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

[ninetailschris]

whatever said:

ninetailschris said:

"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.

 

"I hate do this because I was hoping not pull out my philosophy class on meta-ethics card..."

So this tells me you will soon follow with incoherent babbling, and you certainly obliged.  I provide you with solid legal and moral reasons for why your scenarios don't apply, and you follow with nothing.  The pedophile "thinks" the child is consenting, that's a rational argument to you?  The slave owner doesn't care?  That's not what I was arguing, so it's irrelevant.  I was arguing that you don't have 2 consenting parties.  I guess that went over your head.

So let's see where we are.  I've argued that I should have no legal or moral say in what 2 consenting adults do in private, whether I agree with it or not.  No personal bias or emotion.  And you've argued, well..., you haven't argued anything.  You didn't answer my question about how 2 consenting adults, that you don't even know, getting married has any negative impact on you whatsoever.  Please don't bother responding unless you intend to answer.  Because if you can't answer this without any personal belief or emotion, then you have no basis for your opinion that gay marriage should be illegal.

"So this tells me you will soon follow with incoherent babbling, and you certainly obliged."

Let me explain something that everyone seems to not understand. The arguments I make come straight in a sense from scholarly articles I read on meta-ethics. Example: Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. A good read for those who don't understand meta-ethics or understand how to frame morality in a coherent way.

Define my terms for those confused or want simple layman understanding.

objective truth: true regardless of personal opinions.

subjective: based on personal opinions.

Meta-ethics: The study of the foundation of morally. Why do we consider certain morals true and why are they true.

Morality: the standard by which we consider what is right or wrong.

Social Norm: something we consider right because of our own society. Not necessarily true for other societies to be considered true.

Circular reasoning: to assume the conclusion into the argument itself.

Bandwagon fallacy: to say something is right because the majority agrees. (I.e God exist because there more who believe than don't)

"I provide you with solid legal"

I will explain my points in simpler terms and in layman format. If you don't understand still please tell me and I will gladly try to further explain in depth for you in a easier way. Ok, let's begin. What is the problem with from arguing from legal stance on why your morality is true? The reason why it is incoherent is that it argues from a social norm which is really a bandwagon fallacy that is circular in reason. Let's explain why. When you argue that x( x being the legal law) is true because of x says it's true, your arguing your conclusion into the arguement. Let me further explain with deductive reasoning:

1. If x is legally wrong than it is morally wrong.

2. X is legally wrong.

3. Therefor, X is morally wrong.

This is your argument. That because in America it is legally wrong( consent) than it is morally wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, ok? So, that sounds like a logically coherent argument right? Well, no. Why? You haven't answered the question why is the legal law itself true. We are forced to believe that the law itself is objective. But why? Is it because many people agree? Well we know that can't be true because than that would lead to more problems like is anything right because it's agreed with the most. When people change from agreeing to disagreeing on that stance is it both true and false at the time? Obvious not because that go against logic number one law the law of non-contradiction. The idea that nothing can be both true and false. So, is it right because it's right? No, because they would just be arguing in circle were anyone could claim anything true if they proclaim it. But, wait maybe you feel that it is so obvious that it's like self-evident? Here is problem can you really prove that is without a shadow of doubt that isn't based on your own personal morality or random decision based on nothing more than chance. What do I mean by chance? I am saying is, simple is it true because it's actually true (objective) or that the current society just picked and could likely change they morality like most societies do(subjective).

Let's use your own argument. Is consent right because it's legally right or is just difference of opinion. Well to give you the maximum chance of testing this to be true, I will not use other countries. I will use good ole' USA.  Does the USA actually promote the idea of consent is what determines sex or marriage? Wait.. let me do one more thing to further help your claim. I will not use an argument from mentally challenge people. Seem fair? Hopefully I maximized this experiment in your favor. Wait... let's use a issues you claimed to be true about, how about beastlity and consent? Ok, so let's the do the experiment ! What are our factors in this? The issue must be about beastlity and only about beastlity. I can't use societies besides America. No, using animal moral laws only the United States. So, does the United States have a self-evident belief that beastlity is wrong because of consent. Let's see what the results conclude!

-scanning-

Well I have some bad news for you seems the United States failed the test.

How? Over ten states have legalized beastlity and there are actually more states that legalized then in previous history. Guess how? Through the courts. Apparently the animals have enough consent for me to have some fun with them. Let's name states. Florida, Hawaii,Iowa,Kectucky,Louisiana,Missouri,Arizona,Colorado, Connecticut,Montana, etc. Shows to me that consent does not stop love. You argued that this things don't exist in the perfect law and consent was so highly viewed. Your own country doesn't agree with your terms on morality, other societies don't, and I don't? Why are you right. What is there left to defend? Nothing exist for you to defend. Bet most of the people reading my reply on my pedophile not caring about consent are not going to reply to this? What are you going to say? The animal has more consent then 11 year old. I can have sex with my horse but that child no way he is highly underdeveloped compared to that horse in intelligence or consent. Consent becomes just a buzzword at this point doesn't. Are we going to pretend that I never wrote this and we truly believe in consent? I live in Florida right now I could invite a cop over my house to have sex with any animal. Maybe a dog I just bought or maybe my beautiful horse. Think about that and read that slowly 3 times. Tell, me you think law is objectivly in any sense. Why don't I invite you over my house and watch a dog have sex with another human and than look me in eyes and tell "well that's the law and they agree it's ok, it has enough consent to ok this." They believe consent doesn't matter. The judge. The person having sex with the animal. The people who believe no matter what the law if it's a law and it was agreed upon, it's right. Doesn't effect you? We have two consenting creatures having sex what's the problem? The problem living by the law as the objective moral it's like the saying of warriors in ancient past "live by sword, die by the sword". You will realize real quick this world does agree on any one issue completely even in your own society and the quicker realize that you accept that the more time you have re-think your beliefs. Who do you have besides yourself to convince that constant matters to anyone. Every law made by humans are in self-interest it's time to drink that morning coffee and wake up.

"Because if you can't answer this without any personal belief or emotion, "

This is my point and my problem with secularism is that you can't get any moral truths. You left either going with flow or whatever or giving up on morals. When look the problem of secularism is we don't know why anything is wrong and we try to speak up for your morals you will be flooded by the voices of "what is right for and what's right for me." There is nothing that transcends any one person opinion because it's all relative. We have to stop and say what do I really believe?

Personal note: I hope you didn't believe I attacked in any of my discussions. I only wanted to attack your arguments. I have no problems with you personally and I actually enjoyed debating you. In philosophy there is a saying "attack the arguments not the man". Anytime I used ignorant or incoherent I am saying your argument is incoherent and ignorant of the facts. People tend to think those words means they think the person is stupid or incompendent. But fact is ignorance is biss with everyone and that includes me. If it seems I pushed to hard it was because I was trying for you see my point of view. When reading your work I tried to see things from your point of view instead of just pushing my points. I'm truly sorry if I offended you or you felt I thought less of you. I want to stress I do not care to attack you as person my desires are to attack your arguments as you know the Internet is hard to show how on truly feels. I hope I am able to convert that message with this post. I had a lot fun debating you. I look forward to your response. Thank you.