The Next Civil Rights Fight: They're Born That Way After All

jayem · Apr 18, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
That argument would suggest that banning pedophilia would be just as wrong...

If you think that, then you don't understand what I mean by sex discrimination as it's applicable to SSM. Consider this: If a state confers a certain legal status to an opposite sex couple, then what is it doing when it denies that status to a couple who are substantively alike in every way except they are of the same sex? The state is discriminating based on sex. It is denying equal treatment under the law to that couple by the sole criterion of the partners' genders. Now it's true that not all sex discrimination is unlawful. Men and women can have different public bathrooms, changing rooms, and many other accommodations. But the state should show that a legitimate and rational public interest is served if its laws apply to people differently based purely on their sex. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's impossible to do as regards the legal benefits of marriage. And a number of state supreme courts and legislatures have agreed. Which is why 9 states and DC recognize SSM.

I'm really curious to know how this argument would be at all applicable to adults having sex with children.

MachZer0 · Apr 18, 2013

jayem said:
If you think that, then you don't understand what I mean by sex discrimination as it's applicable to SSM. Consider this: If a state confers a certain legal status to an opposite sex couple, then what is it doing when it denies that status to a couple who are substantively alike in every way except they are of the same sex? The state is discriminating based on sex. It is denying equal treatment under the law to that couple by the sole criterion of the partners' genders. Now it's true that not all sex discrimination is unlawful. Men and women can have different public bathrooms, changing rooms, and many other accommodations. But the state should show that a legitimate and rational public interest is served if its laws apply to people differently based purely on their sex. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's impossible to do as regards the legal benefits of marriage. And a number of state supreme courts and legislatures have agreed. Which is why 9 states and DC recognize SSM.

I'm really curious to know how this argument would be at all applicable to adults having sex with children.

That seems to be a misrepresentation of reality since neither gender is prohibited from marrying. It's other factors upon which marriage is restricted, like age. This topic is about those who would argue that age should not be a factor, that those who want to marry minors are the subjects of discrimination, which of course they are.

jayem · Apr 18, 2013

MachZer0 said:
That seems to be a misrepresentation of reality since neither gender is prohibited from marrying. It's other factors upon which marriage is restricted, like age. This topic is about those who would argue that age should not be a factor, that those who want to marry minors are the subjects of discrimination, which of course they are.

It's a perfectly accurate representation of reality. A person is denied the status of marriage if he or she wants to marry someone of the same gender. This is a restriction based purely on sex. The issue then becomes whether the state has a legitimate and rational reason to justify this restriction. Nearly 10% of the states have determined that no such reason exists. And in time, more will do the same.

Of course there are other marriage restrictions based on age, and consanguinity, and number of partners, and being already married, and other things. But those are justified by different reasons. Commingling these with the same-sex prohibition is linking apples to eggplants, and hammers, and light bulbs, and diesel fuel. My point is that if the same-gender restriction is nullified, that doesn't mean that other restrictions--based on quite different rationales--are necessarily invalid and will also be abolished. There is no need to worry. I'm sure we can respond with proper discernment and good common sense if such challenges should arise.

Psudopod · Apr 19, 2013

That seems to be a misrepresentation of reality since neither gender is prohibited from marrying. It's other factors upon which marriage is restricted, like age. This topic is about those who would argue that age should not be a factor, that those who want to marry minors are the subjects of discrimination, which of course they are.

That's not what he's saying though. He's not saying men or women are prevented from marrying, he's saying person A is prevented from marrying person B on the basis of gender. There is no reason for this, where as preventing person A from marrying person B on the basis that B is too young to consent to this contract is a valid reason. Preventing person A from marrying person B because B was too old would be a discrininatory reason (if they were prevented because dementia prevented them from consenting that would be valid, though that is a matter of mental capacity, not age).

OllieFranz · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
That seems to be a misrepresentation of reality since neither gender is prohibited from marrying.

Mach's argument is based on the theory that a straight man can marry a woman but can't marry a man, and a gay man can marry a woman but can't marry a man, so everyone is equal. That is the same argument that the attorneys for the State of Virginia used in the Loving case; an argument the Supreme Court has already rejected.

And, yes, I know that homosexuality is not a race. and Oreo cookies are not checkers.

Archaeopteryx · Apr 19, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
Isn't there a saying about those whom don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

Considering these groups are now trying to push their agenda in schools, I got news for you people, children become adults. If enough children are indoctrinated into the line of thinking that pedophilia is okay, then odds are pedophilia will eventually be legalized.

This tactic has been used before by pro-homosexual marriage groups, and all the pro-pedophilia groups are doing is copying your tactics...

Saying that something suddenly will not work now, when it looks like it may work to ram "same sex marriage" through, doesn't make any sense...

By your logic, inter-racial marriage must be the real culprit here, since SSM proponents are apparently only copying their tactics.

MachZer0 · Apr 19, 2013

jayem said:
It's a perfectly accurate representation of reality. A person is denied the status of marriage if he or she wants to marry someone of the same gender. This is a restriction based purely on sex. The issue then becomes whether the state has a legitimate and rational reason to justify this restriction. Nearly 10% of the states have determined that no such reason exists. And in time, more will do the same.

Of course there are other marriage restrictions based on age, and consanguinity, and number of partners, and being already married, and other things. But those are justified by different reasons. Commingling these with the same-sex prohibition is linking apples to eggplants, and hammers, and light bulbs, and diesel fuel. My point is that if the same-gender restriction is nullified, that doesn't mean that other restrictions--based on quite different rationales--are necessarily invalid and will also be abolished. There is no need to worry. I'm sure we can respond with proper discernment and good common sense if such challenges should arise.

It's not really discrimination based on sex or gender because all genders ae allowed to marry. However, we're discussing here discrimination based on age which it is obvious that not all ages are allowed to marry. And the case is being argued by certain groups that they should be allowed to marry the persons they love and that they can't help that they love underage children because they are born that way.

MachZer0 · Apr 19, 2013

OllieFranz said:
Mach's argument is based on the theory that a straight man can marry a woman but can't marry a man, and a gay man can marry a woman but can't marry a man, so everyone is equal. That is the same argument that the attorneys for the State of Virginia used in the Loving case; an argument the Supreme Court has already rejected.

And, yes, I know that homosexuality is not a race. and Oreo cookies are not checkers.

I'm trying to get this thread back on topic which is about pedophilia, not homosexuality. Please cooperate.

Archaeopteryx · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
It's not really discrimination based on sex or gender because all genders ae allowed to marry. However, we're discussing here discrimination based on age which it is obvious that not all ages are allowed to marry. And the case is being argued by certain groups that they should be allowed to marry the persons they love and that they can't help that they love underage children because they are born that way.

Why would being born that way be sufficient?

MachZer0 · Apr 19, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
Why would being born that way be sufficient?

Good question, but that is the argument being made. Would you argue that being born that way is not sufficient reason to extend equal rights

Archaeopteryx · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
Good question, but that is the argument being made. Would you argue that being born that way is not sufficient reason to extend equal rights

I don't think it is a relevant point to make at all. It certainly isn't sufficient on its own for legislating child-adult marriages.

jayem · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
It's not really discrimination based on sex or gender because all genders ae allowed to marry. However, we're discussing here discrimination based on age which it is obvious that not all ages are allowed to marry. And the case is being argued by certain groups that they should be allowed to marry the persons they love and that they can't help that they love underage children because they are born that way.

I think within 900+ posts it's been answered several times that claiming an inborn tendency doesn't override another person's prerogative to give valid consent.

MachZer0 · Apr 19, 2013

jayem said:
I think within 900+ posts it's been answered several times that claiming an inborn tendency doesn't override another person's prerogative to give valid consent.

And during those 900 posts it's also been noted that the first step to be taken by those concerned will be to have the age of consent laws revoked. The arguments they will put forth are that they are "born that way" and that they should have the right to marry the person they love. Whether or not they will put forth other arguments remains to be seen. This is the beginning stages of what will be called a fight for equal rights

Archaeopteryx · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
And during those 900 posts it's also been noted that the first step to be taken by those concerned will be to have the age of consent laws revoked. The arguments they will put forth are that they are "born that way" and that they should have the right to marry the person they love. Whether or not they will put forth other arguments remains to be seen. This is the beginning stages of what will be called a fight for equal rights

What part of "claiming an inborn tendency doesn't override another person's prerogative to give valid consent" (jayem) don't you understand?

morningstar2651 · Apr 19, 2013

Are people still paying attention to Mach's fantasies?

morningstar2651 · Apr 19, 2013

morningstar2651 said:
Which is why I said "This thread leads me to believe otherwise".

In other words: "You don't want the age of consent to change"

Now, if we examine the rest of your posts in this thread, we see that you fear that it will, and that pedophiles will have free reign with America's children.

Now, I once again present your own post:

Just because you don't want the age of consent to change doesn't mean that it won't change - and you fear that it will change for the worst. You fear that if the age of consent changes, it will be lowered.

But this is an irrational fear. We have no reason to believe that the age of consent is going to be lowered. At all.

If we look at trends over the years, we actually see the age of consent rising. We see the exact opposite of what you fear will happen. In fact, if you go back too far, you find there was no age of consent, and that the first age of consent laws were meant to preserve the virginity of girls rather than protect children from abuse.

Children and Youth in History | Age of Consent Laws

MachZer0 said:
Perhaps you should just stick to the topic instead of trying to make it about what you perceive as my fears.

I'll say it again.

We have no reason to believe that the age of consent is going to be lowered. At all.

If we look at trends over the years, we actually see the age of consent rising. We see the exact opposite of what you fear will happen. In fact, if you go back too far, you find there was no age of consent, and that the first age of consent laws were meant to preserve the virginity of girls rather than protect children from abuse.

Children and Youth in History | Age of Consent Laws

Was that too hard to read?

morningstar2651 · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
And during those 900 posts it's also been noted that the first step to be taken by those concerned will be to have the age of consent laws revoked. The arguments they will put forth are that they are "born that way" and that they should have the right to marry the person they love. Whether or not they will put forth other arguments remains to be seen. This is the beginning stages of what will be called a fight for equal rights

We have no reason to believe that the age of consent is going to be revoked. At all.

If we look at trends over the years, we actually see the age of consent rising. We see the exact opposite of what you fear will happen. In fact, if you go back too far, you find there was no age of consent, and that the first age of consent laws were meant to preserve the virginity of girls rather than protect children from abuse.

So long as you fail to address this point, I will continue to make it.

jayem · Apr 19, 2013

MachZer0 said:
And during those 900 posts it's also been noted that the first step to be taken by those concerned will be to have the age of consent laws revoked. The arguments they will put forth are that they are "born that way" and that they should have the right to marry the person they love. Whether or not they will put forth other arguments remains to be seen. This is the beginning stages of what will be called a fight for equal rights

You're magnifying your fears unnecessarily. If any of that happens, I'm sure common sense will prevail. :wave:

MachZer0 · Apr 19, 2013

morningstar2651 said:
We have no reason to believe that the age of consent is going to be revoked. At all.

If we look at trends over the years, we actually see the age of consent rising. We see the exact opposite of what you fear will happen. In fact, if you go back too far, you find there was no age of consent, and that the first age of consent laws were meant to preserve the virginity of girls rather than protect children from abuse.

So long as you fail to address this point, I will continue to make it.

The argument made will revolve around equal rights. It will be a progressive argument hoping to gain small victories along the way until complete equality is achieved. It will take years and years, and I'm certain I won't be around to have to endure it

MachZer0 · Apr 19, 2013

jayem said:
You're magnifying your fears unnecessarily. If any of that happens, I'm sure common sense will prevail.

What fears?

The Next Civil Rights Fight: They're Born That Way After All

Naturalist

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Naturalist

Godspeed, Spacebat

Senior Member

Wanderer

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Wanderer

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Wanderer

Naturalist

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Wanderer

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Naturalist

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Similar threads