Fair enough, I won’t argue with you on that point. But absolutely none of that has anything to do with trans people or pride month. If you believe marriage is not exclusively a religious institution with no reason for the government to be involved, I do not accept the argument that a gay person is less entitled to that right than they would be if the left had different messaging.
TLHLIM
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
It’s pretty simple, man. Animals and children aren’t consenting adults. We shouldn’t let people marry them or whatever other term you think would be suitable government recognition of their union. Gay people wanting to be married (or whatever) are consenting adults. We should let them marry each other.
And in case you feel compelled to ask about polygamy or whatnot, I feel they should be free to do as they please too. I don’t think marriage should be necessary for legal protections or that marriage should lead to any specific benefits from the government, but they should be allowed to live as they please. If we stopped making marriage special in the eyes of the government, a lot of this would likely go away.
That’s a very disingenuous reading of what I’m saying here and you know it. But to follow your point here, what does the law say about having sex with animals? Is that technically a right to consent?
I’m not really arguing about consent. I bring up consent only because I think this type of relationship should be between consenting adults and therefore the legalization of gay marriage or any other type of relationship between consenting adults does not lead to your slippery slope of marrying children or animals because of that fundamental difference.
And yes, it is fucking gross, and people doing that should be punished. But there are many, many fucking gross things that I don’t think people should be arrested for. What makes it a *criminal* act to me is that an animal is sexually harmed in the process. In this case consent is impossible, and the person doing it is committing sexual violence. I think non-consensual sexual violence should be a crime.
Note that regardless of the reason why we shouldn’t allow people to marry children or animals, there’s still a line. Allowing gay people to marry does not explicitly or implicitly support these outcomes.
I was making a joke. But he’s an Econ student, not some gender studies major. I *think* we still consider Economics to be a real academic discipline?
What I do think is interesting here is that you’re actually doing a lot of what you accuse the left of here. This person, as far as I can tell, is simply engaging with an article that has nothing to do with him. Yes, the subject matter is not one I think we need to seriously engage with, but it’s the marketplace of ideas, right? By shutting down the discussion because you don’t like the underlying morality and focusing instead on the identity of the person having the discussion, how is that materially different than a leftist saying we shouldn’t give a platform to people they accuse of being racist or homophobic?
And I’m pointing out that the two are not intrinsically connected, and that neither an article from 11 years ago nor a liberal Econ student who seems to hold a lot of views not associated with leftists are compelling examples of that imminent progression.
This would be akin to me posting the Trump-Palantir story and declaring it’s obvious that gay people want nothing more than to help Trump create a police state. You’re using the identity of the author to attach his identity to an idea that isn’t related.
sturg33
I
No im simply pointing out that it doesnt surprise me at all the the gay PhD student with the Trans flag in his bio wants to engage on why dogs should be allowed to lick your genitals
Academics engaging in new ideas is how we get to "men can be pregnant" and sterilizing children is healthcare
It’s also how we get rockets, computers and medicine.
This is a CBS problem, not an Elon Musk problem. Unless Musk had some specific agreement with the network that the conversation would be focused around politics, then CBS had two choices: not interview Elon Musk or wrap it up and scrap the footage after it was clear he wasn’t interested in talking about it. While I believe Elon has primarily himself to fault for the public backlash he’s received, he doesn’t have to answer for it on primetime television unless that was the arrangement discussed ahead of time.