26 X World Champs said:
How absurd! You justify being a bigot by citing that criminals are not afforded the same basic freedoms as non-criminals! That is the cornerstone of your argument?
How can you justify your insulting statements as an 'argument' by repeating a jingo, which doens't even mean what you think it does.
26 X World Champs said:
Consenting ADULTS, not consenting cows. Yes, I believe that humans can eat meat, fish, etc. Here's a brain wave update...that does not mean that being for Gay rights makes someone a vegan or that eating meat makes someone a hypocrite re gay rights. Your "logic" is so contrived, so WRONG that it does clearly expose you as a bigot because as I wrote previously bigotry's roots are in ignorance, and for you to think that prisoners or cows not being treated equally or as consenting adults as the basis for banning gay marriage is a feeble attempt to mask your bigotry.
Actually your's is the contrived logic. You seem to apply a rule of 'conent' to the idea of sex, to rule out something that you find abhorrent (sex with animals). But no 'consent' is given in sex with a human and any non-human; such as a device. None can be given. So, the idea of seeking 'consent' should not be an issue. It isn't with eating animals, or using them for any other purpose (medical experiments etc). Thus the issue of having sex with animals should not be an issue for you; it is because you're perosonal tastes, so you re-write an idea of when to apply a 'rule'.
Otherwise you'd be ranting against people who have sex with non-living things to, such as 'adult' toys etc. Because no consent can be given by them, either.
26 X World Champs said:
Well then you need to sit them down, treat them like they're educated and explain to them that you do not approve of their visiting porn sites until they've reached the age of CONSENT. There's that word again, CONSENT. We're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS and you're somehow equating porn sites to gay marriage as if they're related...or is that you're weakly trying to suggest that these porn sites are somehow contributing to homosexuality?
No, it is you who is arguing over 'consent' yet you seem very selective in when you apply this magical rule of yours. I simply give another example; internet porn, and you find excuses in which your magical rule doesn't quite apply. That is contrived logic.
26 X World Champs said:
In BLUE state America we believe in CHOICE, logical and legal choice. To base an argument against personal freedom on the points that you're relying on really makes my points for me, thank you.
So you say, but you're continual waving of 'consent' of an issue, and then withdrawing this magical rule in certain situations because you find THEM personally abhorrent shows just how conditioned you are in not being able to see an argument through.
26 X World Champs said:
Why? You're grasping for straws so you have to included criminals and animals to make your "point." How about coming up with a legitimate argument to discriminate against your fellow law abiding Americans? Give it a shot? Now keep in mind that employing bigotry in your argument completely nulls your point of view in general, and it personally exposes you as anti-American.
The eating of animals, the experimentation of animals is legal. Once again you drop the 'consent' rule, and are now switching to the 'legality' rule. Simply make homosexuality illegal, and your who argument falls apart.
26 X World Champs said:
Know how weak your statement is? Employing your "logic" means that the Constitution should never be amended because it's original meaning is what it means, and the progression of intellect and changing mores do not matter. Great argument! Amendments were adopted as a vital foundation of the Constitution for precisely the opposite reason of your "means something different" rationale.
Oh, please. Strawman! I never said anything about whether it should be changed or not. You uncritically wave the "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" flag for this without realising the founding fathers didn't mean it as you think it should and even now, it doesn't mean what you think it was. But rather than deal with that you go into totally new arguments, inventing a stance you believe that I am taking (and I'm not) on constitutional change.
26 X World Champs said:
Intellectual pursuit and the evolution of American society is based on change, DUH! Otherwise we'd still have a society that includes slavery, lacks women's rights, and does not permit for equal protection under the law.
And this applies to your argument, 'how?'.
26 X World Champs said:
Totally ridiculous and lame, sorry...doesn't even merit further reply other than, "WRONG."
As I pointed out, this is a characteristic of the bulk of your argument 'you're wrong'.
26 X World Champs said:
Slavery was once illegal too, so was women's voting, abortion, inter-racial marriage, oral sex, anal sex, and thousands of other outdated tenets that we, as a nation have intellectually evolved from due to greater knowledge and greater social conscience. You're stuck in some law and order phase in your life where you're unable to grasp that laws from centuries past were wrong and changing them is RIGHT.
More comments irrelevant to this debate.
26 X World Champs said:
I guess bigotry really offends me and I believe that bigots need to be made accountable for their sick way of thinking and their ignorance needs to be constantly exposed so that others are not lured into or so that others are lured away from the ignorance that fuels bigotry....
Still that's the problem with your contrived debate. For you the idea of 'consent' is the rule for the allowance of sexual acts in private. You argue against bestiality, because no consent can be given from the animal (this is true), but then none can be given when it involves one or more people and an object such as a vibrator (the vibrator can't give consent). So you're against one form of sex when a consent human has sex with a thing (animal) that can't give consent, but not with others, such as sex between a consenting adult and a thing (an appliance, for example).
Thus the rule of 'consent' is applied very selectively.
Then you introduce a strawman argument about changes to the constitution, some cry to 'legality' that doesn't go anywhere and a few personal insults and "You're wrong!". Well done.