Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
It's my experience that many adults lack the capacity to make sound decisions. Subsequently, I know teenagers who make better decisions than some adults. Regardless, there is absolutely NOTHING to show that this decision making ability magically appears on ones 18th birthday, and not a minute before!
Click to expand...

Now you are jumping off into the deep end.


There are some children who might be mature for their age. That, in no way, changes what the majority of children are like.

And you know all this, Dixie. You are just stretching to try and make points that are not there.
 
Dixie said:
How do you conclude it always does "harm" to a child you don't know anything about? Who died and gave you that authority? And.... How does this effect YOU or YOUR marriage? (lol... had to throw that one in there!)
Click to expand...
Through empathy and memory.

I wonder if Dixie would have ever thought he'd be trying to argue the NAMBLA line... It shows to what reaches he'll go in order to never admit he's made a foolish error.
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change the basic fact, we set those laws into place to protect victims, that is the reason for pedophilia laws. Even if you "really really" want it to be the same thing as two adults making a fully informed decision, you still are simply arguing the absurd.
Click to expand...

Not arguing the absurd at all... making a relevant point and causing you to look like the hypocritical idiot you are. You don't have the capacity or ability to understand every condition of every relationship of every person out there! You want to call people "victims" but I could just as easily claim that someone who thinks they are homosexual are "victims" suffering from some mental disorder which makes them think they are homosexual! I'm just protecting "victims" too!
 
Dixie said:
How do you conclude it always does "harm" to a child you don't know anything about? Who died and gave you that authority? And.... How does this effect YOU or YOUR marriage? (lol... had to throw that one in there!)
Click to expand...

Numerous studies have shown serious harm done to children who were molested. I thought you had a degree in psychology??

Society works together to protect children. The harm done to them is the harm done to us all. A simple look at the studies showing how often career criminals were molested as children is one good clue.
 
Dixie said:
Not arguing the absurd at all... making a relevant point and causing you to look like the hypocritical idiot you are. You don't have the capacity or ability to understand every condition of every relationship of every person out there! You want to call people "victims" but I could just as easily claim that someone who thinks they are homosexual are "victims" suffering from some mental disorder which makes them think they are homosexual! I'm just protecting "victims" too!
Click to expand...
Which is why we set an age that is based on our own understanding of what capacity we had in the past to make those kinds of decisions. And one could claim that liking something that is not normal, like skydiving, makes one a victim, but they'd be giving another example of arguing the absurd.

In this thread you've gone from promoting civil unions that would allow churches to marry whom they wish (even gays), to promoting the NAMBLA lifestyle. It's the absurdity of the argument that drives me to point out your logical fallacies even though we agree on implementation. It's beyond belief that you could really be this entertaining just through your own absurdity.
 
Dixie said:
How do you conclude it always does "harm" to a child you don't know anything about? Who died and gave you that authority? And.... How does this effect YOU or YOUR marriage? (lol... had to throw that one in there!)
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Please stop Dixie.
You're responding only at an emotional level now and it's causing to appear either naive or really stupid.
I'll leave the decision to which one it is, up to others.

How did we conclude that it harms a child.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
RStringfield said:
There is a very compelling argument that the state, at the very least, has a right to invade the privacy of a child for their own protection and to determine their capacity to contract. There is no such argument with a 30 year old homosexual. If he/she don't know, they should have. Fuck em. There is no legitimate state interests in protecting them, as with a child.
Click to expand...

And another point. The child's parents certainly have some say in their capacity, since they are liable for their acts.
 
WinterBorn said:
Now you are jumping off into the deep end.

There are some children who might be mature for their age. That, in no way, changes what the majority of children are like.

And you know all this, Dixie. You are just stretching to try and make points that are not there.
Click to expand...

Right... and the majority of people are not homosexual, and do not condone homosexuality. They certainly don't approve of homosexual marriage!
 
Dixie said:
Not arguing the absurd at all... making a relevant point and causing you to look like the hypocritical idiot you are. You don't have the capacity or ability to understand every condition of every relationship of every person out there! You want to call people "victims" but I could just as easily claim that someone who thinks they are homosexual are "victims" suffering from some mental disorder which makes them think they are homosexual! I'm just protecting "victims" too!
Click to expand...

The logical extension of your argument that we "don't know every child" is to remove all laws, because we don't know every situation that can arise.

Can't have speeding laws because some people drive very well at 100+ mph.

Can't have laws against assault because some people enjoy being beaten.

Can't have laws against left because some people want to be robbed.



It is absurd.
 
WinterBorn said:
The logical extension of your argument that we "don't know every child" is to remove all laws, because we don't know every situation that can arise.

Can't have speeding laws because some people drive very well at 100+ mph.

Can't have laws against assault because some people enjoy being beaten.

Can't have laws against left because some people want to be robbed.

It is absurd.
Click to expand...

Yep... It's absurd as hell! ...Can't have laws defining marriage as one man-one woman, because some people like to have butt sex!!
 
Dixie said:
So if a child's parents are okay with their 12-year-old marrying an old geezer, you'd be okay with it too?
Click to expand...
I've yet to see any place that sets it quite that low, although I think one state allows a parent to give permission for those as young as 14 to enter into marriage.
 
WinterBorn said:
The logical extension of your argument that we "don't know every child" is to remove all laws, because we don't know every situation that can arise.

Can't have speeding laws because some people drive very well at 100+ mph.

Can't have laws against assault because some people enjoy being beaten.

Can't have laws against left because some people want to be robbed.



It is absurd.
Click to expand...


Welcome to Dixie's bizarro world.
 
Your argument is absurd, Ditzy. You are pretending that the state's interest in protecting children is equivalent to discrimination. It is not, which is made clear by the laws greater protections for children.

A lot of things that would be no big deal if you did with an adult would you get in you hot water with a child. For instance, If you have a few too many with your adult neighbor and get into a fight, the state probably won't do much unless someone was seriously hurt. Try that with a 9 year old and they are going to come down on you pretty hard.

The state, obviously, is not interested in prohibiting children from enjoying a fist fight, alcohol or sex. The interest is in protecting the child. The purpose of denying homosexuals the right to marry has nothing to do with protecting them or anyone else.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Please stop Dixie.
You're responding only at an emotional level now and it's causing to appear either naive or really stupid.
I'll leave the decision to which one it is, up to others.

How did we conclude that it harms a child.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Click to expand...

Funny, you didn't answer the question!

Do you know the circumstances behind every relationship? Do you know the maturity level of every child? Have you defined the "harm" you claim is the case in all adult/child relationships? What magic takes place on ones 18th birthday, which relieves you from the obligation of being so concerned over their ability to consent?
 
RStringfield said:
Your argument is absurd, Ditzy. You are pretending that the state's interest in protecting children is equivalent to discrimination. It is not, which is made clear by the laws greater protections for children.

A lot of things that would be no big deal if you did with an adult would you get in you hot water with a child. For instance, If you have a few too many with your adult neighbor and get into a fight, the state probably won't do much unless someone was seriously hurt. Try that with a 9 year old and they are going to come down on you pretty hard.

The state, obviously, is not interested in prohibiting children from enjoying a fist fight, alcohol or sex. The interest is in protecting the child. The purpose of denying homosexuals the right to marry has nothing to do with protecting them or anyone else.
Click to expand...
Excellently stated.
 
Dixie said:
So if a child's parents are okay with their 12-year-old marrying an old geezer, you'd be okay with it too?
Click to expand...

No. At the very least, I would expect the state to inquire into the child's capacity. I am fine with just making them wait until they reach a more advanced age where they would be expected to be able to understand the consequences of their choices, too.

I was just pointing that the child has no right to privacy from their parents either.
 
RStringfield said:
No. At the very least, I would expect the state to inquire into the child's capacity. I am fine with just making them wait until they reach a more advanced age where they would be expected to be able to understand the consequences of their choices, too.

I was just pointing that the child has no right to privacy from their parents either.
Click to expand...

Well I'm fine with homosexuals being granted a civil union contract and not destroying the institution of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top