same-sex marriage

[sonicrainkrieg42]

Not exactly - bisexuals (as has been explained to me in far too much detail, really) are sexually attracted to EITHER sex, not to 'both at once'. The person is more important than the details, so to speak.

A bisexual would not (necessarily) want to marry any more than a single other person - it is just that a bisexual isn't automatically particular about which gender the other person happens to be.

(if you were actually being funny instead of serious, I apologize. I tend to be a bit over-literal.)

Although some don't, some bisexuals will lean towards one gender or the other. Personally, I lean towards women, though I still find myself attracted to men.

But yes, bisexual doesn't equal polyamory.

[KLP]

Maybe this will finally sober up them liberals and get them to see the wisdom that there is no authority for weddings or fellowship halls in the building.

[AtPeace]

I don't see why the LGBTQ supporters are limiting marriage being between 2 people. Why not 12 people, 6 men and 6 women?

And while they're at it, why not redefine "consenting adult?" It is merely a societal construct that created the rule of law defining an adult as a person 18 years or older. Why not drop that to 14? Or 12? After all, there have been plenty of times that humans have had sexual relations and/or marital contracts with what we in the U.S. consider to be minors under our current law. Why not define a marriage-age person as someone who is 5 years old? Depending on how you define "consenting," there could be 5 year olds who consent to marriage.

All of these definitions are merely societal constructs. There is absolutely no consistency among the LGBTQ crowd regarding what they are insisting are human rights. The only argument they want to have is one against religious-based objections. My objections are not religious-based at all, however. There is a blatant dismissal of any objections that have to do with what we commonly call the "domino effect." It's laughed off as if it's an impossible phenomenon. But the reality is that societal constructs have always had tremendous domino effects, very often not imagined or anticipated by those who tout their benefits.

To me, this is about how we as humans respond to evolutionary human development needs, i.e. the fragility and critical nature of a society raising it young to fully funtional adulthood. It should have absolutely nothing to do with religious guidelines, God, icky feelings about same-gender sex, fairness or personal happiness. Rather, its focus should be about child development, biologically, emotionally and psychologically.

[KLP]

But the sun came up today so according to that litmus test everything is OK.

BTW, on the age thing, children as young as 5 are being allowed to choose their gender, 11 or 12 maybe to start hormone blockers, and by 16 they can start hormone therapy. 18 for surgery I think. I so no legal reason that 10 yr olds cannot get married if they so desire (but 5 is too young IMO but then I am repressed prude). Same for voting, military service, alcohol/tobacco consumption, credit/loans, or tattoos...this whole age thing is just made up BS and ought to be tossed out and let people be free.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change- ... -the-rise/

[sonicrainkrieg42]

I don't see why the LGBTQ supporters are limiting marriage being between 2 people. Why not 12 people, 6 men and 6 women?

And while they're at it, why not redefine "consenting adult?" It is merely a societal construct that created the rule of law defining an adult as a person 18 years or older. Why not drop that to 14? Or 12? After all, there have been plenty of times that humans have had sexual relations and/or marital contracts with what we in the U.S. consider to be minors under our current law. Why not define a marriage-age person as someone who is 5 years old? Depending on how you define "consenting," there could be 5 year olds who consent to marriage.

All of these definitions are merely societal constructs. There is absolutely no consistency among the LGBTQ crowd regarding what they are insisting are human rights. The only argument they want to have is one against religious-based objections. My objections are not religious-based at all, however. There is a blatant dismissal of any objections that have to do with what we commonly call the "domino effect." It's laughed off as if it's an impossible phenomenon. But the reality is that societal constructs have always had tremendous domino effects, very often not imagined or anticipated by those who tout their benefits.

To me, this is about how we as humans respond to evolutionary human development needs, i.e. the fragility and critical nature of a society raising it young to fully funtional adulthood. It should have absolutely nothing to do with religious guidelines, God, icky feelings about same-gender sex, fairness or personal happiness. Rather, its focus should be about child development, biologically, emotionally and psychologically.

If you could find a way to make polyamorus marriages work legally, I would be in favor of legalizing it.

We generally don't let children decide they can't marry adults or each other because they have to be able to give informed consent. They have to be able to fully recognize and understand what they're getting into, and the vast majority of children, if not all of them, are not capable of doing that. I don't see how the ages being a social construct matters, seeing as how we constructed them based on the observation that most if not all children are incapable of giving informed consent.

The slippery slope fallacy is considered a fallacy because unless you can decisively show that LGBT rights would lead to societal ills such as pedophilia, it's basically nothing more than blatant fear mongering.

Also, "think of the children" is an overused form of emotional appeal, another logical fallacy. LGBT rights do not negatively affect children in any way. They only affect LGBT individuals.

But the sun came up today so according to that litmus test everything is OK.

BTW, on the age thing, children as young as 5 are being allowed to choose their gender, 11 or 12 maybe to start hormone blockers, and by 16 they can start hormone therapy. 18 for surgery I think. I so no legal reason that 10 yr olds cannot get married if they so desire (but 5 is too young IMO but then I am repressed prude). Same for voting, military service, alcohol/tobacco consumption, credit/loans, or tattoos...this whole age thing is just made up BS and ought to be tossed out and let people be free.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change- ... -the-rise/

Given that the reaction to the supreme court's decision was a lot of apocalyptic fear mongering, that seems like a good litmus test.

Gender isn't a choice. If someone is transgender, they're transgender regardless of whether they want to be or not. Also, hormone blockers are completely reversible, as is a lot of HRT. We don't do irreversible things to children.

-----------
I should note that countries that outlaw homosexuality are mostly third world countries.
http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where- ... s-illegal/

"Family values"!

[AtPeace]

Sonicraig said:

We generally don't let children decide they can't marry adults or each other because they have to be able to give informed consent. They have to be able to fully recognize and understand what they're getting into, and the vast majority of children, if not all of them, are not capable of doing that. I don't see how the ages being a social construct matters, seeing as how we constructed them based on the observation that most if not all children are incapable of giving informed consent.

The slippery slope fallacy is considered a fallacy because unless you can decisively show that LGBT rights would lead to societal ills such as pedophilia, it's basically nothing more than blatant fear mongering.

Also, "think of the children" is an overused form of emotional appeal, another logical fallacy. LGBT rights do not negatively affect children in any way. They only affect LGBT individuals.

Gender isn't a choice. If someone is transgender, they're transgender regardless of whether they want to be or not. Also, hormone blockers are completely reversible, as is a lot of HRT. We don't do irreversible things to children.

1. Children and informed consent. I believe you missed my point, which is, it all depends on how you define "adulthood," i.e. the phase of life at which you are now believed to be able to give informed consent. So yes, age being a social construct not only matters but is at the crux of that question.
2. "Think of the children" -- in my case -- is not an emotional appeal. It is a question about the way a human society handles brain development. The brain is not fully developed until around age 23-25. Why do we allow 18- or 21-year-old informed consent? Seems fairly arbitrary to me, and very likely to be changed as time goes on, judging by our own relatively recent American history of people marrying as young teens a century or so ago.
3. "Gender isn't a choice." Not sure what your point was in that paragraph as relates to my statements.

No fair dismissing my objections and concerns with platitudes.

[sonicrainkrieg42]

Sonicraig said:

We generally don't let children decide they can't marry adults or each other because they have to be able to give informed consent. They have to be able to fully recognize and understand what they're getting into, and the vast majority of children, if not all of them, are not capable of doing that. I don't see how the ages being a social construct matters, seeing as how we constructed them based on the observation that most if not all children are incapable of giving informed consent.

The slippery slope fallacy is considered a fallacy because unless you can decisively show that LGBT rights would lead to societal ills such as pedophilia, it's basically nothing more than blatant fear mongering.

Also, "think of the children" is an overused form of emotional appeal, another logical fallacy. LGBT rights do not negatively affect children in any way. They only affect LGBT individuals.

Gender isn't a choice. If someone is transgender, they're transgender regardless of whether they want to be or not. Also, hormone blockers are completely reversible, as is a lot of HRT. We don't do irreversible things to children.

1. Children and informed consent. I believe you missed my point, which is, it all depends on how you define "adulthood," i.e. the phase of life at which you are now believed to be able to give informed consent. So yes, age being a social construct not only matters but is at the crux of that question.
2. "Think of the children" -- in my case -- is not an emotional appeal. It is a question about the way a human society handles brain development. The brain is not fully developed until around age 23-25. Why do we allow 18- or 21-year-old informed consent? Seems fairly arbitrary to me, and very likely to be changed as time goes on, judging by our own relatively recent American history of people marrying as young teens a century or so ago.
3. "Gender isn't a choice." Not sure what your point was in that paragraph as relates to my statements.

No fair dismissing my objections and concerns with platitudes.

Are the brains of 18 to 21 year olds truly that different from the brains of 23-25 year olds? We legally consider people to be adults once they hit age eighteen, because the late teens early twenties are when we become physically mature, and start being able to handle more adult responsibility. If it can be proven that 18 to 21 year olds can't handle adult responsibility, then yes, it probably will be raised. We've raised the age of consent because over time, because as we have culturally progressed and learned more about ourselves, we've realized that people as young as 12 are not mature enough to handle things like marriage and raising a family. Things actually change when we gain new knowledge, believe it or not.

I assume by "platitudes", you mean "pointing out common logical fallacies". You have not demonstrated how LGBT rights would lead to pedophilia. Your "concerns" are nothing more than fear mongering.

The gender statement was directed at KLP.

[AtPeace]

sonicraig, I think you still are misunderstanding my point about informed consent age.

It is your opinion that a certain age group is not ready to handle marriage and parenting. But that is merely your opinion. It is not a scientifically provable reality. As you and I both know, some people at age 50 can't handle marriage and/or parenting. And U.S. history is full of examples of marriage/parenthood at age 13, 14, 15...back when it was common for people to essentially "age out" and enter old age phases around 35.

Who's to say that 13-year-olds today cannot handle marriage/parenting? (I personally believe they cannot, and I am appalled at the idea.) The phrase "anything's alright between two consenting adults" does not take into account the reality that societies are changing all the time, and there's nothing to stop our society from deciding that it is ok for a 13-year-old and 40-year-old to marry. All we have to do is redefine "ability to consent." My argument is that the gay marriage change in the definition of marriage could easily lead to dramatic changes in other, critical parts of how we define additional key elements associated with the "human brain development" phase of a person's life...his childhood.

[sonicrainkrieg42]

We have evidence that young children are not as mentally developed as people we consider to be adults. You yourself mentioned this. Plus, it is also a fact that children can be easily manipulated and abused due to this. These reasons are why we've increased the age of consent over time, and why we consider pedophilia to be wrong. I do realize that there adults who are irresponsible, hence why I believe parenthood shouldn't be seen as an obligation, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many adults who are responsible enough, and very few kids are, if any.

It's still a huge leap to make. It'd be like if I said that interracial marriage would lead to black supremacy. LGBT rights has no bearing on the evidence and experience on children and responsibility. It is an entirely separate issue.

[KLP]

I don't think the question is no whether or not there is such a thing as a "child", the point is I think that the current age of consent is itself a "social construct" as it is arbitrary. (And yes, everyday irreversible things are being done to children in all sorts of ways.) So why is it that a child as young as 5yr old can say they are now a different gender and that is recognized as valid but a 10 yr old cannot consent to marriage? How can a child at 11 consent to hormone blockers but not consent to marriage? Marriages are certainly not "irreversible", in fact they can even be annulled and the sun still rises.

And there is no legal basis to deny marriages of numbers greater than between 2 parties. If that is what it takes for them to be happy and fulfilled then how can they be denied equal protection, because this 2 party marriage thing (though it is thousands of years in age) is just another social construct. Trust me, if 5 party marriages were made legal the sun would still rise and therefore we would know there is absolutely no downside. The basis of the same sex marriage decision is the point that is being made I think...yes, these are vastly different topics but the reasoning used by the majority of the SCOTUS (which is supposedly enlightened and long over due) can be used in these other areas. If a 10yr old is competent enough to choose to switch genders in order to be happy then why can't they also decide to enter a marriage contract with 6 of their classmates regardless of their age, grade, race, or gender?