Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So Dixie's a moral relativist. Interesting.

Uhm... no, and I am not sure how you derived that bit of stupidity... Oh, wait, forgot who the fuck I was talking to for a moment, never mind!

 

[Damocles]

And this is what kind of judgment based on what? It's a MORAL judgment, based on MORALITY!

Human beings do not magically obtain the ability to "consent" when they celebrate the 18th anniversary of their birth! They don't magically stop being "victims" because they lived for 6,570 days! WE established an age... 18... where we made the MORAL decision that people can legally stand on their own. This is based in our MORAL beliefs, that someone who has reached this arbitrary age, is supposedly capable of making informed choices as an "adult" ...another arbitrary distinction we made based on MORALS!

Why do YOU think it is acceptable to establish laws based on YOUR moral viewpoints, but not the moral viewpoints of others? What gives you the authority to make that case? Why is YOUR personal "dogma" more important than mine?

Which is why there is concessions that allow guardians to give permission for them to marry younger. Again, more of the same rubbish you've tossed before.

Consenting adults, it is the main difference, even in those cases it is adults who are considered the arbiter of whether the child has the capacity for such a commitment. The states have a compelling interest to set limitations to protect children from victimization. The state does not have a compelling interest to interfere in the beliefs of others to set limitations based on either "tradition" or dogma. In your case every other reason you put forward is just a cover for your dogma of the majority, it is proscribed from doing so in the 1st Amendment that doesn't allow them to interfere with the Free Exercise of their beliefs.

And again you simply purposefully "misunderstand" the concept of rights.

 

[Damocles]

No Damo, "one man-one woman marriage" is NOT "solely based" on religious dogma! People were doing this before Christianity! And "religious dogma" of Christianity, in particular, doesn't even address "homosexual marriages!" You've not established this, you've not made any case for it, you just keep repeating it as if it's a fact, when it's NOT!

It is, there is no state interest to compel others to follow any belief system when there is no victim, even "traditions" that come from the religious basis. The reason that the laws were passed was to keep down the LDS church, it interferes with the free exercise of other religions and it was only passed to do so. It doesn't matter how many different groups follow the same rules when there are others who believe differently the government cannot interfere except to protect the individual rights of a victim. It's in the 1st Amendment. The government should not be licensing religious "traditions" that compel religions to act in accordance with the belief of the majority.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Which is why there is concessions that allow guardians to give permission for them to marry younger. Again, more of the same rubbish you've tossed before.

Again, concessions made on the basis of someone's MORALS! There's no "rubbish" here except for your idiotic notion that "morality" is something we shouldn't, can't, or haven't made laws based upon. We do it all the time, with almost EVERYTHING we establish as a LAW! It might not conform with your personal morality, it might be something you have a problem with, and you have the right to express your viewpoint, but to assert that everyone must follow your template for morality, and everything else is violating YOUR rights, is ABSURD!

Consenting adults, it is the main difference, even in those cases it is adults who are considered the arbiter of whether the child has the capacity for such a commitment. The states have a compelling interest to set limitations to protect children from victimization.

Again.... "Adulthood" is an arbitrary establishment WE made, based on our MORALS! There is absolutely NO physical (or metaphysical) thing that happens to a person on their 18th birthday, to make them an "adult" ....WE made that rule, based on our morality! The arbitrary judgment that people "have the capacity" is also made based on our morality! Vicitmization.... same thing! It is all arbitrary distinctions based on our moral judgments, and nothing more!

And again you simply purposefully "misunderstand" the concept of rights.

No, I understand "rights" but you don't seem to understand morality or how it applies to rights and the law. You apparently assume we just have these certain guidelines that have always been, and they are not based on morals of any kind, it's some sort of twist of nature that people just magically obtain the maturity and capacity to consent after living 18 years, and not one day before, and everyone is exactly the same! ALL OF IT is parameters WE established, based on our MORALS and MORAL judgments!

 

[Timshel]

It's based on the same thing we base "consent" on or "age of accountability" or whether someone is legally a "victim" or not. Our collective morality as a society!

Eh-ehh. No, the correct answer is... what is a primitive intolerance, apathy or fear towards those who differentiate from the norm.

Please, don't pretend you are embracing consent or freedom from coercive force while telling us that homosexuals are free to marry some one of the opposite gender. It is a slap in the face to the concept of freedom of choice.

Traditional marriage has never included "same-sex couples" in all known history of Western civilization. It doesn't matter that some religions hold marriage sacred, for the definition to be as Damo claims, a "Judeo-Christian definition", it would have to be EXCLUSIVELY a Judeo-Christian definition, and it's NOT!

So? Again, the state has no valid interest in promoting or preserving a tradition which only serves to discriminate.

For opposition to homosexual marriage to be "Religious Dogma" it would have to be universally condemned by all followers of the Christian faith, and again, it is NOT! So the case has not been made, by any stretch of the imagination, yet both of you continue to LIE and claim this as a FACT.

Like I said, I don't think there is any merit to the claim that such laws are nullified by the first amendment. However, the first amendment clearly shows that religious justifications for the law are not valid. It also undermines the tradition argument (which is of no value anyway), since it is quite clear the tradition has been heavily influenced by religion.

 

[Timshel]

Uhm... no, and I am not sure how you derived that bit of stupidity... Oh, wait, forgot who the fuck I was talking to for a moment, never mind!

You are most certainly arguing in favor of moral relatvism.

 

[Damocles]

Again, concessions made on the basis of someone's MORALS! There's no "rubbish" here except for your idiotic notion that "morality" is something we shouldn't, can't, or haven't made laws based upon. We do it all the time, with almost EVERYTHING we establish as a LAW! It might not conform with your personal morality, it might be something you have a problem with, and you have the right to express your viewpoint, but to assert that everyone must follow your template for morality, and everything else is violating YOUR rights, is ABSURD!

I may take this inanity and move it to your thread so we can clear up a good thread for more constructive conversation.

Nobody said you had to follow any other set of rules than that of your religion, however the government is proscribed from making laws that limit the free exercise of a different religion. No law would be created that forced you to believe anything when government has been removed from religious ceremonies and all licensing becomes for "unions" allowed between all consenting adults.

Again.... "Adulthood" is an arbitrary establishment WE made, based on our MORALS! There is absolutely NO physical (or metaphysical) thing that happens to a person on their 18th birthday, to make them an "adult" ....WE made that rule, based on our morality! The arbitrary judgment that people "have the capacity" is also made based on our morality! Vicitmization.... same thing! It is all arbitrary distinctions based on our moral judgments, and nothing more!

It is based on the understanding of when most of us became capable of making those kinds of decisions, and yes it is arbitrary, which is why (repeating again because you are too thick for it to sink in) there are concessions that allow guardians to permit such marriages...

No, I understand "rights" but you don't seem to understand morality or how it applies to rights and the law. You apparently assume we just have these certain guidelines that have always been, and they are not based on morals of any kind, it's some sort of twist of nature that people just magically obtain the maturity and capacity to consent after living 18 years, and not one day before, and everyone is exactly the same! ALL OF IT is parameters WE established, based on our MORALS and MORAL judgments!

Nah, you purposefully don't understand the difference in rights and morals. It isn't based on morals it is based on experience and memory of when most of us had the capacity to make those life-changing decisions and thus were less likely to be a victim and/or compelled into such a relationship. We set that limit for pretty much everything, with the same concessions for guardian permission. (I used one of those concessions to join the military at 17.)

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You can run all over the board posting your lie as much as you wish, it will not make it true. Traditional marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christianity, and Gay Marriage is not universally opposed by Judeo-Christian churches. Many people get married, who are not Jewish or Christian, it is not a definition solely established by either religion.

Your argument has no tentative basis, because what you are suggesting is absurd! Christianity forbids killing people and stealing, should we strike down those laws on the basis they follow the tenants of Christianity? Why not? That is EXACTLY the argument you are making regarding Gay Marriage! Because SOME Christians oppose it on religious grounds, you think that makes it a "religious dogma" issue, and it simply doesn't.

OH-LOOK; the little woosie boy, Dixie, is lying again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Eh-ehh. No, the correct answer is... what is a primitive intolerance, apathy or fear towards those who differentiate from the norm.

HUH? Are you playing Jeopardy or something here? This doesn't even relate to the quote you're responding to!

Please, don't pretend you are embracing consent or freedom from coercive force while telling us that homosexuals are free to marry some one of the opposite gender. It is a slap in the face to the concept of freedom of choice.

I'm not "embracing" anything, you fucking moron! I am making an argument based on your own fucking stupidity, and you are apparently so stupid you can't realize it when it's slapping you upside your own goofy head! Morality, specifically morality somehow rooted or associated with religious beliefs (because that's what religion does), is the basis and foundation for most every law or restriction, parameter or distinction we make. To argue that we are prohibited from opposing Gay Marriage on the basis it conforms to a religious viewpoint, is no different than arguing we should strike down most every law on the books, because just about all of them were based on someone's moral judgment of what was "appropriate" including "age of consent" and "when a person has the capacity to make adult decisions!"

So? Again, the state has no valid interest in promoting or preserving a tradition which only serves to discriminate.

You've not proven discrimination. You keep claiming it, you keep lying, but you haven't established this, and you can't make it a fact until you do. The State has a "valid interest" to do whatever the citizens of the state want done, period!

Like I said, I don't think there is any merit to the claim that such laws are nullified by the first amendment. However, the first amendment clearly shows that religious justifications for the law are not valid. It also undermines the tradition argument (which is of no value anyway), since it is quite clear the tradition has been heavily influenced by religion.

At the trailing end of several illogical and unfounded LEAPS... you can get to this point. You've not established any of the basis for this viewpoint. There is nothing in the First Amendment about not making laws influenced by religious morality! Not a goddamn word!

 

[Timshel]

You apparently assume we just have these certain guidelines that have always been, and they are not based on morals of any kind, it's some sort of twist of nature that people just magically obtain the maturity and capacity to consent after living 18 years, and not one day before, and everyone is exactly the same! ALL OF IT is parameters WE established, based on our MORALS and MORAL judgments!

What moral principle tells you that someone can consent at 18?

This guideline has not "always been.” We set that age and move it based on experience that tells us when people, generally, obtain a required maturity level to competently exercise and, to some extent, defend their rights.

Of course, that does not happen at the same age for everyone and so the guideline must be arbitrary. As Damo has noted, this is why we allow for some wiggle room for those circumstances. The general prohibition is warranted and serves a valid state interest. Allowing a means for the exceptions to challenge the prohibition furthers due process and provides relief for damages from an inherently arbitrary age of maturity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are most certainly arguing in favor of moral relatvism.

No, I am not "arguing in favor" of anything, I am stating what is factual and true. It doesn't matter if that's what I "favor" or not, it doesn't change what is TRUTH! ...Maybe it does in StringyWorld, but not with me!

YOU are making an argument for moral relativism! You are saying that morals are based on our individual selectivity, and nothing else. If it feels good, do it! You don't want the morality of others imposed on you, because you think morality is relative to who you are, and you should have the freedom to determine your own moral values in society.

I am arguing that we have ALWAYS been a collective society, who establishes laws on our collective morality as a society, and whether everyone agrees with that moral viewpoint, it is what we collectively decided as a society, so that's what society lives by. Someone decided it was not appropriate for people under 18 to do "adult" things, and they got enough people to agree with them, and made that moral judgment the law of the land, and we all live by that. Whether I think that is "right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with whether it is TRUE!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What moral principle tells you that someone can consent at 18?

This guideline has not "always been.” We set that age and move it based on experience that tells us when people, generally, obtain a required maturity level to competently exercise and, to some extent, defend their rights.

Of course, that does not happen at the same age for everyone and so the guideline must be arbitrary. As Damo has noted, this is why we allow for some wiggle room for those circumstances. The general prohibition is warranted and serves a valid state interest. Allowing a means for the exceptions to challenge the prohibition furthers due process and provides relief for damages from an inherently arbitrary age of maturity.

What the fuck??? Are you on drugs tonight? You are now trying to TURN THE WORM here and make MY argument YOUR argument! AMAZING! I just pointed out that VERY thing, and now here you are, acting like I have stated the opposite, and you are making the same exact point I just made!

Society made a MORAL judgment that 18 would be the "legal age" and they also made the MORAL judgment to alter or caveat that definition in certain circumstances. They make the MORAL judgment of when someone might be old enough to handle the consequences of their actions... the MORAL judgment on when people are "mature" or even what constitutes "maturity!" They make the MORAL judgment on who is a "victim" and what constitutes "victimization!" ALL of this is collective societal morality, and most of it is rooted in religious principles to some degree.

 

[Timshel]

HUH? Are you playing Jeopardy or something here? This doesn't even relate to the quote you're responding to!

It does relate. I asked what was the basis for the ban and you gave a convoluted answer which amounted to "majority will." So, I gave you the right answer.

I'm not "embracing" anything, you fucking moron!

That’s what I indicated. You are only pretending to embrace the concepts behind age of consent or the right to be free from violent force (what makes someone a victim, is basically how you put it).

I am making an argument based on your own fucking stupidity, and you are apparently so stupid you can't realize it when it's slapping you upside your own goofy head! Morality, specifically morality somehow rooted or associated with religious beliefs (because that's what religion does), is the basis and foundation for most every law or restriction, parameter or distinction we make.

You are making an argument based on a straw man, not my arguments.

Religious morals are not the foundation of our laws.

To argue that we are prohibited from opposing Gay Marriage on the basis it conforms to a religious viewpoint, is no different than arguing we should strike down most every law on the books, because just about all of them were based on someone's moral judgment of what was "appropriate" including "age of consent" and "when a person has the capacity to make adult decisions!"

Again, straw man and one you have repeated several times now. Just because you can associate laws against murder to some biblical verse does not invalidate laws prohibiting murder. Those laws serve a valid state interest that has nothing at all to do with religion. But there is no valid state interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages and tradition, based largely on religion, does not justify such a prohibition.

You've not proven discrimination. You keep claiming it, you keep lying, but you haven't established this, and you can't make it a fact until you do.

Loving v Virginia. Also, in the other thread you stated that the state was allowed to discriminate in such ways. Of course, it is discriminatory and your "they can marry who we say they can marry, just like everybody else" argument has been rejected.

The State has a "valid interest" to do whatever the citizens of the state want done, period!

Not under our limited government system, you fascist moron. Majority will alone does not justify state action.

At the trailing end of several illogical and unfounded LEAPS... you can get to this point. You've not established any of the basis for this viewpoint. There is nothing in the First Amendment about not making laws influenced by religious morality! Not a goddamn word!

You are a dumbass. I clearly indicated that the first amendment does not nullify the bans. If you want to pass a law, in part, because your religion says it should be prohibited the first amendment does not necessarily disallow the law. But there has to be a valid state interest outside of promotion or preservation of your religious morals/traditions.

 

[Timshel]

What the fuck??? Are you on drugs tonight? You are now trying to TURN THE WORM here and make MY argument YOUR argument! AMAZING! I just pointed out that VERY thing, and now here you are, acting like I have stated the opposite, and you are making the same exact point I just made!

What???

Society made a MORAL judgment that 18 would be the "legal age" and they also made the MORAL judgment to alter or caveat that definition in certain circumstances. They make the MORAL judgment of when someone might be old enough to handle the consequences of their actions... the MORAL judgment on when people are "mature" or even what constitutes "maturity!" They make the MORAL judgment on who is a "victim" and what constitutes "victimization!" ALL of this is collective societal morality, and most of it is rooted in religious principles to some degree.

These are points I made???? Uhhh, no.

You did not respond at all. What is the moral principle that tells you what the age of consent should be? There is not any. We have just a made a guess at it and it has a lot to do with science concerning physical maturity.

There is no moral judgment on who is a victim. We don't search the bible to find answers to such questions. We hold a trial and hear verifiable facts.

What constitutes victimization is also objectively provable. If we consulted religion in that case, we would have much different laws. For instance, stoning your child for being disrespectful would not be a victimization of the child. Hell, you can't even give em a good beating anymore.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It does relate. I asked what was the basis for the ban and you gave a convoluted answer which amounted to "majority will." So, I gave you the right answer.

You asked what the basis was for traditional marriage, and I told you it was a "moral" determination made by society collectively. There has been no "ban" of homosexuality, as far as I know, and Gay Marriage would have needed to be legalized and legitimate before anyone could "ban" it... so what the fuck are you even yammering about?

That’s what I indicated. You are only pretending to embrace the concepts behind age of consent or the right to be free from violent force (what makes someone a victim, is basically how you put it).

Ahh... I'm only "pretending" here.... because YOU have the Kreskin-like ability to read my mind, and KNOW that I am only pretending? I stated a FACT... Our laws regarding how old a person must be to be considered a "legal adult" is an arbitrary age we established based on our collective moral judgment that this was an appropriate arbitrary point to establish such a law. Viewpoints on when a person is "mature enough" or "has the capacity to" make adult decisions, is based on our MORAL judgment! As are MOST of the laws currently in the law books!

You are making an argument based on a straw man, not my arguments.

Religious morals are not the foundation of our laws.

Yes they are! Whatever the "morality judgment" is, you can trace it back directly to a religious teaching or principle. That's not to say that every person determines their individual moral viewpoint on the basis of the religious principle, people can base their opinions and views on any damn thing they please, it's not left up to your purview.

Again, straw man and one you have repeated several times now. Just because you can associate laws against murder to some biblical verse does not invalidate laws prohibiting murder.

Of course it doesn't, and just because you can associate traditional marriage to some biblical teaching, it doesn't invalidate the meaning of traditional marriage or allow you to redefine it. Just because you can associate opposition to homosexual behavior to some religious teaching, doesn't mean all opposition is based on religious morality.

Those laws serve a valid state interest that has nothing at all to do with religion. But there is no valid state interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages and tradition, based largely on religion, does not justify such a prohibition.

Yes, there IS a valid state interest, the people of the state overwhelmingly oppose it, and the people who are elected to run the state, depend on their votes to keep their jobs. I think that's a pretty fucking valid interest!

Loving v Virginia. Also, in the other thread you stated that the state was allowed to discriminate in such ways. Of course, it is discriminatory and your "they can marry who we say they can marry, just like everybody else" argument has been rejected.

Loving was regarding bans on interracial marriage, there are no bans on homosexuals marrying... marriage is the union of a man and a woman! No one is telling them they can't marry someone because they are homosexual, if that were the case, Loving would apply here, but it simply isn't the case, and Loving, as much as you LOVE it, doesn't apply.

Not under our limited government system, you fascist moron. Majority will alone does not justify state action.

I've asked you repeatedly, what "system" do you think we should replace representative democracy with? Are you more comfortable with activist judges who are appointed for life, determining the rules we all have to adhere to? Does that satisfy your little libertarian heart? To be told what you're going to accept or not accept by a judge? Because that's about the only other "system" I see working, we aren't going to adopt Stringy's Rules of Morality, and all wake up in the morning in total agreement with everything Stringy thinks is right and wrong in the world.... just ain't gonna happen!

You are a dumbass. I clearly indicated that the first amendment does not nullify the bans. If you want to pass a law, in part, because your religion says it should be prohibited the first amendment does not necessarily disallow the law. But there has to be a valid state interest outside of promotion or preservation of your religious morals/traditions.

What "BANS" are you talking about?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What is the moral principle that tells you what the age of consent should be? There is not any. We have just a made a guess at it and it has a lot to do with science concerning physical maturity.

We didn't just stick our finger in the air and make a GUESS! You are dancing around on a head of a pin to say the exact same thing I said. You are making it much more complicated than it needs to be, because you can't tolerate agreeing with what I stated.

Science says that various people "mature" at different rates, and capacity to make sound and reasonable decisions and choices, doesn't necessarily relate to physical maturity anyway. We made a MORAL decision to set the age at 18, that was an age most people could reasonably agree was appropriate, based on their own sense of morality, or what is right and wrong.

There is no moral judgment on who is a victim. We don't search the bible to find answers to such questions. We hold a trial and hear verifiable facts.

But that is the next leap from logic... Victimization is determined by the law we discussed previously. An 18-year-old can have sex with another adult, a 17-year-old is a victim of "statutory rape" when that same event happens! There is nothing different in the two, other than one has met the arbitrary parameter we established by law, based on our moral judgment.

What constitutes victimization is also objectively provable. If we consulted religion in that case, we would have much different laws. For instance, stoning your child for being disrespectful would not be a victimization of the child. Hell, you can't even give em a good beating anymore.

Hold on... I never said we are supposed to "consult religion" when establishing our laws! This is what you and Dumo WISH that I were saying, but not an argument I have ever made.

Individuals have the right to determine the laws they live by in a free society... on whatever basis their personal system of beliefs compels them to, regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable because it might happen to conform to their religious faith. You do NOT have the right to deny them this right, regardless of how many lies, and how much hyperbolic rhetoric and distortion you throw out there.... I support your right to express your opinion, and be opposed to them.... but you don't have the right to silence their political voices. Sorry!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What the fuck??? Are you on drugs tonight? You are now trying to TURN THE WORM here and make MY argument YOUR argument! AMAZING! I just pointed out that VERY thing, and now here you are, acting like I have stated the opposite, and you are making the same exact point I just made!

Society made a MORAL judgment that 18 would be the "legal age" and they also made the MORAL judgment to alter or caveat that definition in certain circumstances. They make the MORAL judgment of when someone might be old enough to handle the consequences of their actions... the MORAL judgment on when people are "mature" or even what constitutes "maturity!" They make the MORAL judgment on who is a "victim" and what constitutes "victimization!" ALL of this is collective societal morality, and most of it is rooted in religious principles to some degree.

And you made a moral judgement, to be a lying wussie

 

[Timshel]

You asked what the basis was for traditional marriage, and I told you it was a "moral" determination made by society collectively. There has been no "ban" of homosexuality, as far as I know, and Gay Marriage would have needed to be legalized and legitimate before anyone could "ban" it... so what the fuck are you even yammering about?

It wasn't legal yet it was not prohibited???

Looking past another stupid comment from you, you acknowedge that my previous response was relevant, which was the only point of the one you comment on here.

Ahh... I'm only "pretending" here.... because YOU have the Kreskin-like ability to read my mind, and KNOW that I am only pretending?

I don't need to read your mind as your position contradicts concepts concerning the importance of consent.

I stated a FACT... Our laws regarding how old a person must be to be considered a "legal adult" is an arbitrary age we established based on our collective moral judgment that this was an appropriate arbitrary point to establish such a law. Viewpoints on when a person is "mature enough" or "has the capacity to" make adult decisions, is based on our MORAL judgment! As are MOST of the laws currently in the law books!

You have not stated any facts. You made an unsupported assertion that you repeat here.

Yes they are! Whatever the "morality judgment" is, you can trace it back directly to a religious teaching or principle. That's not to say that every person determines their individual moral viewpoint on the basis of the religious principle, people can base their opinions and views on any damn thing they please, it's not left up to your purview.

No, they are not.

You can base your opinion on whatever you like. You can't justify state action based on whatever you like, under our system.

Of course it doesn't, and just because you can associate traditional marriage to some biblical teaching, it doesn't invalidate the meaning of traditional marriage or allow you to redefine it. Just because you can associate opposition to homosexual behavior to some religious teaching, doesn't mean all opposition is based on religious morality.

Yet, you offer nothing to support state action but religious morality.

Yes, there IS a valid state interest, the people of the state overwhelmingly oppose it, and the people who are elected to run the state, depend on their votes to keep their jobs. I think that's a pretty fucking valid interest!

LOL. You are fucking stupid. That is not going to fly in any court of law in this nation.

Loving was regarding bans on interracial marriage, there are no bans on homosexuals marrying... marriage is the union of a man and a woman! No one is telling them they can't marry someone because they are homosexual, if that were the case, Loving would apply here, but it simply isn't the case, and Loving, as much as you LOVE it, doesn't apply.

There were no bans on blacks marrying, at the time of Loving. Noe one told them they could not marry because they were black. Loving definitely applies, because the court found that the "equality" of the prohibition did not protect it from 14th amendment limits.

I've asked you repeatedly, what "system" do you think we should replace representative democracy with? Are you more comfortable with activist judges who are appointed for life,going to adopt Stringy's Rules of Morality, and all wake up in the morning in total agreement with everything Stringy thinks is right determining the rules we all have to adhere to? Does that satisfy your little libertarian heart? To be told what you're going to accept or not accept by a judge? Because that's about the only other "system" I see working, we aren't and wrong in the world.... just ain't gonna happen!

I am not replacing anything. I am arguing for our current system, you are arguing for some incoherent nonsense, where laws are justfied because politicians have an interest in getting reelected. LOL

 

[Timshel]

We didn't just stick our finger in the air and make a GUESS! You are dancing around on a head of a pin to say the exact same thing I said. You are making it much more complicated than it needs to be, because you can't tolerate agreeing with what I stated.

I indicated that we based it largely on science concerning human development. How does that amount to sticking our finger in the air? It's still a guess.

Where did I agree with you?

Science says that various people "mature" at different rates, and capacity to make sound and reasonable decisions and choices, doesn't necessarily relate to physical maturity anyway. We made a MORAL decision to set the age at 18, that was an age most people could reasonably agree was appropriate, based on their own sense of morality, or what is right and wrong.

But that is the next leap from logic... Victimization is determined by the law we discussed previously. An 18-year-old can have sex with another adult, a 17-year-old is a victim of "statutory rape" when that same event happens! There is nothing different in the two, other than one has met the arbitrary parameter we established by law, based on our moral judgment.

It does relate to physical maturity as the brain physically develops and that is the source of "maturity."

It is not based on their ability to know right from wrong. If you are 12 and you don't know about all there is to know on right and wrong then you are screwed. 18 is when we expect they are sufficiently responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions. It is not based on a moral prinicple but our knowledge of human development.

Hold on... I never said we are supposed to "consult religion" when establishing our laws! This is what you and Dumo WISH that I were saying, but not an argument I have ever made.

You have stated that all of our laws are based on religious morality, but no one consulted religion? Okay.

Individuals have the right to determine the laws they live by in a free society... on whatever basis their personal system of beliefs compels them to, regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable because it might happen to conform to their religious faith.

What? They absolutely don't have such a right.

You do NOT have the right to deny them this right, regardless of how many lies, and how much hyperbolic rhetoric and distortion you throw out there.... I support your right to express your opinion, and be opposed to them.... but you don't have the right to silence their political voices. Sorry!

You fucked it up badly, but what you mean is that the "majority has a right." Rights adhere to the individual. There is no right of a group independent of individual rights, you collectivist fool. And the indivdual doesn't have the right to initiate force against another or prohibit them from peaceful actions based on discriminatory criteria.

They can talk all they want, but religion, tradition and majority will are not sufficient to justify state action, retard, anymore than a politicians desire to hold a job amounts to a valid state interest.

 

[DamnYankee]

It must have been Dixie who suggested Civil Unions, however, whether or not Medicaid is constitutional is beside the point. If gays settle for anything less than marriage there will always be some program aimed at married couples from which they will be excluded. That was my point.

The Constitutionality is the point, since the issue of benefits to couples goes away when the initial usurpation goes away. We've got a bad law being made to correct the problems with an initial bad law.