was okay with them- and you do know- 'some of his best friends' are gay.

Its just that Gays are getting too uppity now for Boss- and he thinks its time to act before Gays are forcing him to have sex with him.

 

[Syriusly]

The whole idea of debating or being a great debater is admitting when you're wrong, and being a gracious loser. I am not so obstinate that I will continue objecting in the face of a superior argument. I was wrong. Admittedly so. It is wrong to deny someone to build a place of worship because of what faith they are and what connotations are associated with it. I directly contradicted myself on that point. Broadbrushing is an insincere argument. I am not an expert on argumentative fallacies. Mea culpa.

Oh by the way... I will ask anyone who feels tempted to gloat over this admission of defeat:

Can you admit to defeat as easily as I can? I'm not afraid to lose. I learn by debating. I'm not afraid of taking people on.

Skylar, you win.

Very gracious.

Changing a position due to listening to an argument is a rare quality here at USMB.

Well done.

 

[Syriusly]

After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?

You can read whatever you like into my OP, I can't stop your perceptions. If you have someone who has a drinking problem you don't continue to placate them, accommodate their every need, ply them with more alcohol in hopes of satisfying them. That approach is never going to turn out well for you or the alcoholic.

Like the actual words- which are offensive to an extreme.

 

[Boss]

It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.

Of course people don't have a sudden change in maturity on a certain date. The age is set (one would hope) at a level when the great majority of people would be mature enough for whatever activity the age based law revolves around.

Again... what is "mature enough" in your opinion? Is it the same as my opinion, Pops opinion, Syriusly's opinion? Do we need a simple majority or super-majority? Or, do we need a minority but with 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices to enforce our viewpoint?

These are great questions we need for you to answer for us. Also... this arbitrary thing we've now introduced called "maturity level" ...what is that exactly? I think the entire left-wing radical pro-gay-marriage bunch are woefully immature and have not reached the maturity level of rational adults. Can we restrict your right to consent? What about if we get 5 of 9 justices to say we can?

 

[Montrovant]

It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.

Of course people don't have a sudden change in maturity on a certain date. The age is set (one would hope) at a level when the great majority of people would be mature enough for whatever activity the age based law revolves around.

Again... what is "mature enough" in your opinion? Is it the same as my opinion, Pops opinion, Syriusly's opinion? Do we need a simple majority or super-majority? Or, do we need a minority but with 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices to enforce our viewpoint?

These are great questions we need for you to answer for us. Also... this arbitrary thing we've now introduced called "maturity level" ...what is that exactly? I think the entire left-wing radical pro-gay-marriage bunch are woefully immature and have not reached the maturity level of rational adults. Can we restrict your right to consent? What about if we get 5 of 9 justices to say we can?

Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.

If you don't understand that each individual's opinion does not make law, you will not be able to have any sort of discussion about laws.

 

[Boss]

Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.

If you don't understand that each individual's opinion does not make law, you will not be able to have any sort of discussion about laws.

Seems to me there is no duly-elected representation with regard to the decision made by SCOTUS in Ogeberfell. In fact, the decision strikes down the viewpoint of the duly-elected representation. So your argument that this is something we can determine through duly-elected authority is invalidated. The question IS being raised about the constitutionality of age of consent laws, I am raising it, you are avoiding a sufficient answer. The justifications you raise are no different than the moral justifications raised against homosexual marriage. Those have now been rejected.. you can't deny people their "rights" based on your moral objections.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.

If you don't understand that each individual's opinion does not make law, you will not be able to have any sort of discussion about laws.

Seems to me there is no duly-elected representation with regard to the decision made by SCOTUS in Ogeberfell. In fact, the decision strikes down the viewpoint of the duly-elected representation. So your argument that this is something we can determine through duly-elected authority is invalidated. The question IS being raised about the constitutionality of age of consent laws, I am raising it, you are avoiding a sufficient answer. The justifications you raise are no different than the moral justifications raised against homosexual marriage. Those have now been rejected.. you can't deny people their "rights" based on your moral objections.

You don't seem to agree with the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. Obergefell was not the first time the court struck down what they considered an unconstitutional law by far.

Until age of consent laws are determined to be unconstitutional, they absolutely are something to determine through elected officials. My argument has in no way been invalidated. Just because laws are restricted by constitutional protections does not mean that laws are no longer created and adjusted through the legislature.

Now you seem to be arguing that any reason based on morality is invalidated by Obergefell. You base that on.....well, nothing that I can see. What part of Obergefell invalidates moral arguments? Obergefell was ruled based on equal protection and a lack of compelling interest in denying same sex couples from access to marriage laws. What is it about that decision, different from any previous court decision, which makes any argument based on morality invalid?

The justifications for age of consent are entirely different than the justifications for same sex marriage bans. Same sex marriage was never banned based on lack of maturity of the participants or age of the participants. Age of consent is based on a societal determination that a person is not yet ready to make decisions about certain acts; same sex marriage was never banned because the participants were not yet ready to decide to marry. Age of consent laws are obviously temporary restrictions which end when a person reaches a certain age. Same sex marriage bans were permanent; no age could be reached in which a person would be allowed to enter into a same sex marriage.

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

You have not given evidence or example of how the arguments for age of consent are in any way the same as the arguments against same sex marriage, except in that all arguments are based on a perception of what is right or wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

Reversing the unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision will not be that difficult. All that's needed is one constitutional lawyer to replace one of the activist lawyers. That's why the election of a conservative president is vital.

Wrong. Despite Roberts dissent, he won't vote to close the barn door.

 

[Syriusly]

It is impractical to think that age of consent can be individually based. There needs to be a set age if such laws exist. The cost of trying to determine maturity levels of every individual in terms of time, manpower, and money would be prohibitive.

Of course people don't have a sudden change in maturity on a certain date. The age is set (one would hope) at a level when the great majority of people would be mature enough for whatever activity the age based law revolves around.

Again... what is "mature enough" in your opinion? Is it the same as my opinion, Pops opinion, Syriusly's opinion? Do we need a simple majority or super-majority? Or, do we need a minority but with 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices to enforce our viewpoint?

These are great questions we need for you to answer for us. Also... this arbitrary thing we've now introduced called "maturity level" ...what is that exactly? I think the entire left-wing radical pro-gay-marriage bunch are woefully immature and have not reached the maturity level of rational adults. Can we restrict your right to consent? What about if we get 5 of 9 justices to say we can?

We 'arbitrarily' set ages for many things including:

• consent to have sex
• consent to be married
• minimum age to get driver's license.
• minimum age to vote
• minimum age for certain types of jobs.

Boss if just flipping out because he doesn't understand or respect the concept of 'Consent' when it comes to sex and marriage

He still thinks that his forcing Angelina Jolie to marry him, would be the equivalent of two men consenting to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course opinions differ. If enough people disagree with an age of consent, it will change. Where age of consent laws fall is based on the duly elected representatives of our government, and so is ostensibly based on the will of the majority of people. SCOTUS would only be involved if the constitutionality of an age of consent law was in question.

If you don't understand that each individual's opinion does not make law, you will not be able to have any sort of discussion about laws.

Seems to me there is no duly-elected representation with regard to the decision made by SCOTUS in Ogeberfell.

We all know that is what you believe.

The Supreme Court has overturned state marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

It appears that you are still upset that the Supreme Court ruled and mixed race marriage bans were overturned.

 

[EverCurious]

The whole point of my post was that there /is/ no set age of consent and that it's /always/ changed over time; it would likely have continued to change regardless of SSM legalization or not.

You also failed to respond to this argument:

"Similarly my son who is 16, even if the age of consent is 16, I could /easily/ legally object to him having a relationship with an older girl just on the basis that he's ADHD which almost always leads to a lag in maturity. (It'd actually be a bit of a lie on my part cause my kids pretty damn mature for his age, but that's beside the point.) As a parent I have the power to 'interfere' on my sons behalf, even if he disagrees with me, until he's 18 (the age of maturity.)"


Until a "child" is an adult and on their own, a parent can /always/ step in on their behalf and object to the relationship. They can report the unwanted advances and relationships to the police and have the child's partner investigated for child abuse. A child quite simply does not have the full set of rights, their parents have "custody" of a number of their rights.

To legalize pedo marriage, you are not arguing changing "morals," you are not arguing that the SCOTUS is standing up for personal rights by allowing it, you are actually arguing that the SCOTUS has the ability to override parental rights - you are arguing that a court would willfully override a parents choice not to allow their child to have a pedo relationship. The argument is bullshit, and it's never going to happen, much less is it going to happen because of SSM.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, I think it becomes "okay" when they turn in to authoritarian and totalitarian fascists and stop being people we can reason with and reach agreement through mutual cooperation and compromise.

Surely you don't think they're all like that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

When they've lost all respect for decency and democracy and seek to inflict their immoral ideology onto the rest of us against our will.

So far I've had nothing forced on me against my will. This eye for an eye thing is childish.

If they lose all respect for decency and democracy, that doesn't mean we should.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you have someone who has a drinking problem you don't continue to placate them, accommodate their every need, ply them with more alcohol in hopes of satisfying them.

Oh boy...

This is a non sequitur if I ever did see one.

That approach is never going to turn out well for you or the alcoholic

Excising a group of people from our culture because they're not like you is never going to turn out well for anyone.

 

[Faun]

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?

You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

Why are you so eager for siblings to marry?

Why aren't you?

It makes at least as much sense as same sex marriage, don't you think?

No I don't, ya pervert.

 

[Boss]

Excising a group of people from our culture because they're not like you is never going to turn out well for anyone.

If only liberals understood this regarding conservatives!