The future of marriage

Selling newspapers?Oh, I'm sorry. Was that not as interesting as your kooky liberal "culture war" conspiracy theories?

Well, are they trying to force you to be married to a man, or are you trying to prevent them from being married to each other?Let the outcome be your guide if you really aren't sure who's trying to force what on whom.

That's your argument? Child molestation is bad, therefore we have to make sure that there's only one penis and one vagina in any marriage between adults?Congratulations, I guess, on figuring out how to create a whole page's worth of statements in grammatically correct English that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Where's the evidence for your assertion that preventing same-sex marriage will reduce the incidence of sexual abuse of children?

Yeah, I tell ya, when I get going there's no telling what kind of paperwork I'll file. Once I got a parking ticket and before I knew it, I had registered 2 houses with the National Registry of Historic Places, filed seventeen FOIA requests with the State Department, submitted six patents, and created a corporate entity in the state of Nevada. Why, it's a wonder I'm not divorced already!

Yeah. I was responding with a counterargument to the assertion that people get divorced "on a whim" because they're angry and aren't in control of their faculties - which was completely on-topic. I do get to advance on-topic arguments "with impunity", whatever that's supposed to mean.What, exactly, is the issue here?

What's your evidence for that, exactly? Rap music and low-rider jeans?Where the fuck did you grow up? With the Amish? What, you didn't wear a leather jacket and listen to the Big Bopper while your parents and their peers clucked in disapproval?Do you really think you're the first old-timer to be convinced that there's "something wrong with these kids, these days"? Christ.

No, seriously. Answer the question. You've offered rap music and wardrobe choices as evidence of the dissolution of the American family, but those don't make any sense to me. Kids have been listening to noise and offending their parents looking like reprobates for literally all time. Somehow we survived when you did it to bug your parents. How come it's different, now? How aren't you just being a grumpy old man about it?You don't get to label a question "troll" just because you don't want to deal with legitimate rebuttals to your position.

Very easily, like this - "sex is sex."

You know, for all that is made about our "desperate schools", the vast majority of Americans are graduates of American public high schools, including the majority that goes on to have at least some college. And we're the richest nation on Earth.What you're describing are the symptoms of poverty, not of a lack of family - which it is still the case that almost everybody still has. The schools you're describing are in poor areas, correct? Let's look at poverty and its causes, rather than sticking it to the gays in a hope that, if we bash enough homosexuals, somehow it'll solve all our problems. Did that ever work before? And you don't think people used drugs when you were a kid? What's your evidence for this assertion? It seems as many people have families now as they ever did then. Equality is always socially redeeming.

What the fuck are you talking about? Don't you ever read the Bible? There's nothing more traditional or godly than polygamous marriage.

Bestiality is weird, but commonly practiced (and it's no worse than how most people treat their pets - we're just talking about dumb animals), but I don't understand how you see pedophilia included under the 14th amendment. How does "equal protection under the law" form a basis for the protection of lawbreakers?Of course, pedophiles are entitled to equal protection under the law - equal to all other criminals, and shouldn't be subject to any worse conditions than those it's determined they should be sentenced to by a court of law, consistent with the protections against cruel and unusual punishment by our courts.The 14th amendment doesn't protect behaviors, it protects people. I don't see how any reasonable person could get the reading that you suggest, which makes me suspect you're being purposefully disingenuous. No, not just due process - all rights. Including the right of two adults to marry, as recognized as a right by the Supreme Court. Are you really finding it that hard to read that you see pedophilia where there is none but can't see the phrase "equal protection under the law"?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Reading problems? I don't see the relevance. Legally children can't consent to intercourse, which makes intercourse with them rape.What's the relevance of whether or not they enjoy it? What's the relevance of a pedophile's justification? True, but I don't see the relevance. The 14th amendment guarantees equality under the law. What does that have to do with pedophiles grooming children for abuse? There's no right for anyone to commit a crime, and sex with a child is a crime whether your a pedophile or not. Sex with animals is a property crime.But marriage? Your assertion is that it's illegal for people to get married? I don't see how that's true. Marriage is a right, that's the determination of the Supreme Court based on the constitution. If it's a right, then it has to be extended to gay couples the same as it's extended to straight ones, so that they can enjoy equal protection under the law - as the 14th amendment mandates.What's so hard to understand about that? There is a right for homosexuals to marry; it's right there, included in the 14th amendment. Either gays have the right to marry, or straights don't. You can't have it both ways - says the 14th amendment. Now you're just repeating yourself. I already showed you how this isn't true.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure there's a vast history of jurisprudence that I'm ignorant of, but I can only interpret the text as it is written in front of me; with the understanding that that's the caveat that should be understood to appear anytime I talk about the law, that's what it looks like the 14th amendment means.Equal protection under the law. I can't speak for official legal understanding, or whatever, but plenty of the organizations who advocate for marriage equality invoke the 14th amendment as part of that reasoning.

I asked you this before and you had no answer for me. Where do you see in the 14th amendment the right to commit crimes, such as rape?As it stands now, of course, even a pedophile has more of a right to get married than two gay adults. As long as you can convince the child's parents to agree, the pedophile can marry their victim, as long as they're not of the same sex.So I don't understand where you're going with this. Children can't consent to sex. Pedophiles are protected under the 14th amendment; they can't be subject to harsher penalties than anybody else convicted of raping a child. (Equal protection under the law.) Society is just going to suddenly accept rape? Why? If anybody's pushing for the legitimacy of rape, it's conservatives - not liberals. Just witness the furor anytime a man is convicted of raping a woman, from the conservative camps: "she deserved it," "men can't be held responsible for their actions when a woman is dressed that way," "it was consensual sex that she later regretted."It's all nonsense that conservatives use to legitimize rape. If there's anybody who's actively pushing for the legitimacy of rape, it's the same people who oppose gay marriage - not it's supporters. Only if you can't read, I guess. How do you get the right to rape out of "equal protection under the law"?

Hey, that's right.Gosh, maybe that means the "argument from what's traditional" is a pretty piss-poor means to determine what we should or shouldn't do? You know, the argument you just made and now you're retreating from?