Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[soulcougher73]

Of course I know what the word consent means.

I just do not see how the concept of consent is meaningful when applied to an animal.

So the animal told you to come fuck it?

 

[zsdersw]

I just do not see how the concept of consent is meaningful when applied to an animal.

With an animal consent cannot be determined. If consent cannot be determined it cannot be assumed to be given.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Please tell me how I am dictating my morals on them. Wait... Don't say because I post my opinions on these forums either because this isn't dictating.

Yesterday you claimed that people posting opinions contrary to yours was "mind control".

Have you had a change of heart?

 

[soulcougher73]

Really? I thought it started with an L(iberal).

Nope "hyprocrisy" starts with an H. Didnt think id have to spell if out for you. I dont know why i cant keep remembering that you need a helping hand at all times. My bad. Ill try better in the future to make my sentences idiot proof for you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Really? Ive read this whole thread. I know your position and what youve been trying to defend. You are not for SSM, your position is noted. Dont be mad i called you on your hypocrisy on dictating morals on others.

Again for repetition, giving my opinion is not pushing my morals on anyone.... It is NOT!

No I am not for SSM, so is being against something dictating or pushing my view onto someone? Could I say since you're for it you're pushing yours on me?

Thought not, move along.

 

[nehalem256]

So the animal told you to come fuck it?

With an animal consent cannot be determined. If consent cannot be determined it cannot be assumed to be given.

Again this is irrelevant.

Consent is a concept that only makes sense when applied to people.

The horse didn't give you consent to ride it. But for some reason that is considered okay.

The only difference between riding a horse and having sex with it is that you consider one to be "icky".

 

[Retro Rob]

Yesterday you claimed that people posting opinions contrary to yours was "mind control".

Have you had a change of heart?

This is just my opinion, Charles, when you want to put something into law, you're pushing it onto others who may not want it. Putting things into law doesn't mean it's a bad or unwise thing to do.

I'm not trying to put a legal ban on SSM, nor do I want to, so I ain't pushing a thing on you or anyone.

 

[zsdersw]

Again this is irrelevant.

Consent is a concept that only makes sense when applied to people.

The horse didn't give you consent to ride it. But for some reason that is considered okay.

The only difference between riding a horse and having sex with it is that you consider one to be "icky".

No it's not irrelevant. A horse cannot agree to be bound by government/legal/taxation rules nor can it agree to benefits. It cannot give consent to the conditions of legal marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

No it's not irrelevant. A horse cannot agree to be bound by government/legal/taxation rules nor can it agree to benefits. It cannot give consent to the conditions of legal marriage.

It cannot give consent to the conditions of YOUR ANIMALPHOBIC DEFINITION of legal marriage.

Either you believe the government cannot discriminate on marriage with regards to sexual orientation or you do not.

 

[zsdersw]

It cannot give consent to the conditions of YOUR ANIMALPHOBIC DEFINITION of legal marriage.

It cannot give consent no matter how you define marriage. Also, our Constitution doesn't give rights to or impose responsibilities on horses and other non-human animals. Until or unless that changes, using bestiality to argue against same-sex marriage is illogical.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh soulcaugher, as far as I see, your ilk are looking to force their view of marriage on the country by changing how marriage is defined. So who's trying to dictate to who?

 

[nehalem256]

It cannot give consent no matter how you define marriage.

And I as I have said the concept of consent only makes sense when applied to humans.

What do you not understand about that?

Did you miss the thread about the 15 year marrying the 90 year old in Saudi Arabia? It does not seem that consent is some of kind of fundamental requirement to marriage. And while requiring consent of all people in a marriage seems sensible, requiring consent of all animals in a marriage does not, as it is perfectly fine to force animals to do things without consent.

Also, our Constitution doesn't give rights to or impose responsibilities on horses and other non-human animals. Until or unless that changes, using bestiality to argue against same-sex marriage is illogical.

But it does give rights to people. People who are attracted to animals are people and have just as much right to marry as homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

[soulcougher73]

Again for repetition, giving my opinion is not pushing my morals on anyone.... It is NOT!

No I am not for SSM, so is being against something dictating or pushing my view onto someone? Could I say since you're for it you're pushing yours on me?

Thought not, move along.

Yes you are pushing them on me because you are supporting the in-equality we have regarding SSM.

Yes im pushing my equality for all morals on you. Enjoy.

 

[zsdersw]

And I as I have said the concept of consent only makes sense when applied to humans.

What do you not understand about that?

Did you miss the thread about the 15 year marrying the 90 year old in Saudi Arabia? It does not seem that consent is some of kind of fundamental requirement to marriage. And while requiring consent of all people in a marriage seems sensible, requiring consent of all animals in a marriage does not, as it is perfectly fine to force animals to do things without consent.

Saudi Arabia != America. And no, it is not perfectly fine to force animals to do things without their consent.

But it does give rights to people. People who are attracted to animals are people and have just as much right to marry as homosexuals and heterosexuals.

People have the right to marry other people, they do not have the right to marry (enter into a legally binding agreement) with a non-human, because the government and law cannot hold the non-human thing accountable for not meeting the expectations of the agreement.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is just my opinion, Charles, when you want to put something into law, you're pushing it onto others who may not want it. Putting things into law doesn't mean it's a bad or unwise thing to do.

I'm not trying to put a legal ban on SSM, nor do I want to, so I ain't pushing a thing on you or anyone.

But by supporting the ban on SSM you are allowing your morals to be pushed on us. What you should do is fight for SSM rights, but keep your beliefs that its wrong to yourself.

I mean how would you like to be born into a world that hetro-marriages were banned and unrecongized and you were as hetro as im assuming you are now?

And just so you know im as hetro as they come. Im married etc. I have no card in this game other than equality for others.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes you are pushing them on me because you are supporting the in-equality we have regarding SSM.

Yes im pushing my equality for all morals on you. Enjoy.

You mean unless that system of morality includes marrying animals

 

[soulcougher73]

Oh soulcaugher, as far as I see, your ilk are looking to force their view of marriage on the country by changing how marriage is defined. So who's trying to dictate to who?

I answered this below going in post order. But yes we are dictating our equality for all upon you. Enjoy. You want to discriminate. I dont. Big difference.

 

[nehalem256]

Saudi Arabia != America. And no, it is not perfectly fine to force animals to do things without their consent.

So you find riding horse to be morally reprehensible?

People have the right to marry other people, they do not have the right to marry (enter into a legally binding agreement) with a non-human, because the government and law cannot hold the non-human thing accountable.

People have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender

You want to add a new right marry a person of the same gender.

 

[soulcougher73]

And I as I have said the concept of consent only makes sense when applied to humans.

You realize you are defeating your own argument right? You just admitted consent only applies to humans, and marriage requires consent.

Put 2 and 2 together here.

Nevermind ill put it together for you. Almost forgot again. My bad.

If consent is required by our laws for marriage and consent only applies to humans then that means only humans can get married. Not animals, not objects.

Make sense now?

 

[soulcougher73]

You mean unless that system of morality includes marrying animals

See above post #344. Already debunked your arguement.

 

[soulcougher73]

People have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender

You want to add a new right marry a person of the same gender.

OMG THE HORROR!!. Equality and choices. Man that sucks.

 

[Retro Rob]

I answered this below going in post order. But yes we are dictating our equality for all upon you. Enjoy. You want to discriminate. I dont. Big difference.

Thanks for admitting that. Lol "enjoy"? I like that little jab. Sure will!

 

[soulcougher73]

Thanks for admitting that. Lol "enjoy"? I like that little jab. Sure will!

Youre welcome. I dont mind taking about my equality for all. Makes me feel good im going through life not being an ass trying to keep certain people from doing what they want to.

Id much rather be on my death bed knowing i wasnt a bigot or a person who discrimates because i find certain actions gross or wrong.

But enjoy your life of telling others how to live and what they can and cannot do with their life. And if you notice me wanting SSM does nothing to you. Im not telling you how to live. Freedom means nothing to you people.

 

[Retro Rob]

But by supporting the ban on SSM you are allowing your morals to be pushed on us. What you should do is fight for SSM rights, but keep your beliefs that its wrong to yourself.

I mean how would you like to be born into a world that hetro-marriages were banned and unrecongized and you were as hetro as im assuming you are now?

And just so you know im as hetro as they come. Im married etc. I have no card in this game other than equality for others.

How would I feel? Don't know. Bad hypothetical because homosexuality would have to be the norm and hetero the "abnormal" thing. The world would probably be a different place than what it is today. So I don't know, honestly.

Nice try though.

 

[soulcougher73]

How would I feel? Don't know. Bad hypothetical because homosexuality would have to be the norm and hetero the "abnormal" thing. The world would probably be a different place than what it is today. So I don't know, honestly.

Nice try though.

So you lack forward (critical) thinking skills. Got it.

I prefer to look at it as what 2 consenting adults do sexually as not "normal" or "abnormal". Whatever floats their boat, as long as they are adults and consenting i care less.

It shouldnt be that hard to imagine. Just imagine you cannot get married to who you love and are treated as a 2nd class citizen.