Originally Posted by tonton
It has to do with brain and social development. You're simply wrong on this issue. Homosexuality was never a consent issue.
Well the strident proclamations that I'm wrong really don't do much to address the matter. The reality is that the American Psychological Association used to declare Homosexuality a disorder. The reality is that various states outlawed the actions necessary to engage in homosexual relations and that homosexual advocacy groups challenged these laws. Lawrence vs. Texas is not something I am simply wrong on. It is not something I made up.
The ruling follows the same legal reasoning as that related to marriage and comes to the same conclusions with regard to legitimate state interest and declaring that procreation, historical understanding and majority desires are not considered compelling state interests.
Consent is nothing more than the state defining their interests and declaring you are "fine" with consent is nothing more than you expressing your historical understandings or siding with majority interests. Stop cowering behind consent and discuss this matter openly.
And the answer is yes, if through human development, we reach an age where a twelve year old can take full responsibility to matters of his or her sexual behavior, perhaps the age of consent as defined will be reduced; or perhaps a twenty year old becomes less able to make an informed decision, and the age of consent could be increased (as it has been in the past). And yes, it is up to the courts -- through scientific advice -- to decide either an age threshold or another threshold based on some as of yet undiscovered measurable criteria (a far better method, in my opinion).
Do you really think rights should be subject to the whims of a a judge in a particular state? Why are you shunning your responsibility to advocate and express what you believe and what is right or wrong here? You come down so hard on others who won't express their views in other threads and here you are hiding in the worst possible fashion. It's no different than a president who hands his leadership off to a commission to make recommendations rather than being where the buck stops.
Courts for now have found more often against homosexual marriage than for it. Does that mean they are right and you support their decisions?
The thing you're doing on this is ignoring the part science plays in this. It is not simply the opinion of society, as you are trying to suggest.
To be polite, you are high as a kite. You are condemning people for enforcing their prejudice by declaring it comes from a book of fables. Meanwhile you have your own circle of prejudice albeit slightly wider than the first circle that you refuse to even DEFINE because you are cowering behind the concept of court rulings and consent to define what is right or wrong. You refuse to even state what you would do if in disagreement with the court. You've ignore the entire history or ruling brought up and dismissed them as a made up matter declaring they never existed.
Courts never ruled that African-Americans were property. I'm making shit up.
Courts never ruled that separate but equal is fine. I'm making shit up.
Courts have ruled that the Patriot Act is legal so you must support it.
Courts have ruled that Guantanamo can remain open so you must support that.
I could go on but really, you're talking nonsense and hiding so you don't have to discuss and attempt to justify your own prejudices. There is no way to justify them beyond historic precedent, societal interest often related to conception and majority rule. The court has found against that reasoning which means they have found against matters you may or may not support as they haven't been challenged in court yet.
But legal (not social) construct or not, there is still the issue of consent. Homosexual sex is not a consent issue. Underage sex is. Inter-species sex is as well. It is simply impossible for someone who is intellectually honest to deny this.
It is you who are being dishonest here. Underage sex is only a consent issue because no court has found against the right of the state to withdraw consent. I've also cited multiple example historical and present day that involve adults that you simply ignore.
Prostitution is between consenting adults. It is a crime and the desire of the parties to consent to it is denied. Are you saying that because the courts have upheld this, that it is scientific, right and you support it? Sodomy was no different until Lawrence vs. Texas.
Stop hiding. Stop being a coward. Answer the questions put to you on these points and stop repeating yourself while ignoring the points made.
And you're wrong about animals as well. Bestiality is a consent issue. A dog may want to fuck your wife because of a biological urge, but it still cannot communicate to us in any way that it is making an intelligent decision whether or not it should do so for its own good, or having considered all the possible consequences. In other words, it cannot consent.
Wrong. Animals do not have rights. When people are charged in crimes related to them, they do not put the animal up on the stand as a victim. They are not the accuser to be faced. It is not about intelligence, it is about the majority deciding right and wrong. Just like any other rights group, if they wanted to press the matter, and had enough money, the reasoning that has been found in Lawrence vs. Texas is right there. You can see how it would go. I'm familiar with the case because I believe it too broad. Why is gay marriage legal in some states and not in others, because parties haven't brought suit in those states yet. (They are likely still working through the system.) Why is fucking dogs not legal yet? You have to ask yourself who is funding the suits, who is bringing them forward and who wants to go public with it.
While still cowering behind the "consent" issue there, let us not forget Roe v. Wade. I suppose you didn't support abortion before it and if it was ruled against tomorrow I guess you'd be the one picketing Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of consent in this context. It means mutual consent. Your wife can consent, but the dog cannot (due to the inability to communicate). Your priest can consent, but the altar boy cannot (due to the relative cognitive inability to make informed, independent decisions). Two gay men can both consent.
I really could give a crap what you want to discuss with regard to what you imagine the definition to be. The reality is that two gay men could not consent in the past. Two gay men cannot consent to marry right now in roughly 40+ states. You refuse to discuss the deeper issue of consent being a proxy for societal endorsement. You simply hide behind the issue and repeat yourself.
Society has declared that gay men cannot consent to getting married in 40+ states. Per your reasoning, you support this, do not disagree with it, consider it to be sound science and do not wish to challenge the matter.