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!
Wait, did you actually just argue that in order to own an animal it must be able to give consent? So owning animals is disallowed, unless it constitutes slavery?
You are correct, age of consent used to be lower. That, of course, means that it has been raised. Yet here you are, terrified that it is going to go down again because gays can marry. Again
.
Animals are not subject to the laws governing human behavior. We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.
What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape? Oh, I'm sure you'll argue that somehow gay marriage makes those things no longer of import, as though allowing homosexuals to have civil marriage is an end to the rule of law. I'm not sure why this particular issue destroys all possible arguments for regulations on marriage or sex but other changes to laws about sex didn't. It couldn't have anything to do with a bias against homosexuals on your part, though, since you are so much more tolerant that most people!
The Supreme Court legitimized a right to privacy in striking down state sodomy laws. Obergefell was about equal access to marriage contract law, not sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not marriage, nor is any particular sexual behavior required for marriage.
Again, you're not thinking past the head of your gay dick. You view this as some isolated thing that doesn't have any effect on anything else because you've convinced yourself that is the case. I'm trying to explain how something like this has ramifications but instead of taking my points seriously, you simply dismiss them because they haven't yet happened.
We have laws regarding animals, of course, despite their inability to consent.
Which of our laws are animals expected to obey, dipshit? Let's try to stay in context. We have laws regarding human treatment of animals. Most of those are based on some religious moral foundation... so there goes
THAT! Animals can't be required to give consent for the same reason they aren't expected to follow the law. They are not under jurisdiction of the law so consent simply doesn't apply. With the consent issue rendered invalid, the only constraint is a moral religious belief that humans shouldn't **** animals.
As with gay marriage, all we need is a group who claims discrimination. Presto-chango... zoophilia becomes legalized then legitimized through marriage. In 20 years, people can't be denied the right to marry the pig they love. You can't stop this ride because you don't like it anymore. You are strapped in and you're going to ride it all the way down.
What is a compelling state interest to prevent bestiality? How about the need to be consistent with laws regarding consent in order to maintain the viability of many other laws, such as those regarding pedophilia and rape?
What the hell are you mumbling around about here? Spit it out, boy! Make your case! We've already established that animals can't give consent and aren't subject to rule of law... so there goes that reason... gone! *POOF!* What is this "maintain the viability of other laws" shit? It's too late to be worrying about maintaining viability of other laws, you've struck them down on the basis that you want homosexuals to have the right to legitimize their behavior through marriage, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Oh, you can hem-haw around and jawbone about maintaining viability... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again, it seems to be YOU living in DENAIL of the ramifications of your actions.
Your veneer of tolerance (which, admittedly, was thin to begin with) is starting to slip.
You are trying to explain that you think the sky is falling. I can see that. In your opinion, allowing same sex marriage requires all forms of marriage to be legal. That is clearly nonsense, but you're free to believe it. I've already happily conceded that it is possible for consent laws to be changed. What you dismiss is the fact that they could have been changed without any gay marriage ruling. You ignore the fact that marriage laws have changed in various ways over time, assuming that only THIS particular change is going to cause a flood of depravity.
You assume bestiality will be legalized because.....the gays! Obviously any claim of discrimination for any reason is automatically accepted by the USSC, right?
You continue to show that you have no real concept of consent. As far as you are concerned it is a meaningless concept now that same sex marriage is legal. Your reasoning behind that is.....well, I'm still not sure how you have decided the two are connected. Because denying same sex couples access to marriage laws was deemed unconstitutional, consent laws are unconstitutional? Again, that's nonsense, but have fun with it. Why don't you get together with Silhouette and exchange idiotic legal predictions?
Oh, and I see the religion coming to the fore, as is usual for you. There can be no morality without religion, are you really going to trot that one out?
You're making all sorts of wild ass assumptions about what I've said. I did not say the sky was falling. I said there would be ramifications and consequences by legitimizing homosexuality through marriage. There are already legal cases in the works for polygamy. I never said anything about a "flood of depravity" it's going to take some time but it will eventually come because you've removed the barriers.
I did not say bestiality would be legalized "because ...the gays." That's a smart ass sarcastic quip designed to marginalize the point I made. It's just another of your dishonest attempts to deflect an opposing opinion. The SCOTUS has established as matter of law that marriage is a right which must be afforded on the basis of sexuality instead of being the union of a male and female. Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles, zoophiliacs, necrophiliacs or any other sexual preference. ALL of them were completely able to obtain a marriage license without discrimination in all 50 states... MARRIAGE being the union of a man and woman. Heterosexuals weren't being allowed to have same-sex unions to the exclusion of gays. THAT is the dynamic you would need in order to claim an inequality. BUT... the way you have defined it, the "right" must also extend to anyone else who wants it. We don't have laws that apply to THIS group but not THAT group. It's the Equal Protection clause and this will come back to haunt you.
And again... I fully understand consent. Just like I understand marriage is the union of a male and female. What I have learned is, it really doesn't matter what I currently understand, the SCOTUS has made it clear they can redefine words to mean what they want them to. In fact, "consent" is an easier parameter to change than "marriage."
Oh, and I see the religion coming to the fore, as is usual for you. There can be no morality without religion, are you really going to trot that one out?
We can trot it out if you like... as soon as you show me a moral we have that isn't rooted in a religious philosophy, I will admit that religion has nothing to do with morals. Until then, you're pissing in the wind. Every moral of western civilization is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious principle. That's just a fact of life. Sorry if that bothers you. I'm not a religious person, I am not here to argue religion... to the contrary, I am saying that we have now established that religion can't have a place at the table anymore when it comes to Constitutional rights. Therefore, your legitimate arguments against things like zoophilia have been destroyed.
What you seem to be doing now is playing favorites with sexual proclivities. Homosexuality has somehow been raised above all others and legitimized. On what Constitutional basis are you doing this? You don't really have an answer, just more bluster and sarcasm.
