It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

 

[Montrovant]

... until a mere 12 years ago, it was still illegal to have homosexual sex in some places. Now, suddenly, you are talking about present day?

You're right, today, it is unconstitutional to arrest someone for being gay or having sex with someone of the same gender. That doesn't mean that everything is now hunky-dory, gays are treated equally...

Wow... just like, today, it is illegal for adults to have sex with children, incest is illegal and ******* animals is illegal. Consent means Consent and marriage is now based on legitimization of your sexual preferences.... A mere 12 years from now, the law could be very different. Thank you!

I hate to break this to you but gays are never going to be treated equally. Changing the definition of marriage is not "treating equal" it is making an exception, the epitome of "treating equal." It is explicitly singling out homosexuals to bestow a right to something they didn't have before. So through this, you've also seemingly redefined "equal treatment" as well as "marriage." Now, equal treatment means we have to change things to accommodate others. All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated... those groups have to be made equal. Laws have to be changed.

Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?

I've always thought the argument for equal treatment when it comes to same sex marriage was strongest based on gender. Men have been allowed to marry women. Women are denied that same right without a compelling reason. And vice versa. That seems to be a form of discrimination based on gender. However, I believe the argument ended up more along the lines of because two consenting adults can enter into a marriage contract if they are of opposite genders, there needs to be a compelling state interest to prevent two consenting adults of the same gender from entering into a marriage contract, and there is not.

With polygamy, no one is allowed to enter into a marriage contract of more than 2 people, so there is no question of unequal treatment. With pedophilia or bestiality, no one is allowed to enter into a marriage contract that cannot legally consent.

I understand that many people think things were equal in that all men were able to marry women and all women were able to marry men. The courts disagreed with that. Sorry, but it does not make all forms of romantic or sexual union suddenly able to enter into a legal marriage.

 

[Boss]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

 

[Boss]

Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?

No... I think that other similar sexual lifestyles will now start to 'come out of the closet' and push for their "rights" to be legitimized through marriage, same as homosexuals. They will do this using the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, and I have warned of this from the beginning.

Next up are the Polygamists, they've already started "petitioning for redress" and there is no stopping this choo-choo baby.... it's going to continue. After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.... Oh my! Boss, you're just being an alarmist, that'll never happen... yet we're only 12 years removed from homosexuality being illegal. Am I being an alarmist? Read your Constitution... you've legitimized homosexuality through marriage... the consequence of that action is something society is going to regret and it will happen very quickly.

 

[Montrovant]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law. This has already been said, probably many, many times on this site, including multiple times in this thread. Pedophilia is illegal. Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality, at least since 2003, is not. Therefore, two same sex adult partners have a perfectly legal relationship before they decide to marry. If pedophilia is ever legalized, you might have a point. If bestiality is ever legalized, you might have a point. That you are afraid they will seems to indicate an irrational fear, perhaps simply of change, perhaps of homosexuality being accepted, who knows?

S&M is legal, and people who engage in it are and have been able to marry. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about S&M as though it is illegal or considered somehow less acceptable than homosexuality. What other sexual proclivities do you think homosexuality is considered more "okay" to engage in? Perhaps you are blind and deaf, but let me try to explain : until recently, almost any heterosexual sex acts were considered more "okay" than homosexuality to a large portion of the populace. They may still be considered more "okay", or more palatable, to a large portion of the populace. Your intimation that homosexuality is suddenly more acceptable than the myriad forms of sexual activity performed by heterosexuals (and, in most cases I would think, homosexuals as well) is both ridiculous and without evidence that I am aware of.

If you honestly do not see a compelling reason for the state to exclude pedophilia and bestiality from marriage than you not only do not understand consent, you are simply a fool. I think you are just using hyperbole to try and make a point; I hope it is simply hyperbole.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually... in reality...

In terms of compelling public interests, homosexuality is the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible. Thus based upon homosexuality deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard, which is established the human physiological design, the licensing of homosexuality represents the greatest threat to the public interest, where the subjects remain exclusively human.

Therefore, the public forfeited all means to reasonably hold to any public sexual standard, when it licensed the homosexual degeneracy. As no other human sexual deviancy represents a threat which is potentially more damaging to the public than homosexuality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.

Here's the thing on that... and that is that where a culture begins to separate it's laws from accepted morality, the culture is in its final phase. Which historically speaking, such has been the period where the dying culture also embraces, thus normalizes sexual deviancy.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually... in reality...

In terms of compelling public interests, homosexuality is the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible. Thus based upon homosexuality deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard, which is established the human physiological design, the licensing of homosexuality represents the greatest threat to the public interest, where the subjects remain exclusively human.

Therefore, the public forfeited all means to reasonably hold to any public sexual standard, when it licensed the homosexual degeneracy. As no other human sexual deviancy represents a threat which is potentially more damaging to the public than homosexuality.

How is homosexuality going to be so damaging to the public? How is it "the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible"? Why do you add commas in such strange places?

 

[Montrovant]

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.

Here's the thing on that... and that is that where a culture begins to separate it's laws from accepted morality, the culture is in its final phase. Which historically speaking, such has been the period where the dying culture also embraces, thus normalizes sexual deviancy.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling or unable to accept that the accepted morality changes over time and the laws change to reflect that.

Of the many nations and cultures that have come and gone throughout history, how many normalized homosexuality right before they ended?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually... in reality...

In terms of compelling public interests, homosexuality is the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible. Thus based upon homosexuality deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard, which is established the human physiological design, the licensing of homosexuality represents the greatest threat to the public interest, where the subjects remain exclusively human.

Therefore, the public forfeited all means to reasonably hold to any public sexual standard, when it licensed the homosexual degeneracy. As no other human sexual deviancy represents a threat which is potentially more damaging to the public than homosexuality.

How is homosexuality going to be so damaging to the public?

Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, specifically sociopathy; wherein the individuals 'needs' are set above the interests of others.

We see this trait played out throughout our culture everyday now... with homosexuals effectively DARING people to refuse to serve them or to issue them licenses for that which they are wholly unsuited and which stands in direct opposition to people's most closely held principles... often costing them their financial well-being and in some instances their very liberty.

Now that is second only to the endless evidence of homosexual proclivities in the sexual molestation of children, which has in many instances resulted in the child taking its own life... .

How is it [homosexuality] "the most deviant form of sexual deviancy, humanly possible"?

Human physiology provides two distinct but complementing genders... each, respective and specifically designed to join with the other.

Homosexuals, by succumbing to their obsessive cravings for sexual gratification through sexual interaction with members of their own gender, they are deviating a full 180 degrees from the human sexual standard. Where the subjects remain exclusively human, there is no means possible to further deviate from the human sexual standard than homosexuality.

You're invited to offer some example of sexual behavior that deviates further from the human sexual standard. Don't sweat it... I'll be here for ya.

(FYI: Commas represent a pause... Hope that helps.)

 

[Boss]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law. This has already been said, probably many, many times on this site, including multiple times in this thread. Pedophilia is illegal. Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality, at least since 2003, is not. Therefore, two same sex adult partners have a perfectly legal relationship before they decide to marry. If pedophilia is ever legalized, you might have a point. If bestiality is ever legalized, you might have a point. That you are afraid they will seems to indicate an irrational fear, perhaps simply of change, perhaps of homosexuality being accepted, who knows?

S&M is legal, and people who engage in it are and have been able to marry. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about S&M as though it is illegal or considered somehow less acceptable than homosexuality. What other sexual proclivities do you think homosexuality is considered more "okay" to engage in? Perhaps you are blind and deaf, but let me try to explain : until recently, almost any heterosexual sex acts were considered more "okay" than homosexuality to a large portion of the populace. They may still be considered more "okay", or more palatable, to a large portion of the populace. Your intimation that homosexuality is suddenly more acceptable than the myriad forms of sexual activity performed by heterosexuals (and, in most cases I would think, homosexuals as well) is both ridiculous and without evidence that I am aware of.

If you honestly do not see a compelling reason for the state to exclude pedophilia and bestiality from marriage than you not only do not understand consent, you are simply a fool. I think you are just using hyperbole to try and make a point; I hope it is simply hyperbole.

AGAINNNN.... YOU JUST POINTED OUT that homosexuality was illegal 12 years ago! Within 12 years, we've gone from it being illegal to having it legitimized through marriage as a Constitutional right. You are telling me that I don't need to worry about these other similar sexual preferences because... they're illegal!

Sorry, but I am a little concerned. Because, frankly... I don't see the difference between a person who prefers sex with same gender partners and a person who prefers sex with anything else. I understand "consent" but that is just a word that we can define to mean virtually anything we please at this point... it doesn't mean jack shit!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.

Here's the thing on that... and that is that where a culture begins to separate it's laws from accepted morality, the culture is in its final phase. Which historically speaking, such has been the period where the dying culture also embraces, thus normalizes sexual deviancy.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling or unable to accept that the accepted morality changes over time and the laws change to reflect that.

Of the many nations and cultures that have come and gone throughout history, how many normalized homosexuality right before they ended?

Morality is little more than the soundly reasoned recognition of natural principles, or laws of nature that govern human behavior.

Natural laws are immutable; meaning that they do not change.

What changes is the respect for or awareness of those laws by the people in play at any given moment.

That a given generation is incapable of recognizing these laws, or rejects the existence of such... is irrelevant to the exist of the laws. And as you may have heard, ignorance of the law is not a viable defense.

But the simple reality is, that without regard to whether the departure from respect for and adherence to natural law is out of ignorance or hubris, the consequences for failing to adhere to such remains in full force and effect.

And there is no potential upside for having failed to adhere to the laws of nature that govern human behavior... and there is no point in human history where a culture has profited from such. What's more, no culture that has turned from such, has survived.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law. This has already been said, probably many, many times on this site, including multiple times in this thread. Pedophilia is illegal. Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality, at least since 2003, is not. Therefore, two same sex adult partners have a perfectly legal relationship before they decide to marry. If pedophilia is ever legalized, you might have a point. If bestiality is ever legalized, you might have a point. That you are afraid they will seems to indicate an irrational fear, perhaps simply of change, perhaps of homosexuality being accepted, who knows?

S&M is legal, and people who engage in it are and have been able to marry. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about S&M as though it is illegal or considered somehow less acceptable than homosexuality. What other sexual proclivities do you think homosexuality is considered more "okay" to engage in? Perhaps you are blind and deaf, but let me try to explain : until recently, almost any heterosexual sex acts were considered more "okay" than homosexuality to a large portion of the populace. They may still be considered more "okay", or more palatable, to a large portion of the populace. Your intimation that homosexuality is suddenly more acceptable than the myriad forms of sexual activity performed by heterosexuals (and, in most cases I would think, homosexuals as well) is both ridiculous and without evidence that I am aware of.

If you honestly do not see a compelling reason for the state to exclude pedophilia and bestiality from marriage than you not only do not understand consent, you are simply a fool. I think you are just using hyperbole to try and make a point; I hope it is simply hyperbole.

AGAINNNN.... YOU JUST POINTED OUT that homosexuality was illegal 12 years ago! Within 12 years, we've gone from it being illegal to having it legitimized through marriage as a Constitutional right. You are telling me that I don't need to worry about these other similar sexual preferences because... they're illegal!

Sorry, but I am a little concerned. Because, frankly... I don't see the difference between a person who prefers sex with same gender partners and a person who prefers sex with anything else. I understand "consent" but that is just a word that we can define to mean virtually anything we please at this point... it doesn't mean jack shit!

Sure looks like a slippery slope to me... closer to an ice laden cliff.

 

[Montrovant]

Yep, the law might be different in 12 years. Unless you are advocating making laws immutable, however, I don't see your point. Are you afraid that people are going to see homosexuality being accepted and decide that they should work to change sexual consent laws?

No... I think that other similar sexual lifestyles will now start to 'come out of the closet' and push for their "rights" to be legitimized through marriage, same as homosexuals. They will do this using the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, and I have warned of this from the beginning.

Next up are the Polygamists, they've already started "petitioning for redress" and there is no stopping this choo-choo baby.... it's going to continue. After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.... Oh my! Boss, you're just being an alarmist, that'll never happen... yet we're only 12 years removed from homosexuality being illegal. Am I being an alarmist? Read your Constitution... you've legitimized homosexuality through marriage... the consequence of that action is something society is going to regret and it will happen very quickly.

Again, until

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law. This has already been said, probably many, many times on this site, including multiple times in this thread. Pedophilia is illegal. Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality, at least since 2003, is not. Therefore, two same sex adult partners have a perfectly legal relationship before they decide to marry. If pedophilia is ever legalized, you might have a point. If bestiality is ever legalized, you might have a point. That you are afraid they will seems to indicate an irrational fear, perhaps simply of change, perhaps of homosexuality being accepted, who knows?

S&M is legal, and people who engage in it are and have been able to marry. It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about S&M as though it is illegal or considered somehow less acceptable than homosexuality. What other sexual proclivities do you think homosexuality is considered more "okay" to engage in? Perhaps you are blind and deaf, but let me try to explain : until recently, almost any heterosexual sex acts were considered more "okay" than homosexuality to a large portion of the populace. They may still be considered more "okay", or more palatable, to a large portion of the populace. Your intimation that homosexuality is suddenly more acceptable than the myriad forms of sexual activity performed by heterosexuals (and, in most cases I would think, homosexuals as well) is both ridiculous and without evidence that I am aware of.

If you honestly do not see a compelling reason for the state to exclude pedophilia and bestiality from marriage than you not only do not understand consent, you are simply a fool. I think you are just using hyperbole to try and make a point; I hope it is simply hyperbole.

AGAINNNN.... YOU JUST POINTED OUT that homosexuality was illegal 12 years ago! Within 12 years, we've gone from it being illegal to having it legitimized through marriage as a Constitutional right. You are telling me that I don't need to worry about these other similar sexual preferences because... they're illegal!

Sorry, but I am a little concerned. Because, frankly... I don't see the difference between a person who prefers sex with same gender partners and a person who prefers sex with anything else. I understand "consent" but that is just a word that we can define to mean virtually anything we please at this point... it doesn't mean jack shit!

If you think consent is meaningless you may be a danger to those around you.

Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?

I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity. When arranged marriages without the consent of one or both participants were outlawed, some probably cried about how the morals of society were going to ruin and the end was nigh. When interracial marriages were made legal, some ranted about the evil and immorality of it and how it would lead to depravity throughout the culture.

I'm telling you you don't have to worry about pedophilia and bestiality because they involve parties unable to give consent. Homosexuality is not about ability to consent. It is still illegal to have homosexual relations where one of the parties is underage. It was illegal for two consenting adults to have homosexual sex. Again, if you think that consent is going to be thrown out the window in the next decade or so, you are either using hyperbole to try and make a point or a fool.

If it helps, I believe that sexual age of consent laws generally go up, rather than down.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity.

What principle would such an argument rest upon?

Or are you lending credence to unprincipled reasoning?

 

[Montrovant]

It's not just a matter of morals, it's a matter of law.

Here's the thing on that... and that is that where a culture begins to separate it's laws from accepted morality, the culture is in its final phase. Which historically speaking, such has been the period where the dying culture also embraces, thus normalizes sexual deviancy.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling or unable to accept that the accepted morality changes over time and the laws change to reflect that.

Of the many nations and cultures that have come and gone throughout history, how many normalized homosexuality right before they ended?

Morality is little more than the soundly reasoned recognition of natural principles, or laws of nature that govern human behavior.

Natural laws are immutable; meaning that they do not change.

What changes is the respect for or awareness of those laws by the people in play at any given moment.

That a given generation is incapable of recognizing these laws, or rejects the existence of such... is irrelevant to the exist of the laws. And as you may have heard, ignorance of the law is not a viable defense.

But the simple reality is, that without regard to whether the departure from respect for and adherence to natural law is out of ignorance or hubris, the consequences for failing to adhere to such remains in full force and effect.

And there is no potential upside for having failed to adhere to the laws of nature that govern human behavior... and there is no point in human history where a culture has profited from such. What's more, no culture that has turned from such, has survived.

I suspect that what you call laws of nature are rarely laws or rules. What law of nature is broken by homosexuality? Men and women are required to have children....but that's true for homosexuals as well. Sexual gratification and love, on the other hand, do not require a particular gender, or even a partner.

You can call your own moral standards laws of nature but it does not make them such.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity.

What principle would such an argument rest upon?

Or are you lending credence to unprincipled reasoning?

I'm not a polygamist, so I don't have anything but supposition. Perhaps it was a religious argument; the god or gods believed in by the polygamists called for that kind of marriage. Perhaps that there would be too many unmarried women unable to care for themselves. Despite some of the claims I've seen when same sex marriage is discussed, marriage has not been a static institution throughout history. If it has changed in the past without bringing about the downfall of humanity or even the end of a country, it likely can do so again.

 

[Boss]

Of course we can change laws. Do you honestly believe that sexual age of consent laws are likely to go down? Do you honestly believe that animals are going to be considered able to consent?

I don't know... did people think 12 years ago that the illegal act of homosexuality would be cauterized into law, legitimized through marriage and made a Constitutional right by an activist Supreme Court?

Age of consent used to be MUCH lower. In fact, a naturalist would argue the age of consent, when it comes to sexual relations, should be set at puberty because that is when females and males become physically and sexually mature. It is only the aspects of religiously-based morality that prevents such things now. And the same goes for zoophilia.

Now you can argue that under current definition, animals cannot consent... but as we see, current definitions can be changed on a whim by an activist court. If animals cannot consent, then no one should be able to "own" animals. If they are unable to give consent, they are unable to be held accountable to the law and therefore, are not subject to the law... they don't have to give consent. How is it harming others? What's the compelling state interests to prevent it? There are none, especially since you've legitimized sexual behavior as a Constitutional right. You're going to have to live with that... we all are. Thanks!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I suspect that what you call laws of nature are rarely laws or rules.

I hear ya...

Sadly your suspicions are baseless. Allow me to demonstrate:

What law of nature is broken by homosexuality?

That would be the law of nature wherein the human species was designed with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each specifically and respectively designed to join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.

It's the same law, which establishes monogamy as the sustainable behavior, in terms of human sexual behavior.

We know this because where the law is respected, one will never be infected by a venereal disease... just as we know that the human sexual standard is sustainable, as absent homosexuals being entered into the mix; which is to say those that reject adherence to the human sexual standard, one has roughly zero chance of contracting THE HIV; which is among the deadliest viruses on earth; which is just one, among the host of unenviable consequences that come with ignoring the law of nature that establish the human sexual norm.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm sure the first time marriage was limited to monogamy, some people railed about the inevitable end of society and horror to humanity.

What principle would such an argument rest upon?

Or are you lending credence to unprincipled reasoning?

I'm not a polygamist, so I don't have anything but supposition. Perhaps it was a religious argument; the god or gods believed in by the polygamists called for that kind of marriage. Perhaps that there would be too many unmarried women unable to care for themselves. Despite some of the claims I've seen when same sex marriage is discussed, marriage has not been a static institution throughout history. If it has changed in the past without bringing about the downfall of humanity or even the end of a country, it likely can do so again.

So... you ARE lending credence to unprincipled reasoning.

I gotta be honest... I was pretty sure that was your camp.