Ditzy, can you move the argument forward at all or are you just a redundant troll? Your constant parsing does not provide any value.
On whether I called/insinuated/inferred you were a pedophile...
Where did I call you a pedophile? Please give the specific post.
You claimed I called you a pedophile in my very first post in this thread and when I challenged that, you failed to cite the example. You now reference the other thread where you can be more vague but you are lying. I made the point that no one, not even you, SERIOUSLY argued that pedophiles, public masturbators and those wanting to have sex with animals were being unjustly discriminated against, which was intended to show the idiocy of your slippery slope. YOU then responded, claiming to stand up for ALL of those discriminated against for their "unconventional sexuality." I reminded you of that only and then chose to drop it in other threads. I could be like you and put it in my signature, but who wants to be like you?
I have done nothing but show restraint in dealing with this while over and over you repeatedly make claims about the graphic details of the sex lives of others. Back up your claim that I made this accusation or shut up about it.
I'm not the one who keeps going on and on about this, you are. In the other thread, you stated that I was "advocating for the right to have sex with 5-year-olds" which was simply not true. In this thread, you've bumped that down to 3-year-olds, I guess it wasn't bombastic enough to accuse me of pedophilia with 5-year-olds? In NO argument have I EVER mentioned children below the age of puberty. The argument I made on behalf of the sexual naturalists (not MY argument, but THEIRS) the very tenants of their philosophy is based on natural sexual maturity of the species, which occurs at puberty. Pedophiles practice sex acts with those who are PRE-pubescent, so these are two entirely different concepts. They are totally not equatable.
On what is a child...
That's what I said. Good we have made some progress.
The basis of age of majority laws is protection of the child. It's not about creating or maintaining a system of discrimination of those who believe age of majority laws should be lower.
Well it seems we both agree that age of majority is an arbitrary moral distinction we make, and has nothing to do with natural "adulthood" or sexual maturity of the species. The discrimination is against sexually mature members of the species, who you (and I) feel, are not capable of handling the responsibilities of sexual relationships at this time. It's a moral distinction we have made as a society, and here is where the problem lies. If we suspend moral judgement for homosexual relationships, and establish that our laws can't be based on morality judgement, then we can not go running back to morality judgment on things we are uncomfortable with. Who gave you the moral right to "protect" someone you arbitrarily deemed a "child?"
Doh! You just contradicted your previous quoted claim. Round and round you go...
No, I have consistently maintained that we make moral determinations and set moral boundaries as a society. I don't have any problem with this, the ones who are arguing against moral determination, are those pushing for gay marriage, on the basis of "it's not harming anyone, it's between consenting adults, and it's none of your business!" You want to strike down these moral boundaries society has set, and replace them with a non-moralistic libertine philosophy instead. I am merely pointing out the can of worms you are opening in doing so. "Consenting adults" is a moral distinction, what does and doesn't "harm" is largely a moral distinction. If we remove moral distinctions, and we can alter and change traditional understandings and meanings of words like "marriage" then we can do the same with regard to "children" or "adults" as well as "harm" and anything else we can find that we've arbitrarily determined based on morality.
The conclusions of society are not moral or just, simply because they are the conclusions. You do this in an attempt to hide ALL premises of your argument because the premises will show your argument is immoral. That trick is not going to work. You are an idiot that imagines himself clever but most learned men know what you are up to with that.
No, I am not hiding anything. I clearly understand what I have argued is highly immoral, but you are the one who has advocated for a non-moral, non-judgmental system, where it's none of our business what others do. I am merely using an example of something that is immoral, which you are uncomfortable with, to show you where your own philosophy fails. Your reaction is to immediately run back to the moral distinctions and judgement of others, which are the very constraints you object to with homosexual marriage.
I am calling people children based on linguistics. That's what we call those under the age of majority. I never once argued that children had the same right to privacy as adults. That is your strawman.
Linguistics? Don't you mean the arbitrary moralistic determinations we've made as a society? Why shouldn't sexually mature citizens of our species have the same rights as others? Who are YOU to deny this? What "harm" is it causing to YOUR marriage? Why is it YOUR business what others do? Are you afraid someone might make you have sex with a minor? You see, all the arguments you've presented to endorse gay marriage, can also be used to endorse other things, which you are not comfortable with at all. This isn't a strawman argument. This is simply an application of your own criteria to remove moral determinations and judgments from our rule of law and conventional understanding of what certain words mean.
It's like, you are wanting to burn down your house, and when someone asks, "where will you sleep?" You reply, "in the bedroom, silly!" You just don't seem to get the point here. If you are going to remove the moralistic element of our determinations on what is law, then those are gone for good! We can't go running back to them, in order to "protect" something we think needs protection on a moral basis, that criteria has been changed.
Claims that black people and women are generally more immature or have less capacity for maturity than whites or men do not stand up to scrutiny. The claim that a 5 year old or 12 year old is generally less mature or has less capacity for maturity than an 18 year old do. Maturity has a biological component and both are certainly considered in setting age of majority laws.
I never made any such claim about women or blacks, I simply pointed out that we established law based on a moral judgement. Coincidentally, in both of those cases, we later amended our laws based on a moral judgement as well. But your argument is for the removal of moral distinction, and advocacy of "if it feels good, do it!"
I am not running in any circles. Your strawmen might be. Again, this was never about a war on morality. It was about a repudiation of YOUR morality which is repugnant and in coflict with our guiding principles. The state simply cannot base laws on discriminating against those of differing morality, race or gender. You need to have another standard, that expresses a valid state interest, rather than simply because you don't like homosexuals, blacks or women.
I've not tried to outlaw homosexual behavior, or remove the rights of women or blacks, or advocate sex with children. I've merely established that our society does make laws on the basis of morality judgement and determination of what is morally appropriate. A lot of people feel it is morally inappropriate to change the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexuals.
Yes, the laws were different. The laws once allowed Jim Crow. Like I said, the laws are not perfect and justice is at times slow, but it will come.
Perhaps it will, but it needs to come when society can accept it is morally appropriate, and not because you've removed that criteria from consideration. Once you have done that, you have a real mess on your hands, because there are plenty of immoral things you certainly don't want to see happen in society, and neither do I.
Yes, someone may wish to challenge the basis of age of majority laws. If you want to argue that laws prohibiting sex with 12 year olds are discriminatory and unjustly violate your rights to due process by restricting your ability to have sex with 12 year olds you may be able to get a hearing of your case. But I don't see how you will win unless the entirety of age of majority laws (all of them, i.e., driving, right to contract, marriage, vote, own a gun, drink alcohol, etc.) are removed and not just for 12 year olds, but even younger.
You are afraid of the future, I am not. Live in fear surrounded by your guns if you want.
Again, this is not about my personal viewpoints. This is about YOUR personal viewpoints, that we shouldn't have laws based on moral distinctions. You don't see how a case could prevail in the examples I gave, because you are seeing through moralistic eyes, the same eyes that don't see how traditional marriage can be redefined to include homosexual behavior. You want to burn the house down, but still be able to sleep in the bedroom. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say that we can't base laws on traditional moral values and moralistic determinations of society, and we have to adopt some short-sighted notion of "if it's not harming anyone, and it's between consenting adults, it's nobody's business!" But then, you want to run back to the comfort of moral determinations with regards to the things you are not comfortable with accepting at this time.
