Why do you keep bringing up the age of 18, over and over, even ignoring what I said earlier that laws do not matter to your mom, and to pretend that written laws do not exist for the scenario?
Which universe have you been living in, Tom? You're the one who's fixated on that issue. I've only been responding to your posts. If you'd prefer to concede defeat, then I can stop doing that.
Also, you have a funny definition of "ignoring". I responded directly to what you said about laws not mattering:
No shit. This entire discussion is about what should be legal, and so far the only person who has based any claims on what is currently legal is you with your circular "democracy is good because it exists" argument.
You are so gung-ho about the age of 18 being a mark of independence from your parents that you are continuously bringing that point up, arguing the status quo, resting your laurels on "the majority said so and so I can do it." This is diametrically opposed to your previous arguments.
Yes, it is. That's why I didn't say it. You're welcome to continue pretending I did, though.
Others in this thread keep bringing up that dogs cannot consent, but this is also arguing the status quo, essentially justifying that we should have the majority telling us what to do in our sex lives.
Don't you see how arguing these points entirely destroy your earlier arguments?
Are you trying to hold me accountable for others' arguments? My, we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I provided arguments earlier by Justice Scalia at the top of page 7 that the Supreme Court's decision did not accurately represent the people.
Irrelevant. The United States is a democracy. All it takes is a single ruling that does not reflect the will of the people to demolish your assertion that the laws of a democratic nation are necessarily the same thing as the majority view.
Am I to understand that you wish to rescind that claim?
Seeing as you have backed yourself into a hypocritical corner in attempting to answer the mom analogy, she was not irrelevant.
Which I've already responded to:
If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.
The fact that you're continuing to cling to this tangent, despite me pointing out in every single post that my mother is irrelevant, only emphasises how weak your case is. I'd suggest getting back to the topic, but you're just going to pick and choose which bits of this post to reply to as well. I'm betting this paragraph won't be one of them.