Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[Ravi]

Well, Pubic, you twist and turn so often that it is almost impossible to pick a rational argument out of your novellas.

You do not think homosexuality is unnatural but you do think that allowing gays to enter into civil unions with all the benefits of marriage will result in the destruction of society. Because? Do you think everyone will suddenly wish to be gay? Do you think forbidding it will somehow rid the world of gays? Do you think little Johnny will say, cool...I want to grow up and be gay? Or do you think gays will give up and become straight?

 

[Agnapostate]

So do we also opt to allow nutcases to marry their dogs as well? Peter Singer says yes!

That isn't true, Babble. Dogs lack the ability to provide informed consent to a binding legal contract.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Want to know what pisses me off, the anti-gay marriage folks telling MY religions who they can and can't marry.

Well THERE'S your problem kitty... First, no one is telling you who you can't marry... We're just telling you that to be MARRIED you need to make application wherein you establish in the application that the TWO individuals are or the distinct biological genders.... You can file application with ANYONE you can talk into marrying you... Ya see that's because Marriage is being equally applied to ALL individuals, without regard to race, creed, age, or sexual orientation...

Secondly, it seems that you're in the wrong department... you need to take complaints regarding the biological imperative, up with NATURE... She's the one that determined that homosexuality is a design of nature wherein those determined unsuitable from the genetic herd... are culled... thus determining, by default that you don't rise to the standard required in Marriage.

Of course, if you're merely seeking equitable economic privilege with that of normal people, you can incorporate with your 'most special friend'; wherein your 'union' will be recognized as a distinct separate legal entity...

It will not provide your deviancy with any sense of legitimacy... but neither would marriage, as a result of you being accepted for such would destroy, in and of that acceptance, the very concept of Marriage being associated with legitimacy...

Much as a Law Degree would lose it legitimacy if they started selling them at the 7-11; 3 for a Dollar... when the purchase of a fill-up.

No, you are dictating which religious values are more support through legislation.

Am I?

Where SPECIFICALLY am I making this claim?

I think you're confusing your invalid inference, which is a symptom of your DESPERATE need to redefine my argument, so you can advance one of the well worn obtuse defenses of the Atheist cult...

It's very reminiscent of the Good Doctor Newdow, obtusely arguing that his Christian daughter should not be exposed the Pledge of Allegiance due to its "...under God" phrase; this all resting upon the Establishment clause...

In fact, there is no actual correlation between the establishment clause and the potential for his claim... just as there is no actual correlation between your mythical assertion and my argument; but like Newdow, Ravi and the corps of idiots who can't advance a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in defense of their 'feelings'... you simply make these flaccid assertions and seek to buttress them through incessant demands that there's something to them...

Newdow did so right up to the SCOTUS... where he was sent packing, having been unsuccessful in his attempt to advance his specious reasoning.

But, by all means... you feel free to CITE THE SPECIFIC ELEMENT OF MY ARGUMENT wherein I've spoken to any religious tenet what so ever; which is so critical to your position...

But you should note the distinction between a religious tenet and a religious principle... the former promotes theocratic tendency, the other a viable culture.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, Pubic, you twist and turn so often that it is almost impossible to pick a rational argument out of your novellas.

You do not think homosexuality is unnatural but you do think that allowing gays to enter into civil unions with all the benefits of marriage will result in the destruction of society.

ROFLMNAO... Sure... repeat your thoroughly discredited argument... THAT ALWAYS RESULTS IN IT ESTABLISHING VALIDITY...

Of course, I've not argued that Homsexuality is not natural... so, AGAIN... this being the 15th or 16th time... THIS assertion is REFUTED... and with it the balance of the argument which hinges upon it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So do we also opt to allow nutcases to marry their dogs as well? Peter Singer says yes!

That isn't true, Babble. Dogs lack the ability to provide informed consent to a binding legal contract.

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Now you're free to contest that conclusion... and all you'll need to do so, is to show that consent is not a malleable legal threshold which rests upon manipulatable scientific concensus... and work it from there...

Best of luck to ya.

 

[Ravi]

Well, Pubic, you twist and turn so often that it is almost impossible to pick a rational argument out of your novellas.

You do not think homosexuality is unnatural but you do think that allowing gays to enter into civil unions with all the benefits of marriage will result in the destruction of society.

ROFLMNAO... Sure... repeat your thoroughly discredited argument... THAT ALWAYS RESULTS IN IT ESTABLISHING VALIDITY...

Of course, I've not argued that Homsexuality is not natural... so, AGAIN... this being the 15th or 16th time... THIS assertion is REFUTED... and with it the balance of the argument which hinges upon it.

Quit obviously you cannot read for comprehension. Try again.

 

[Ravi]

So do we also opt to allow nutcases to marry their dogs as well? Peter Singer says yes!

That isn't true, Babble. Dogs lack the ability to provide informed consent to a binding legal contract.

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Now you're free to contest that conclusion... and all you'll need to do so, is to show that consent is not a malleable legal threshold which rests upon manipulatable scientific concensus... and work it from there...

Best of luck to ya.

And here the numnut Pubic once again advances his belief that one group of people should be denied rights simply because it might make criminals demand rights.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That isn't true, Babble. Dogs lack the ability to provide informed consent to a binding legal contract.

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Now you're free to contest that conclusion... and all you'll need to do so, is to show that consent is not a malleable legal threshold which rests upon manipulatable scientific concensus... and work it from there...

Best of luck to ya.

And here the numnut Pubic once again advances his belief that one group of people should be denied rights simply because it might make criminals demand rights.

The Troll is challenged to cite the specific langauge in my position which serves to deny, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of anyone...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, Pubic, you twist and turn so often that it is almost impossible to pick a rational argument out of your novellas.

You do not think homosexuality is unnatural but you do think that allowing gays to enter into civil unions with all the benefits of marriage will result in the destruction of society.

ROFLMNAO... Sure... repeat your thoroughly discredited argument... THAT ALWAYS RESULTS IN IT ESTABLISHING VALIDITY...

Of course, I've not argued that Homsexuality is not natural... so, AGAIN... this being the 15th or 16th time... THIS assertion is REFUTED... and with it the balance of the argument which hinges upon it.

Quit obviously you cannot read for comprehension. Try again.

More obtuse obfuscation from the: TROLL!

 

[mattskramer]

So do we also opt to allow nutcases to marry their dogs as well? Peter Singer says yes!

That isn't true, Babble. Dogs lack the ability to provide informed consent to a binding legal contract.

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Now you're free to contest that conclusion... and all you'll need to do so, is to show that consent is not a malleable legal threshold which rests upon manipulatable scientific concensus... and work it from there...

Best of luck to ya.

Yet, cows can’t consent to being made into ground beef. Yet, we are not allowed to abuse cats and dogs. Yet we have circus elephants. It is all relative and based on consensus – what people are willing to tolerate – and that toleration changes from time to time. It used to be understood that women should not be allowed to vote. It used to be understood that blacks don’t get married to whites. My, how times have changed.

The STANDARD, a word that you often used, is based upon popular opinion. There is no rhyme or consistent reason to it – and it may change as time passes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That isn't true, Babble. Dogs lack the ability to provide informed consent to a binding legal contract.

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Now you're free to contest that conclusion... and all you'll need to do so, is to show that consent is not a malleable legal threshold which rests upon manipulatable scientific concensus... and work it from there...

Best of luck to ya.

Yet, cows can’t consent to being made into ground beef. Yet, we are not allowed to abuse cats and dogs. Yet we have circus elephants. It is all relative and based on consensus – what people are willing to tolerate – and that toleration changes from time to time. It used to be understood that women should not be allowed to vote. It used to be understood that blacks don’t get married to whites. My, how times have changed.

The STANDARD, a word that you often used, is based upon popular opinion. There is no rhyme or consistent reason to it – and it may change as time passes.

We don't ask Cows to consent to feed us, because cows are FOOD... We also don't need a Goats permission to screw it... thus the point... that 'consent' is a ruse...

We don't screw animals because such provides for the inter-species transmission of disease...

And we don't screw children, because CHILDREN ARE NOT SUITABLE TO BE SEXUALIZED BY ADULTS... PERIOD! AND WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT "SCIENCE" HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.

And of course standards are based upon popular consensus... Which is why I'm advocating for my position... to sway the consensus, to the extent of my means; and THIS based upon the FACT, that popularity does not a valid and sustainable standard make...

I have advanced my point of view... I have provided in substantial detail the basis of my reasoning...

And for the most part, with rare exception... The opposition has come to impart "Nuh huh..." And it just seems to me, that reason is served by the certainty that sound, well founded reasoning, trumps "Nuh huh ..." in terms of the opinions which are better suited to public standards...

 

[mattskramer]

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Now you're free to contest that conclusion... and all you'll need to do so, is to show that consent is not a malleable legal threshold which rests upon manipulatable scientific concensus... and work it from there...

Best of luck to ya.

Yet, cows can’t consent to being made into ground beef. Yet, we are not allowed to abuse cats and dogs. Yet we have circus elephants. It is all relative and based on consensus – what people are willing to tolerate – and that toleration changes from time to time. It used to be understood that women should not be allowed to vote. It used to be understood that blacks don’t get married to whites. My, how times have changed.

The STANDARD, a word that you often used, is based upon popular opinion. There is no rhyme or consistent reason to it – and it may change as time passes.

We don't ask Cows to consent to feed us, because cows are FOOD... We also don't need a Goats permission to screw it... thus the point... that 'consent' is a ruse...

We don't screw animals because such provides for the inter-species transmission of disease...

And we don't screw children, because CHILDREN ARE NOT SUITABLE TO BE SEXUALIZED BY ADULTS... PERIOD! AND WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT "SCIENCE" HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.

And of course standards are based upon popular consensus... Which is why I'm advocating for my position... to sway the consensus, to the extent of my means; and THIS based upon the FACT, that popularity does not a valid and sustainable standard make...

I have advanced my point of view... I have provided in substantial detail the basis of my reasoning...

And for the most part, with rare exception... The opposition has come to impart "Nuh huh..." And it just seems to me, that reason is served by the certainty that sound, well founded reasoning, trumps "Nuh huh ..." in terms of the opinions which are better suited to public standards...

Who is to say that cows are food? Blackie, my grandfather’s cow, was a pet. I hear that cat meat is good. Why don’t we eat cats? Cats can serve as food. I hear that in some places dog is a delicacy. Fish can be pets or fish can be food. Rabbit is quite tasty.

Why is it that we eat cow but not kitten? What is the standard or reason for the standard with respect to that? It sort of harkens back to my other question.

Alcohol is a mind-altering drug. Yet, we allow adults to drink it. Marijuana is a mind-altering drug. Why do we not allow people to smoke it?

Homosexual promiscuity is dangerous. Yet, heterosexual promiscuity is dangerous. Let’s play it safe and lock up people that are proven to be promiscuous regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

[Ravi]

ROFLMNAO... Sure... repeat your thoroughly discredited argument... THAT ALWAYS RESULTS IN IT ESTABLISHING VALIDITY...

Of course, I've not argued that Homsexuality is not natural... so, AGAIN... this being the 15th or 16th time... THIS assertion is REFUTED... and with it the balance of the argument which hinges upon it.

Quit obviously you cannot read for comprehension. Try again.

More obtuse obfuscation from the: TROLL!

Are you now trying to deny that you claimed homosexuality was not against nature?

 

[Agnapostate]

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

No, this is the problem that comes with your idiotic misinterpretations of basic English.

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

No, Pubicus. Informed consent is necessarily based on not only self-awareness (the ability to conceptualize one's own past, present, and future existence), but the ability to make rational calculations about the implications and consequences of the deed consented to, as well as the appropriate information that serves as a bedrock of rational analysis.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Hell, Pubicus, half the people here already think I do, so what difference does that make to me?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Quit obviously you cannot read for comprehension. Try again.

More obtuse obfuscation from the: TROLL!

Are you now trying to deny that you claimed homosexuality was not against nature?

Nope...

I'm simply noting that you're a TROLL who has relegated yourself to overt attempts to cloud the discussion through submitting obtuse misrepresentations of the arguments you'd otherwise love to contest.

Which is loathesome under any conditions, but that you're a site Mod whose JOB it is to PREVENT such, just makes it particularly loathesome.

 

[Agnapostate]

[Y]ou're a site Mod whose JOB it is to PREVENT such

No, she isn't. That said, I see you've maintained your typical penchant for accuracy.

 

[Ravi]

More obtuse obfuscation from the: TROLL!

Are you now trying to deny that you claimed homosexuality was not against nature?

Nope...

I'm simply noting that you're a TROLL who has relegated yourself to overt attempts to cloud the discussion through submitting obtuse misrepresentations of the arguments you'd otherwise love to contest.

Which is loathesome under any conditions, but that you're a site Mod whose JOB it is to PREVENT such, just makes it particularly loathesome.

You are such a fucking asshole...I am not a mod, dimwith.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Are you now trying to deny that you claimed homosexuality was not against nature?

Nope...

I'm simply noting that you're a TROLL who has relegated yourself to overt attempts to cloud the discussion through submitting obtuse misrepresentations of the arguments you'd otherwise love to contest.

Which is loathesome under any conditions, but that you're a site Mod whose JOB it is to PREVENT such, just makes it particularly loathesome.

You are such a fucking asshole...I am not a mod, dimwith.

You're NOT?

Great... Then you're in the ignore bin...

CYA...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And this is the problem which comes with not reading the THREAD...

No, this is the problem that comes with your idiotic misinterpretations of basic English.

Do tell? And by that mean to challenge you to cite the specific 'minsinterpretation of basic English' to which you're referring... as there's no actual point of relevance for such... so it's odd, for a non-idiot, that such would be asserted as relevant.

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

No, Pubicus. Informed consent is necessarily based on not only self-awareness (the ability to conceptualize one's own past, present, and future existence), but the ability to make rational calculations about the implications and consequences of the deed consented to, as well as the appropriate information that serves as a bedrock of rational analysis.

No Aggrevated Prostate... The scenario puts that horseshit ruse away... And HAD THE READ THE THREAD, you'd have noticed the two days that were spent DISCUSSING JUST THAT...

That you've returned to regurgitate a discredited point is your problem not mine... Here's the argument that eviscerated it... when you find a means to deal with it, get back to me:

The argument that animals and children cannot consent is a ruse... which seeks to cast a deceitful facade which appeals to popular opinion; to establish the respondent as being in adherance with conventional wisdom... that such cultural thresholds are resting on bed-rock, which they in NO WAY seek to alter... even as they advocacte to lay the foundation to provide for precisely that... In this case, that "CONSENT!" is an all incompassing standard which can never be altered... when in truth... consent merely stands upon a simple and quite changable legal threshold; a threshold which is established upon a scientific consensus... a consensus which is subject to change... particularly where the 'scientists' who determine such things are long standing advocates of that which contests that very legal threshold. All that's left to do at this point, is to soften the popular consensus that such deviancies are unacceptable... and they're doing that through the advocacy that homo-sexuality is not a sexual deviancy; that homo-sexuality is not 'abnormal'... that Homo-sexuality is merely an 'alternative lifestyle.' And one which is PERFECTLY suited to be anoited with every bit of cultural legitimacy as hetero-sexuality... thus suitable for marriage.

Thus your reasoning requires that where science DID determine such was possible, you, Angreaprostate... would therefore be obligated to accept as appropriate, the ensuing sexual relationships with Animals and Children by those who science would necessarily have concluded were NOT suffering a cognitive disorder, which provided for sexual gratification through coitus with Children and Animals.

Hell, Pubicus, half the people here already think I do, so what difference does that make to me?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

 

[Agnapostate]

Apparently your ability to use the quote feature isn't far more advanced than your ability to reason.