"I don't support gay marriage" (single, ethical, legal)

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Are we going to get another strawman? I shiver with antici...



-pation!

It's always hilarious when liberals frantically disavow their own arguments. That's a win!

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by NoleFanHSV

If that were truly the case, we would have an amendment, right?

Not as long as the Constitution doesn't address the issue directly.

Just like we had amendment that allows women to vote.

The right to vote - and who holds it - is laid down in (admittedly convoluted) specifics in the Constitution. There wasn't a whole lot of room for interpretation before the Nineteenth.

Why is there not an amendment to allow gays to marry?

Because the Constitution doesn't address marriage at all. It does, however, insist on equal protection under the law.

Marriage should be legislated, not ruled on by a judge legislating at the bench.

The US system is a common law system and case law is as important as statutory law, always has been. Judges "legislating from the bench" are doing the job the Founders envisioned them doing. (Except in Louisiana - Napoleonic Code still dominates in state law there.)

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by njquestions

It's always hilarious when liberals frantically disavow their own arguments. That's a win!

People who insist on providing both sides of the argument do tend to win in their own minds, at least.

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

People who insist on providing both sides of the argument do tend to win in their own minds, at least.

Also, people who read the thread tend to win.

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by dog8food

What do you feel when you read the thread title?

Just 20 years ago, I could make this statement and there would hardly be a cringe among a crowd.

Today, it is seen as taboo; as if a damning slander suddenly leaped out of the dark ages. Heck, someone might close this very thread.

Why is this? How is it that a societal opinion can change so quickly, and so fiercely?

Because society has thankfully become much more progressive on this issue over time.

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Because homosexuals are consenting adults, not child molesters or beastiality practitioners. They aren't hurting anybody, so let them be married if they want

Completely agreed. Also, though, the same should likewise be true for incest and for incestuous marriage between consenting adults.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Right, none at all.

Except the ones I pointed out before and then yesterday helpfully pointed out that I had pointed out before. But I guess if "ignore" is your MO then you might as well go for the double and ignore it twice. Out here in the real world however, ignoring things does not magically make them disappear and the more honest of the forum readers can happily go back to my earlier post and see it exists despite your head being buried in the sand on it.

Originally Posted by njquestions

It's always amusing the way the left had to force gay marriage on everyone

Take it up with "the left". If you want to talk to ME however by all means do. As far as I can see it labels like "the left" are simply used by people to dodge and ignore what a person says, so they can attack some generic label instead.

That said, I am not seeing anything being "forced on" you. Has someone forced you to marry someone of your own gender? If not then nothing has been "forced on" you. Playing the victim card is as ineffectual as it is pathetic really.

Originally Posted by njquestions

Who needs to see the future when all you had to do is observe what liberals do every day?

So I called it then. You can just pretend to see the future but you have NO actual evidence that legalizing and normalizing pedophilia is an actual agenda by any statistically significant number of people.

Originally Posted by njquestions

Ah, thanks for bringing this up for me to destroy.

Whenever you are ready. You certainly did not do it in THIS post however. The concept of informed consent is not just something that goes away because it is inconvenient for you. And it DOES differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia automatically because with homosexuality you have consenting adults, with pedophilia you do not.

I know you really.... really really..... really..... want pedophilia and homosexuality to be equivalent so you can substitute your TOTAL lack of moral and ethical arguments against the latter by pretending it is indicted by proxy to the former. But the palpable desperation of that move is as fetid and transparent as it is pathetic and ineffectual I am afraid.

Originally Posted by njquestions

Two non-consensual parties does not equal consent. So now you have to decide what is more important to you. Do you love homosexuality as an issue so much that you are willing to say that most people in America were raped as kids?

Nice to see people being raped is something you like to put a smiley after. That is quite telling in and of itself. However there are MULTIPLE issues with your diatribe here.

The first is you have not given ANY.... not just little but ANY.... statistics to show your claim that "most" American kids have engaged in under age sex. You appear to have simply invented that "fact" yourself.

The second is that the issue of informed consent is one that is based on ALL parties having it and ALL parties giving it. So there is already a distinction people make between rape of a minor (where an adult capable of consent engaged sexually with a minor who is not) and situations where NEITHER party has it (such as two minors). And different jurisdictions engage with that difference in different ways. Some by not making it an offence, some by making it an offence but relatively a minor one compared to the former example, and some by outright making it an offence including presence on sex offenders registries.

Further there is nothing here that requires me to "love" the issue. I am merely someone who believes as an axiom in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I apply that to everything, not just people. And GIVEN you have not just failed, but UTTERLY failed to come up with a SINGLE argument against the morality and ethics of homosexuality, it's expression, or homosexual marriage..... then I simply have to hold true to that axiom and say I see no problem with any of them. If and when you finally think of a moral or ethical argument against these things.... by all means let me know and I will consider it and maybe even change my position entirely on the issue. Because I am invested in fact and argument, not gay marriage, and I will happily turn against gay marriage if the facts and arguments warrant it.

So while you pretend, ineffectually, to have offered a counter example to my argument you have actually all but made my point for me, and done little more than pointed out what most of us knew already: That some situations are more nuanced than others.

But do keep trying, it is amusing if nothing else.

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Except the ones I pointed out before

The ones where gay marriage kept failing at the ballot box?

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Take it up with "the left". If you want to talk to ME however by all means do. As far as I can see it labels like "the left" are simply used by people to dodge and ignore what a person says, so they can attack some generic label instead.

Always hilarious how liberals do this, claiming that neither they nor anyone they know believes [fill in well-known liberal belief/action], despite it being observed. In this case, he's disavowing that liberals work towards their goal via incrementalism and can't see any link between the progression from normalization of homosexuality to transsexuality and now to pedophilia. It's a mystery! Then it happens and everyday liberals get to claim that they were just as against it as you, but, oh well, what can you do? *grin*

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

That said, I am not seeing anything being "forced on" you. Has someone forced you to marry someone of your own gender?

Here's the regurgitated argument that gay marriage only affects you if you are forced to marry a gay.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

So I called it then. You can just pretend to see the future but you have NO actual evidence that legalizing and normalizing pedophilia is an actual agenda by any statistically significant number of people.

Here's the same rote denial of normalization of pedophilia that we got when liberals began to normalize homosexuality in the '70s and '80s. (Spoiler: boy, is their face red!)

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I know you really.... really really..... really..... want pedophilia and homosexuality to be equivalent so you can substitute your TOTAL lack of moral and ethical arguments against the latter by pretending it is indicted by proxy to the former. But the palpable desperation of that move is as fetid and transparent as it is pathetic and ineffectual I am afraid.

Here's fierce denial of any equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia because currently people are against pedophilia. But as soon as they can change that, they'll be like Obama and Hillary and have their "moment of evolution."

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Nice to see people being raped is something you like to put a smiley after. That is quite telling in and of itself. However there are MULTIPLE issues with your diatribe here.

...and then he picked door two, where he said sex with persons who cannot provide consent is fine.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Here's the regurgitated argument that gay marriage only affects you if you are forced to marry a gay.

Maybe if you could provide examples of how you're - truly - otherwise "affected" then people would stop making it. But you can't. Because you think your FEEEEEEEEEELLLLLIIIINNNNGS trump the right of other adult, tax paying citizens to order their lives as they see fit.

Because at heart, you are a totalitarian and a control freak not unlike a Marxist, trying to engineer society to your vision by ignoring realities of human nature.

Originally Posted by njquestions

Here's the same rote denial of normalization of pedophilia that we got when liberals began to normalize homosexuality in the '70s and '80s. (Spoiler: boy, is their face red!)

Tell you what - why don't you work on fighting this alleged "normalization of pedophilia" and leave the gays out of it.

If your argument against gay marriage is that it leads to normalization of pedophilia, then your problem is not with gay marriage, but with pedophilia. Which, as has been shown over and over and over again, are NOT synonymous, and involve entirely different analyses.

The day adult-child sexual relationships are normalized are the day children vote, hold jobs and contract to make purchases in their name. --- things adult homosexuals already have.

You have a long, long, long way to go before pedophilia is normalized on any such scale. So save your energy. There's a lot of windmills for you to tilt at, yet!

Originally Posted by njquestions

Here's fierce denial of any equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia because currently people are against pedophilia. But as soon as they can change that, they'll be like Obama and Hillary and have their "moment of evolution."

There is no equivalence between the two. You saying there is does not make it so.

There is equivalence between homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality, because they are adult sexual orientations.

Pedophilia is equivalent to other forms of orientation where ultimately, to act on same would require non-consent by the object of desire. Like bestiality.

[DonJuanQuixote]

Originally Posted by Futurist110

Because society has thankfully become much more progressive on this issue over time.

You mean REgressive. Acceptance of homosexual unions goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah as far as we know.