The G.O.P.’s Existential Crisis

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No,,,, you don't have a right to your money. Our elders traded that right away for order.

Okay, so the "libertarian" rationale for everything that goes wrong in the world, is now going to be blaming the past? How are you any different than the Democrats?

 

[Liberty]

As for the difference between republicans and democrats, I wish there was a way we could "try before we buy" here, but there's really not.... we'll have to be enslaved to the state and ruled under a Marxist Communist regime, in order for your stupid ass to understand the differences, and there is no point in me trying to explain it to you.

I'm trying to tell/teach you why we have a Marxist Communist regime. You just don't get it.

But the more you here it, the better chance you have of figuring it out.

 

[Liberty]

Okay, so the "libertarian" rationale for everything that goes wrong in the world, is now going to be blaming the past? How are you any different than the Democrats?

One thing is, I want a limited constitutional form of gov't. (small gov't)

If we give up to the federal gov't one of our rights, we'll eventually lose them all.

That means that if you don't get rid of the income tax, you'll keep going in the path we're in today.

That means if you want to put people/your love ones through the legal system for doing drugs, you'll get what you have today. A marxist gov't.

And on and on.

You may not like what someone is doing, (no victims anywhere) but if you're not fighting for their right to do it, you're losing your rights with evryone elses.

 

[Timshel]

I just fundamentally disagree for numerous reasons here. First of all, I don't believe these things are the business of FEDERAL government, but they certainly ARE the business of STATE governments, through the will of the people. You continue to use this caveat of "as long as it doesn't violate the rights and freedoms of others" but this is only by your personal interpretations of what might fit that criteria. Again, as if the entire populace thinks and believes the same things you do. I can give you the examples of bestiality or marriage to 12-year-olds, and you immediately spout that this somehow "violates" a freedom or right of others but that is YOUR interpretation, not everyone agrees with you. Some would argue it is YOU who is standing in the way of them exercising their freedom, because you are uncomfortable with it. Others might argue that you taking a dick up the ass, potentially harms your health, which we now have to pay for taking care of... ergo: butt sex has to be prohibited again!

Here he goes again. Homosexuality is equal to beastiality and pedophilia. Also, notice how HE makes it personal. In a couple post he will be whining about how he is being mistreated.

WHO argues that laws against beastiality and pedophilia violate someones freedom? You?

In order for there to be some great concern over the mistreatment of pedophiles and those having sex with animals there needs to be some sort of group meeting a threshhold of support. There is none and never will be. There may come a time when we move the age of majority again but there will always be an age of majority.

Your arguments are nothing but the hate filled babbling of a perverted mind. Homosexuality should have never been a crime.

 

[Liberty]

Okay, so the "libertarian" rationale for everything that goes wrong in the world, is now going to be blaming the past? How are you any different than the Democrats?

And how would you say libertarians are like the dems?

We don't want an income tax. The dems, and reps do.

We don't want a federal reserve. The dems, and reps do.

We don't want a war on drugs. The dems, and reps do.

We don't want the department of education. (federal) The dems, and reps do.

We don't want an EPA, Department of Energy, DEA, (and more), and the dems, and reps do.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Homosexual behavior causes potential harm to others in the same way as marriage to 12-year olds or bestiality. The reason you continue to have to try and make this personal, and call me a pedophile, is because you know you have a failing argument otherwise. I am surprised Damo allows you to continue getting away with this, but my arguments are not from a personal point of view, nor should they ever be construed as such. The arguments was presented, if it isn't harming anyone and not violating another person's constitutional rights, it shouldn't be anyone's business. I have refuted that argument with a couple of very valid examples, and your response is to try and denigrate me personally.

'Nuff said!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And how would you say libertarians are like the dems?

Because, as you demonstrated, when met with the consequences of your policies, you will blame the past. When we legalize all drugs, and society goes bat-shit berzerk, it will be because of all the years of repression caused by republicans and democrats! You live in this idealistic fantasy world, where everything should be as you wish for it to be, but that isn't reality. Whenever something doesn't conform to your idealism, it must be because of something else, it can't be because you're an idealistic twat.

We don't want an income tax. The dems, and reps do.

I don't. I want a consumer tax.

We don't want a federal reserve. The dems, and reps do.

I also don't care about a Federal Reserve, but at this point, they serve a purpose and something needs to address the purpose they serve before they are eliminated, unless you live in a fucked up libertarian fantasy world, where there are never any consequences.

We don't want a war on drugs. The dems, and reps do.

I don't. But I also don't want meth and heroin to be legalized.

We don't want the department of education. (federal) The dems, and reps do.

Again, I do not. Many people in the Tea Party are opposed to the DoE as well.

We don't want an EPA, Department of Energy, DEA, (and more), and the dems, and reps do.

And what we continue to see, is you lumping democrats and republicans together because you want to, and not because there is evidence to support what you're saying.

 

[Timshel]

Homosexual behavior causes potential harm to others in the same way as marriage to 12-year olds or bestiality. The reason you continue to have to try and make this personal, and call me a pedophile, is because you know you have a failing argument otherwise. I am surprised Damo allows you to continue getting away with this, but my arguments are not from a personal point of view, nor should they ever be construed as such. The arguments was presented, if it isn't harming anyone and not violating another person's constitutional rights, it shouldn't be anyone's business. I have refuted that argument with a couple of very valid examples, and your response is to try and denigrate me personally.

'Nuff said!

It did not even take a couple posts. Where did I call you a pedophile? I clearly did not.

Your points are against a strawman and the weakest possible reconstruction of the argument you can make. Again, the argument is about the rights of consenting adults and equality before the law.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It did not even take a couple posts. Where did I call you a pedophile? I clearly did not.

Your points are against a strawman and the weakest possible reconstruction of the argument you can make. Again, the argument is about the rights of consenting adults and equality before the law.

You continue to use the word "pedophilia" to describe the views of sexual naturalists, who are not pedophiles, by definition. You continue to insinuate that their viewpoint is my viewpoint, which is not the case, and I've repeatedly made that point. You go to this unethical extreme because your argument is a total failure, and you know it. All you have left is the personal attack and denigration, and the hope you can shame me away so you can proclaim victory.

"Consenting adults" is a criteria you have artificially established based on your personal reasoning and understanding, and is not necessarily the viewpoint of everyone else. Adulthood is an arbitrary date you have established, which you are comfortable with, but it doesn't necessarily mean that ALL people agree with you.

As I correctly pointed out, and you never refuted because you couldn't, in all species of mammals, "adulthood" is determined by the ability to procreate, sexual maturity. Therefore, the sexual naturalist can make the legitimate argument that humans reaching puberty should be considered adults, but YOU want to cling to your arbitrary dates, which have no bearing on when the individual has reached maturity, and have everything in the world to do with societal constraints and limitations. Some people (not me) would argue that it is no more "harmful" for a 12-yr-old to procreate than for you to take a dick up your ass! One is no more "violating of your rights" as the other, but you want to play moral God and decide what parameters everyone else must adhere to. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Equality before the law is EXACTLY the argument I am making here. But "equality" means that you have to accept the views of those who disagree with you about how that applies. It's certainly not "equality" to allow certain deviant sexual behaviors to be legitimized while others remain taboo. That is the ANTITHESIS of equality.

 

[Timshel]

You continue to use the word "pedophilia" to describe the views of sexual naturalists, who are not pedophiles, by definition. You continue to insinuate that their viewpoint is my viewpoint, which is not the case, and I've repeatedly made that point. You go to this unethical extreme because your argument is a total failure, and you know it. All you have left is the personal attack and denigration, and the hope you can shame me away so you can proclaim victory.

"Consenting adults" is a criteria you have artificially established based on your personal reasoning and understanding, and is not necessarily the viewpoint of everyone else. Adulthood is an arbitrary date you have established, which you are comfortable with, but it doesn't necessarily mean that ALL people agree with you.

As I correctly pointed out, and you never refuted because you couldn't, in all species of mammals, "adulthood" is determined by the ability to procreate, sexual maturity. Therefore, the sexual naturalist can make the legitimate argument that humans reaching puberty should be considered adults, but YOU want to cling to your arbitrary dates, which have no bearing on when the individual has reached maturity, and have everything in the world to do with societal constraints and limitations. Some people (not me) would argue that it is no more "harmful" for a 12-yr-old to procreate than for you to take a dick up your ass! One is no more "violating of your rights" as the other, but you want to play moral God and decide what parameters everyone else must adhere to. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Equality before the law is EXACTLY the argument I am making here. But "equality" means that you have to accept the views of those who disagree with you about how that applies. It's certainly not "equality" to allow certain deviant sexual behaviors to be legitimized while others remain taboo. That is the ANTITHESIS of equality.

I don't care what they call themselves.

I did not insinuate a DAMN THING about you,LIAR. I asked who made the arguments you claimed some make. I asked if it was you. You did indicate in the other thread that you believed it a violation of their freedom, but I was not going to hold you to that and, instead, gave you the opportunity to start fresh with your assinine arguments here. Meanwhile, you clearly insinuated graphic details about the sex life of Classic Liberal and now me. You do this all the time but think you have found some neat little argument that protects you.

Consenting adults is a well understood part of the libertarian argument. For instance, you have the right to bear arms. By saying that it does not mean that the speaker thinks you should be forced to carry a gun and/or that a three year old should be allowed carry a gun. That is well understood. Trying to remove that caveat is done withthe intent to weaken the argument by dishonest, intellectual lightweights.

Adulthood is arbitrary but not set by me. We set this standard as a community through our legislature because there is no reasonable and objective standard possible, that is not arbitrary.

Again, I am not as familiar as you with the community of thinkers arguing for sex with children and animals. Who are they and what is their number?

You are arguing against equality before the law by pretending that there can be no distinction between discrimination and invidious discrimination. You are arguing that if any law is justified then all laws are justified, so long as they can be passed by some state or municipal government. Your argument is an attack not just on homosexuality but on all protections of civili rights, even if you are too stupid to know or too dishonest to admit it.

Sorry, but the courts have taken care of the distinction between dicrimination and invidious discrimination. The standard they have set out is working just fine. It has not and will not lead to the absurdities you claim.

 

[Phantasmal]

Homosexual behavior causes potential harm to others in the same way as marriage to 12-year olds or bestiality. The reason you continue to have to try and make this personal, and call me a pedophile, is because you know you have a failing argument otherwise. I am surprised Damo allows you to continue getting away with this, but my arguments are not from a personal point of view, nor should they ever be construed as such. The arguments was presented, if it isn't harming anyone and not violating another person's constitutional rights, it shouldn't be anyone's business. I have refuted that argument with a couple of very valid examples, and your response is to try and denigrate me personally.

'Nuff said!

Bawahahahaha, one could claim that heterosexuality causes harm to others, too, what a silly reason to deny homosexuals their freedom.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Liberalism and Marxism are 2 completely different political philosophies.

If you think they are the same, you don't understand either. Do some reading.

Tell ya what. Read through this and tell me where it differs from todays modern liberal thought?

http://cpusa.org/party-program/#8

 

[Liberty]

Because, as you demonstrated, when met with the consequences of your policies, you will blame the past. When we legalize all drugs, and society goes bat-shit berzerk, it will be because of all the years of repression caused by republicans and democrats! You live in this idealistic fantasy world, where everything should be as you wish for it to be, but that isn't reality. Whenever something doesn't conform to your idealism, it must be because of something else, it can't be because you're an idealistic twat.

I live in the same world you do, and I'm tired of watching our liberties get shit on because of a lack of education that most people, like you, have on this issue. A war on drugs is no different than a war against jews. And putting jews in consentration camps.

How many years should your loved ones live in jail?

I don't. I want a consumer tax.

Yes! But you vote for an income tax when you vote for republicans.

I also don't care about a Federal Reserve, but at this point, they serve a purpose and something needs to address the purpose they serve before they are eliminated, unless you live in a fucked up libertarian fantasy world, where there are never any consequences.

From the time this country started printing money until 1913 (Federal Reserve) the dollar increased it's spending power by 8%. From 1913 to now, it's decreased by over 90%.

I don't. But I also don't want meth and heroin to be legalized.

Then we'll just have to keep watching our liberties go down the drain, and drug cartels prosper. People like you shouldn't complain about a marxist gov't. This is what you should expect.

Again, I do not. Many people in the Tea Party are opposed to the DoE as well.

But yet the republican, and democrat party's are yet again the same. Quite different than the Libertarian party.

And what we continue to see, is you lumping democrats and republicans together because you want to, and not because there is evidence to support what you're saying.

I've given you examples of real problems that have screwed this country up, and why the reps and dems are the same, and you just don't get it.

I could go on with example after example, but what's the point. You live in a dream world.

And you're not for small, limited gov't dude.

You're actually for a police state.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't care what they call themselves.

I did not insinuate a DAMN THING about you,LIAR. I asked who made the arguments you claimed some make. I asked if it was you. You did indicate in the other thread that you believed it a violation of their freedom, but I was not going to hold you to that and, instead, gave you the opportunity to start fresh with your assinine arguments here. Meanwhile, you clearly insinuated graphic details about the sex life of Classic Liberal and now me. You do this all the time but think you have found some neat little argument that protects you.

Let's be perfectly clear here... IF we establish that your preferred sexual lifestyle is a legitimately protected right under the law, then we have to ensure equality for their "rights" as well, that's what the constitution says. Currently, we don't define marriage on the basis of what kind of sex you prefer. Once that distinction is made, we have to live with the consequences, and you aren't willing to accept that, neither am I. But for some odd reason, you think that you can apply your "no harm, no foul" criteria to homosexuals, but not to others who happen to have a different proclivity. You can't, it's unconstitutional!

I've not made ANY insinuation about you, I've just used your argument to pound you over your stupid head with, repeatedly. You want to get on your soapbox and proclaim that we allow something on the basis that "it doesn't harm anyone... it's between consenting adults... it's nobody's business" and all I've done is use those criteria to explain how we must, under the same conditions, allow things like "sexual naturalism" and bestiality. You keep insisting that we don't have to allow those things because we can run back to the argument that it's immoral and not right, but you've destroyed those arguments to make way for your sexual perversions. You simply can not have it both ways, no matter how much your little gay mind thinks it can.

Consenting adults is a well understood part of the libertarian argument. For instance, you have the right to bear arms. By saying that it does not mean that the speaker thinks you should be forced to carry a gun and/or that a three year old should be allowed carry a gun. That is well understood. Trying to remove that caveat is done withthe intent to weaken the argument by dishonest, intellectual lightweights.

No one is talking about three year olds, no argument has been made regarding three year olds. Three year olds are clearly not adults, by any definition or standard. You are right, the libertarian argument does center on "consenting adults" but this is the part you seem to be stubbornly refusing to accept. We established "consenting adult" on the same basis as we established laws against unnatural sex acts, or public sex, or animal sex. It is a moral determination we created long ago, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with maturity of the individual or actual biological adulthood. It had to do with what we were comfortable with as a society. What we thought appropriate. If you've removed those standards and replaced them with some non-moral "no harm, no foul" idea instead, then you can't go running back to the old standards whenever you feel uncomfortable with stuff, that's what you've argued against and defeated.

Adulthood is arbitrary but not set by me. We set this standard as a community through our legislature because there is no reasonable and objective standard possible, that is not arbitrary.

We set all kinds of standards as a community, and they are largely based on morality views and what moral people are comfortable with. You want to remove those standards and apply the standard of "if it feels good, and not 'harming', do it!" You want to suspend morality judgement with regard to homosexuals, but not any other abnormal sexual behavior. With regard to everything else, you want to keep the old moral standards intact, and use them to deny the same rights you seek for homosexuals. This is unconstitutional. Age f majority is a moral determination, and who the fuck are YOU to decide this for others? You don't wish for others to make moral determinations regarding what you want to do, but you think you can apply these standards whenever you wish to do so, on behalf of others. It's an amazing feat of absolute hypocrisy, and I have revealed it, much to your chagrin.

Again, I am not as familiar as you with the community of thinkers arguing for sex with children and animals. Who are they and what is their number?

What difference does number make with regard to rights? Does there have to be a lot of them, in order for us to afford them equal rights? If that's the case, fuck you and the 14% of the population who is homosexual... request denied... end of story! Argument over! Come back when 51% of us are gay, and we'll talk about changing our moral standards.

As for who these people are, google "sexual naturalist" or NAMBLA, and you can find all kinds of information if you're curious. I assure you, these people DO exist in reality, even though libertarians don't believe it, and remain mired in a fantasy world, where everyone thinks and behaves like you.

You are arguing against equality before the law by pretending that there can be no distinction between discrimination and invidious discrimination. You are arguing that if any law is justified then all laws are justified, so long as they can be passed by some state or municipal government. Your argument is an attack not just on homosexuality but on all protections of civili rights, even if you are too stupid to know or too dishonest to admit it.

I am arguing that if you remove the morality-based foundation of our laws, and replace it with a non-moral concept, you have to extend that non-moral concept into areas you are going to be most uncomfortable applying it to. You refuse to accept that, but the Constitution makes it vividly clear, you simply can't bestow "rights" on certain groups, and at the same time, deny other groups the same rights. That's exactly what you are claiming we can do, by parading around with this stupid "invidious discrimination" bullshit.

Sorry, but the courts have taken care of the distinction between dicrimination and invidious discrimination. The standard they have set out is working just fine. It has not and will not lead to the absurdities you claim.

*sigh* Are we back to arguing what the courts have ruled and what is current law of the land? Did you somehow forget that your argument is for striking down what the courts have ruled and what is current law, in favor of a non-moralistic law, based on what you want to do that isn't hurting anyone and between consenting adults? This argument continues to go in circles, over and over again. It's becoming like an Abbott and Costello routine! YES, the standard we have in place, where marriage is not defined by sexual lifestyle, is working just fine. The standards of establishing laws based on moralistic determinations is working fine as well, no need to destroy that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I live in the same world you do, and I'm tired of watching our liberties get shit on because of a lack of education that most people, like you, have on this issue. A war on drugs is no different than a war against jews. And putting jews in consentration camps.

No, anti-Semitism and anti-drug laws are as different as night and day, and it's absurd for you to even attempt to make such an argument. You've illustrated with this one item, what an abject moron you really are, and how devoid of rationality you've become. I don't even need to dignify it with a response.

How many years should your loved ones live in jail?

Until they serve their sentences for breaking the law!

Yes! But you vote for an income tax when you vote for republicans.

No I don't. We have an income tax already, it's been a law on the books for many years, established long before either of us was born. I wish that we had enough people who could agree on a proper way to fund what the government needs to do, without an income tax, but I don't live in some fucked up fantasy world where that is the case. I live in the real world, where we have to accept what the laws are and why they exist. You want to run off and support some nutbag who lives in the same fucked up fantasy world as you do, and that's your right as an American, but it isn't going to EVER change reality.

From the time this country started printing money until 1913 (Federal Reserve) the dollar increased it's spending power by 8%. From 1913 to now, it's decreased by over 90%.

Again, I have not made an argument FOR the FedRes. You want me to pick up that mantle so you can do battle with me, but I've not made the argument, and I somewhat agree with you in principle. But the thing you don't seem to get through your stupid little head, is that we can never CHANGE any damn thing through a political party which garners less than 2% of the vote. You're pissing in a hurricane.

Then we'll just have to keep watching our liberties go down the drain, and drug cartels prosper. People like you shouldn't complain about a marxist gov't. This is what you should expect.

Oh, I fully expect it and predicted this already. You and your libertarian butt buddies want to remain mired in your fantasy of libertarian revolution, and watch the only viable party who can defeat the marxist get clobbered repeatedly, so yeah... you're absolutely right, there is no hope. I have NO faith that you and your stubborn asswipe ideologues are going to change your stripes and come to the realization that we have to work together and compromise for the greater good, and I fully expect the marxists will run this country in short order. Maybe one day, when you are marching off to the gulags or work camps, you'll fucking get it, but right now, you are submerged in your fantasy world, and no one can get through your stubborn thick skull.

But yet the republican, and democrat party's are yet again the same. Quite different than the Libertarian party.

And you can repeat this until the day you die, it isn't going to change reality.

I've given you examples of real problems that have screwed this country up, and why the reps and dems are the same, and you just don't get it.

I could go on with example after example, but what's the point. You live in a dream world.

And you're not for small, limited gov't dude.

You're actually for a police state.

Yep, you're right, everything I ever articulate here is right out of the Communist Manifesto, and I am a cheerleader for Karl Marx! I live in my dream world where we have two viable political parties, and libertarians are insignificant in terms of national politics. If only idiots like myself would see the light, maybe we could garner 3% of the vote in four years! Hell, by 2112, we might actually have a formidable political party in the making! The problem is, I don't think we'll have the right to cast ballots by then.

 

[Timshel]

Let's be perfectly clear here... IF we establish that your preferred sexual lifestyle is a legitimately protected right under the law, then we have to ensure equality for their "rights" as well, that's what the constitution says. Currently, we don't define marriage on the basis of what kind of sex you prefer. Once that distinction is made, we have to live with the consequences, and you aren't willing to accept that, neither am I. But for some odd reason, you think that you can apply your "no harm, no foul" criteria to homosexuals, but not to others who happen to have a different proclivity. You can't, it's unconstitutional!

I've not made ANY insinuation about you, I've just used your argument to pound you over your stupid head with, repeatedly. You want to get on your soapbox and proclaim that we allow something on the basis that "it doesn't harm anyone... it's between consenting adults... it's nobody's business" and all I've done is use those criteria to explain how we must, under the same conditions, allow things like "sexual naturalism" and bestiality. You keep insisting that we don't have to allow those things because we can run back to the argument that it's immoral and not right, but you've destroyed those arguments to make way for your sexual perversions. You simply can not have it both ways, no matter how much your little gay mind thinks it can.

No one is talking about three year olds, no argument has been made regarding three year olds. Three year olds are clearly not adults, by any definition or standard. You are right, the libertarian argument does center on "consenting adults" but this is the part you seem to be stubbornly refusing to accept. We established "consenting adult" on the same basis as we established laws against unnatural sex acts, or public sex, or animal sex. It is a moral determination we created long ago, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with maturity of the individual or actual biological adulthood. It had to do with what we were comfortable with as a society. What we thought appropriate. If you've removed those standards and replaced them with some non-moral "no harm, no foul" idea instead, then you can't go running back to the old standards whenever you feel uncomfortable with stuff, that's what you've argued against and defeated.

We set all kinds of standards as a community, and they are largely based on morality views and what moral people are comfortable with. You want to remove those standards and apply the standard of "if it feels good, and not 'harming', do it!" You want to suspend morality judgement with regard to homosexuals, but not any other abnormal sexual behavior. With regard to everything else, you want to keep the old moral standards intact, and use them to deny the same rights you seek for homosexuals. This is unconstitutional. Age f majority is a moral determination, and who the fuck are YOU to decide this for others? You don't wish for others to make moral determinations regarding what you want to do, but you think you can apply these standards whenever you wish to do so, on behalf of others. It's an amazing feat of absolute hypocrisy, and I have revealed it, much to your chagrin.

What difference does number make with regard to rights? Does there have to be a lot of them, in order for us to afford them equal rights? If that's the case, fuck you and the 14% of the population who is homosexual... request denied... end of story! Argument over! Come back when 51% of us are gay, and we'll talk about changing our moral standards.

As for who these people are, google "sexual naturalist" or NAMBLA, and you can find all kinds of information if you're curious. I assure you, these people DO exist in reality, even though libertarians don't believe it, and remain mired in a fantasy world, where everyone thinks and behaves like you.

I am arguing that if you remove the morality-based foundation of our laws, and replace it with a non-moral concept, you have to extend that non-moral concept into areas you are going to be most uncomfortable applying it to. You refuse to accept that, but the Constitution makes it vividly clear, you simply can't bestow "rights" on certain groups, and at the same time, deny other groups the same rights. That's exactly what you are claiming we can do, by parading around with this stupid "invidious discrimination" bullshit.


*sigh* Are we back to arguing what the courts have ruled and what is current law of the land? Did you somehow forget that your argument is for striking down what the courts have ruled and what is current law, in favor of a non-moralistic law, based on what you want to do that isn't hurting anyone and between consenting adults? This argument continues to go in circles, over and over again. It's becoming like an Abbott and Costello routine! YES, the standard we have in place, where marriage is not defined by sexual lifestyle, is working just fine. The standards of establishing laws based on moralistic determinations is working fine as well, no need to destroy that.

Oh, so you did not mean me when saying "...you to take a dick up your ass" and were not referring to Classic Liberal when using the same phrasing? Okay.

So would it be okay if I use "you" as an indefinite pronoun or in the third person, the same as you, to describe those who want have sex with 12 year olds or animals? No, even though I wouldn't be using the same sort of crude language you (second person) prefer, you will cry about it and I have no desire to cause Damo troubles.

No, the constitution does not say that one has a right to have sex with animals or those over the age of 12. Marriage is not being "redefined" by sexuality or what sort of sex one prefers. As you have noted a homosexual can get married in every state in the union to a member of the opposite sex. There is no restriction based on what sort of sex one prefers. It is the restriction of who one may marry based on gender that will be struck down. There is no state interest in it, except invidious discrimination. Heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender too just as Lawrence v Texas ensures that heterosexuals can engage in those acts that were defined as sodomy.

Our sex lives are private and the state CANNOT restrict us in this area for purposes of invidious discrimination or without a valid state interest. You continue to evade that point to claim that this about perversion. Nope. It is about a fundamental right far more important than your right to own a gun.

I have not argued that the reason beastiality or sex with children can be limited is simply because it is immoral or, that is, because it violates some religious moral code, which is all you have to argue against homosexuality.

You are back pedaling on "consenting adults." I would be fine with you taking your lumps and admitting your stupidity but you will revert to form again once beaten out of your other dodges. But you certainly are talking about 3 year olds. The point here is that the laws against sex with children are due to age of majority laws. You could argue for a change in the age of majority laws. They certainly may change again. However, if you accept that "consenting adults" is a part of the premise then your points about discrimination against those who would have sex with 12 year olds or 3 year olds fails. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either age of majority laws are a valid reason for discrimination against actions involving 3 year olds and 12 year olds or it is not. So what is it Dixie are you going to abandon your position or claim that limits against sex with toddlers is discriminatory?

Again, I am not the one that insists on bringing up this uncomfortable topic repeatedly. That is all on you.

Of course, age of majority is based on considertaion of biological factors and maturity. It is not simply based on biblical standards or any other religions morality. If you are going to argue otherwise then please cite what standard it is based on? You don't seem to understand that moral considerations can be based on lots of things and that laws certainly may be based on moral considerations. They can not be based on religion or invidious discrimination against specific classes. Age of majority laws are not and instead are based on protecting children. The purpose of the laws is not to discriminate against some one that wants to have sex with children.

Again, I did not set the age of majority laws and have not argued against changing them. My argument has nothing to do with what the age should be. My argument is simply that we have established these laws justly and they are a valid use of state power.

The question about the numbers is based on your argument. I am trying to see if you can establish the point that there is a specific identifiable class that is being discriminated against and that is seeking a change to the laws. Further, the point is made to dismiss your slippery slope nonsense. African Americans are only 13% of the population. They did not need to be 51% of the population to have their right protected. They did not even have to convince 51% of the population to grant them rights. But they did need to convince a considerable part of the population before their rights were protected. Homosexuals have had to, as well. That is not about what should be, but what is. It is the political reality and your claims that that the argument for marriage equality or against laws barring homosexuality will lead to legalization of beastiality or pedophila is absurd.

Your argument on the legal and moral basis has been defeated. You now run to your ridiculous fear mongering over slippery slopes that don't exist and throw a tantrum every time someone calls you out on what you are supporting.

 

[Timshel]

The reason the argument goes in circles is because you are a dishonest sack of shit that drops context. You do it without blinking in claiming that laws that would prohibit/protect a 3 year old are fine but those regarding a 12 year old are discriminatory. That and like a good Fox fan/dittohead you are insistent on staying dumb.

The liberal/ libertarian argument for why one should be free to marry or engage in sex acts is a moral argument. It is not based on religion and its purpose is not invidious discrimination. Your moral arguments against are and that is why they are being defeated in the courts. Your morality is immoral and in conflict with the constitution. It sucks to be you.

 

[Howey]

Hell, by 2112, we might actually have a formidable political party in the making! The problem is, I don't think we'll have the right to cast ballots by then.

May I suggest you get to work on that? Time's running out!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, so you did not mean me when saying "...you to take a dick up your ass" and were not referring to Classic Liberal when using the same phrasing? Okay.

So would it be okay if I use "you" as an indefinite pronoun or in the third person, the same as you, to describe those who want have sex with 12 year olds or animals? No, even though I wouldn't be using the same sort of crude language you (second person) prefer, you will cry about it and I have no desire to cause Damo troubles.

Excuse me, but when I encounter people who want to act like not allowing homosexual marriage is akin to slavery, I assume they must have close personal connection to the issue, so if you're not the one who takes the dick up the ass, and instead, are the one who likes putting your dick in someone's ass, I apologize, but the argument remains the same. And you've already inferred that I want to have sex with 5-year-olds, that was in the other thread.

No, the constitution does not say that one has a right to have sex with animals or those over the age of 12.

It also doesn't say one has the right to marry the same sex. I never claimed it did. However, it does say that you can't discriminate, and if you allow marriage to be based on a certain kind of sexuality, then it has to be allowed for other kinds as well. If you allow laws to be based on non-moral "it ain't hurtin' nobody" standards, then it has to apply universally, even though you may not like it.

Marriage is not being "redefined" by sexuality or what sort of sex one prefers.

Well sure it is, that's what this is all about. "Marriage" is the union of a man and woman, always has been, here in America. You wish to redefine it, and make it mean something completely different, based on homosexuals wanting to marry the same sex. Now, we can dance around with the 'semantics' game, but so can those who want to marry 12-year-olds or animals.

As you have noted a homosexual can get married in every state in the union to a member of the opposite sex. There is no restriction based on what sort of sex one prefers. It is the restriction of who one may marry based on gender that will be struck down. There is no state interest in it, except invidious discrimination. Heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender too just as Lawrence v Texas ensures that heterosexuals can engage in those acts that were defined as sodomy.

You're actually making a compelling argument for why Lawrence v Texas was a bad ruling by SCOTUS. The 'slippery slope' caused by that ruling, brings us to gay marriage, something that was laughed at when the ruling was made, just as you are laughing at the prospects of recognizing 12-year-olds as sexually mature adults who can make their own moral determinations without your permission.

Our sex lives are private and the state CANNOT restrict us in this area for purposes of invidious discrimination or without a valid state interest. You continue to evade that point to claim that this about perversion. Nope. It is about a fundamental right far more important than your right to own a gun.

Again, if our sex lives are private and the state CANNOT restrict us in this area, so be it... Welcome to the world of 12-year-old marriage and bestiality, because you've just paved the interstate highway for that.

I have not argued that the reason beastiality or sex with children can be limited is simply because it is immoral or, that is, because it violates some religious moral code, which is all you have to argue against homosexuality.

That's the only argument I've seen presented. Age of majority is most certainly a moral determination. Sex with animals, same deal.

You are back pedaling on "consenting adults." I would be fine with you taking your lumps and admitting your stupidity but you will revert to form again once beaten out of your other dodges. But you certainly are talking about 3 year olds.

No, I have not made ANY argument regarding 3 year olds or 5 year olds, you continue to infer that. I've not backpedaled on anything, I have consistently maintained that "consenting adults" is an arbitrary standard based on moralistic determination. If we can change and alter the meaning of 8,000 year old traditional marriage, we can certainly change the 80 year-old standards for "consenting adults."

The point here is that the laws against sex with children are due to age of majority laws.

Which CAN, and HAVE BEEN, changed! These are "morality-based" arbitrary laws, and you are seeking to destroy "morality-based" law in favor of a more "libertine" standard. But for some mysterious reason, you think we can somehow maintain certain morality-based laws, even after you've destroyed the argument for them.

You could argue for a change in the age of majority laws. They certainly may change again. However, if you accept that "consenting adults" is a part of the premise then your points about discrimination against those who would have sex with 12 year olds or 3 year olds fails. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either age of majority laws are a valid reason for discrimination against actions involving 3 year olds and 12 year olds or it is not. So what is it Dixie are you going to abandon your position or claim that limits against sex with toddlers is discriminatory?

I've never made an argument for toddlers having sex or being considered adults. You continue to infer this, and accuse me of this, and it's simply a dishonest and despicable attempt to dodge your total ass whooping in this debate. I guess you think this bothers me, or rattles my cage, but I don't care what a fool you make of yourself, or how much you demonstrate the level of desperation you've reached in the argument. I think it speaks volumes for how poorly you've done here, and the more you do it, the more it reaffirms this.

Again, I am not the one that insists on bringing up this uncomfortable topic repeatedly. That is all on you.

I don't keep bringing up anything except the reality of what the constitution says. I'm not the one who is constantly advocating we strike down morality-based laws in favor of "if it feels good, do it" laws. That would be YOU and your butt buddies, who think we live in some alter universe, where people all think and act like libertarians, and there is never a slippery slope, you can run back and forth from morality-based law to libertarian-based idiocy, and no one will have a problem with that.

Of course, age of majority is based on considertaion of biological factors and maturity. It is not simply based on biblical standards or any other religions morality. If you are going to argue otherwise then please cite what standard it is based on? You don't seem to understand that moral considerations can be based on lots of things and that laws certainly may be based on moral considerations. They can not be based on religion or invidious discrimination against specific classes. Age of majority laws are not and instead are based on protecting children. The purpose of the laws is not to discriminate against some one that wants to have sex with children.

*sigh* How many times do we have to go through this? I mean really, haven't we been over this at least a dozen times now? How many does it take to penetrate your concrete skull? Maturity simply can not be determined by an arbitrary age. So arbitrary age of majority is certainly NOT based on maturity. Biology isn't on your side, because it says that 12-year-olds are sexually able to procreate, which is how biology defines "adulthood" in any other mammal. YOU have made the moral determination to define humans age 12-16 as "children" then run around claiming you are "protecting" them with your laws. What happened to "it's none of your business, and not harming you?" If you aren't discriminating against 12-16 year old sexually mature humans, what the hell are you doing? It does not matter that the intent of the law isn't to discriminate against a certain sexual lifestyle, that's what it does. The very same arguments you apply to homosexual same-sex marriage, can also be applied to other sexual lifestyles, and you need to get used to it, because once you've removed the moral standards in place, that's exactly where we are headed.

Again, I did not set the age of majority laws and have not argued against changing them. My argument has nothing to do with what the age should be. My argument is simply that we have established these laws justly and they are a valid use of state power.

Here you are again running to the old standards of morality-based laws, when that is what you seem to oppose with regard to homosexuals. You don't seem to comprehend basic logic here, if you've destroyed the argument for morality-based law in order to pave the way for same-sex marriage, then you've destroyed those same barriers to other forms of sexual behavior, and the Constitution guarantees them equal consideration under the law. You can't escape this by running back to the arguments you've struck down.

The question about the numbers is based on your argument. I am trying to see if you can establish the point that there is a specific identifiable class that is being discriminated against and that is seeking a change to the laws. Further, the point is made to dismiss your slippery slope nonsense. African Americans are only 13% of the population. They did not need to be 51% of the population to have their right protected. They did not even have to convince 51% of the population to grant them rights. But they did need to convince a considerable part of the population before their rights were protected. Homosexuals have had to, as well. That is not about what should be, but what is. It is the political reality and your claims that that the argument for marriage equality or against laws barring homosexuality will lead to legalization of beastiality or pedophila is absurd.

Well, there IS a specific class of people who are between the age of 12 and 16, who are human beings that are sexually mature enough to procreate. There IS a specific class of people who think this should be perfectly legal, doesn't "harm" anyone, and ought to be allowed by a non-moralistic society that doesn't judge others. Many of these people can be found in your corner, arguing for gay marriage! No, it's not legal right now, no, there aren't huge movements to make it legal right now, but we still have the laws based on moralistic determination, which have to be destroyed first. Once that is the case, these people will come out of the woodwork, and you will probably be right there in their corner when the time comes. You can argue that it's absurd, but when sodomy laws were struck down, people said it was absurd to think they would demand same-sex marriage.

Your argument on the legal and moral basis has been defeated. You now run to your ridiculous fear mongering over slippery slopes that don't exist and throw a tantrum every time someone calls you out on what you are supporting.

You've certainly NOT defeated anything here.

 

[Liberty]

Until they serve their sentences for breaking the law!

Thanks for making my case.

So I guess germans like you were justified in catching as many jews as possible.

Good luck to you and your republican party that so many have good reason to hate and vote. AGAINST!