Gay marriage in... Utah? Update: on hold for now

[ninetailschris]

whatever said:

ninetailschris said:

Consent is a subjective term. If you can think to the ability to read or write that objectivly is consent based on medical terms.Some countries marrying  at 12 is perfectly ok. You're arguing from social norm. The only way I can see you argue otherwise is an appeal emotion in which you have prove your feelings are in fact objective, which is logical incoherent.

"Of course there is fear and hatred of homosexuals. "

This has nothing to do with what said as I was saying not everyone hates gays they can seemly disagree. Unless you want prove every single one hate homosexuals.

"As far as "protecting marraige", that's a joke. "

Asserted. You never explained why, besides it doesn't hurt you. If you read my recent post you will see how it actual effects the creditability of rights.  

"  If you don't support same-sex marraige, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.  But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules.  It's absurd."

Don't force your beliefs onto others? Do you realize you are contradicting yourself? If believe killing should be legal if your mad at the person would you say "If you don't support killing people, then don't kill someone. But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules.. It's absurd." That's a subjective opinions for you. In reality we all force morals onto people because if we didn't we would be killing each other and raping children if we pleased. That's how we have laws.Welcome to reality.

Just for let's use your sentence for multiple arguments you may not agree with.

"If you don't support pedophiles , then don't get married to someone who is younger.  But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules. It's absurd."

"If you don't support beastiality , then don't have sex to animals.  But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules. It's  absurd."

"If you don't support racism, then don't get talk to about it.  But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules."

"If you don't support slavery, then don't get slaves. But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules."

"If you don't support wars, then don't get involved wars. But don't force others that believe differently to live by your rules."

Now there are two ways I expect you to respond and hope you don't believe it will be logically incoherent.

1. It's not the because we think x is wrong therefor it is. 

2. You're wrong because your (insert insult about me personally and avoid the argument or my points)

What want from you is simple. Tell why your personal opinions will tell you are right over without using an appeal to emotion. Don't tell me that it makes you feel sad if x happens because honestly that is irrelevant and counter-factual. If I said I felt sad that abortion was wrong it doesn't make it right. So, please explain logically why your personal opinions are anymore true than the opposite claim without appeal to emotions. I could go into a deeper point but I'm going pretty easy on.

The ability to read is consent?  What are you talking about?  As for the age of consent, that has certainly been studied scientifically and while it will vary based on the individual, I'd like you to find anyone that would agree that 11 is a valid age of consent.

I am absolutely not contradicting myself.  I am not forcing my belief on you at all.  You can continue to believe that gay marraige is wrong.  I feel that religion is harmful, but I'm not about to try to ban it.

As for the remainder of your points, they differ from gay marraige in that 2 consenting adults getting married does not affect anyone else outside of those 2 parties in any way.  In each of your scenarios, that is not the case and so consent is absent in regards to the other party:

Killing: lack of consent from the one being killed.
Pedophilia: lack of consent of a child.
Bestiality: lack of consent of an animal.
Slavery: lack of consent of the slave.
War: impact on innocent civilians. collateral damage.  impacts on far more individuals than just those that decide to go to war.

So all of your scenarios are not even remotely the same as the issue at hand.

So why don't you tell me how 2 consenting adults, that you don't even know, getting married has any negative impact on you whatsoever.

The reason we are seeing rapid acceptance of gay marraige is because more people are being exposed to the fact that gays are not "perverted child molesters" that are out to get their children.  They are humans that deserve the same rights as anyone else. This will only continue to accelerate.  Welcome to reality.

"The ability to read is consent?  What are you talking about?  As for the age of consent, that has certainly been studied scientifically and while it will vary based on the individual, I'd like you to find anyone that would agree that 11 is a valid age of consent."

Who is anyone? In history, in science community, or society?  Historically many societies got married to children in 12-13 range hell even younger. You do realize there was points in society where people died around 22 on average,right? In Jewish tradition you become a man at 13 and believe women it was the same or younger (around 12). Why are they wrong? Because they didn't fit your personal classification? Why is it objectively wrong for men to marry kids at the age of constant at the age if it was perfectly ok then? You're being ageist. 

Scientifically if you can read and write you have ability to make rational decisions regardless of subjective norms. Many mental handicap people are at a lower intellect than a 12 year yet marry people of higher intelligence by far. Unless you want to claim that mental challenged people do not have consent than your arguing in a circle based on personal morals. If want to travel that road than your argument here is discrimination in the sense of intelligence. Children and mentally challenge deserve there basic human rights too. Could go into something deeper here if pushed but I highly doubt, unless will push it.

Let's ask some middle eastern, certain Asian countries, or certain South America countries if they agree with your terms on consent because they don't. Your argument about go ask people in Americas is an argument from society norm. Let's go ask nazis if Hitler was wrong at the time. Using social norms to prove something is wrong can't work because the society is already raised to believe certain things therefor arguing something is true from it is circular.

"I am absolutely not contradicting myself.  I am not forcing my belief on you at all.  You can continue to believe that gay marraige is wrong.  I feel that religion is harmful, but I'm not about to try to ban it."

Yes, you are contradicting yourself.  Anytime you affirm something, you at the same time have decline something. When you say want this to happen than you are saying I don't want this happen. When you say I want gay/beastily/pedophile marriages you are saying you can't ban this things and vise-versea therefor you are forcing your beliefs. Laws are made to force people to accept or reject things. I if I ban rape what am I saying? You must reject raping. If I unban rape I'm saying you must accept rape. Arguing oh it doesn't effect you. Doesn't work because if I made law that said kill every blonde child, well for a fact that will never affect me, but the avoids the more important question is it right? I could also make argument something affecting is a very subjective argument in the sense that you could not fully determine how or what affects based on any law. Secondly, are you claiming we make laws that only affect us personally? Would you like me to name some laws that we should get rid of that don't personally affect you. No because that would be silly. Thirdly, what makes your opinion on not effecting people valid beyond personal opinion. What objective moral law determines it true?

"Killing: lack of consent from the one being killed.

Pedophilia: lack of consent of a child.
Bestiality: lack of consent of an animal.
Slavery: lack of consent of the slave.
War: impact on innocent civilians. collateral damage.  impacts on far more individuals than just those that decide to go to war."

I hate do this because I was hoping not pull out my philosophy class on meta-ethics card, but this has been the elephant in the room. But why is not having constant objective at all and not your personal opinion? Pedophilie feels the child has consent or doesn't care, so why does it matter besides, you not liking it? Bestiality animals themselves don't follow consent laws nor care, why is your opinion objective that it wrong when they don't care. Slavery if the slave owner doesn't care why does your opinion matter more than him? Your opinion verse his, why are you more moral than him beside personal moral ideas in your head. Give proof that your opinion is more than just another opinion. Don't bother using bandwagon fallacy because we already proved why that is incoherent and could justify anything.War can also be highly profitable for certain countries like during the depression the war helped many from being unemployed. Why should I care objectively that others get hurt if I can come out better in the end? Maybe war is good because I can get more land for my people and money. Why is your opinion I'm wrong anymore valid than mine. You live where you because of war unless your going to give your land back to the natives. But you won't because it's not social advantageous,is it? Your home and life so you can play videos games was only possible because of War therefor unless you are willing to give it up,because of all the poor non-consent people who died for it, you are contradicting yourself for your own benefit and hiding behind it by simply by protect yourself and proclaiming it to be moral. Every argument you made is based on personal benefit and you yourself live by that way. So, why not just live in total self-benefit? 

Basically, why is your standard at all the more valid than anyone else? Apparently you have this black and white moral objective laws that I haven't seen but you keep on pushing onto me. If you can't prove that morally your right than what worth is your morals that you made up and why are pushing it on me? Why peach me your morals when you can't prove them true yourself? You can't even prove killing is wrong without contradicting yourself or showing why it is objectively wrong.