There is also a long-standing requirement for there to be a man and a woman for marriage. What we’re talking about, since you brought it up, is whether or not we’re treating everyone equally in terms of giving them privileges. I’m saying we’re not, at all, and that isn’t how the 14th has been construed. You keep pasting the 14th and saying “That’s what it means though!”, while simultaneously saying that’s not what it means by refusing to not give all people equal privileges (since you apparently get to pick and choose as the arbiter of the world).
I’m not bringing it up to scare weak-minded idiots. I’m bringing it up to talk to you in a discussion on how the logic on this works. If I thought you were a weak-minded idiot, I’d probably say something like “hey you big stupid weak-minded idiot, is your refrigerator on? You should probably go catch it and turn it off to conserve your electricity you stupid twat”. But I don’t. I also don’t think it’s a bullshit argument or I wouldn’t be making it.
Non-protected classes aren’t protected under the 14th amendment. You can’t claim that “they didn’t let me into the private pool” (class being a non-resident of a given area) and win. That’s not to say the protected classes can’t change, see: the links I pasted you earlier to try and help explain the legal concept and practice behind it. Is it possible? Sure. Does it happen? No. Should it? Depends on the situation, I think the courts in general are pretty good about this, and I DO agree with their logic that some things deserve a more “stern” look than others.
If you think I need to work on getting to the point, I think you need to work on making an actual point (not just saying you are while making nonsense claims and statements) and not mixing up being able to insult your opponent with being right. Lucky for us this isn’t a mutual therapy session or I’d be showing you on the doll where the bats touched me and you’d be complaining about how nobody ever clicks your “New java update available” balloons.
I’m not using pedophilia as an argument against same sex marriage. I would be perfectly fine if a given state wanted to allow same-sex marriage. Thumbs up. My issue with this one is on the federal scale.
Pedophilia is an interesting topic. I recently saw some outcry on facebook about some academic article saying that pedophilia was natural – the person, a homosexual, was saying how that gives humanity a “new low”, especially since it seems to hint towards sexual attraction in general being “natural” – NOT JUST homosexuality, which would give some form of legitimacy to pedophilia as something not artificially malevolent made by the given individual who expresses that view. So it is interesting.
In terms of discriminating against ‘equal treatment in marriage’, we do have to consider being able to marry someone under-age though. I’m not legitimately talking about having sex with them, let’s even assume a holy marriage (like Mohammad – jk this was just to make the muslims mad), or a political marriage done for some reason other than sex, with no sex being planned at all. If we are to treat “everyone” equally, and if you want to focus on the words used, “everyone” is pretty specific. Does the 14th amendment not mention age? Does it mention NOT including young people? If not, it seems weird…It’s as if you’re taking contextual or implied things not directly mentioned….or as if you’re taking case law history into account….Which is what I was doing that you were arguing against by continuously pasting the amendment.
The goal isn’t to say pedophilia is okay. The goal is to look at this and say “Does it really mean everyone? Well, I don’t think it includes kids, though the language would allow them. Might it not allow other things? What basis should we do that by?” and that’s basically how the court’s have addressed cases on this in the past. Equal is equal. You don’t get to say some are more equal than others if you’re trying to say the equality is unabridged. Otherwise you’re cutting lines just like someone else might be, but you’re doing them to your preference and not theirs.
I’m sorry I’m so pathetic. I’d try to argue against it, but given how smart and non-pathetic you are, I’m just almost thankful to finally know what I am. Saves me a lot of soul-searching. Maybe this was our aforementioned mutual therapy session. Do we get to circle-jerk next, or should we move on to just insulting each other for what we’re saying instead of addressing it?