How a person identifies him/herself

Ok, so in this day and age we have to respect how a person identifies him/herself. If Bruce Jenner identifies himself as a woman we have to respect that socially and legally. Same thing with kids - MINORS - in school, if they identify themselves as the opposite sex then mountains shall be moved to accommodate them.

But what about this: What if a 4 foot tall kid can't get on that ride that says you need to be "this tall to get on ride" and he identifies as being taller than he is? Or how about if a 30 year old has sex with a minor and his defense is that the minor identified as an adult?

No one is going to buy any of those excuses because physicality and reality actually matters. There's only so much a person can deny before rational thinking sets in and common sense is established.

At what point does identifying as something become absurd and no longer a valid argument for changing reality?

 

When it starts harming people.

Jenner really isn't harming anyone, he's just being irrational and going against the demand for conformity.

so people are going to be upset because he/she/it or whatever that he isn't going to be like them.

But if he imagined himself as the Terminator and he attacked a police station believing he would be protecting Skynet, then that would be a problem because he would actually be shooting cops.

Just my two cents anyhoo.

 

So what if a 35 year old had sex with a 12 year old who identified as a 25 year old? Is there harm?

 

Don't they all?

 

Not the same thing as Jenner. That is a false equivalency.

 

So you are saying if we recognize transgenders' right to associate themselves with the opposite gender, we will have to allow 10 year olds to (*)(*)(*)(*) old men because they think they are adults...

Here is the thing. Minors are not allowed to make those kinds of decisions. A minor is not allowed to go through gender reassignment treatments, because those treatments require consent, and minors do not have the legal authority to consent. So there is no danger of a minor being allowed to simply proclaim themselves an adult for the purpose of having sex for that same reason.

 

Interesting, your using law to define the limits of morality. What if that specific law was changed?
Morality should define laws not vice versa.

 

If a law is made allowing 5 year olds to consent to sex, then the time has come behead every lawmaker and remake the government.

 

And what if societies mores change with time? Wasn't that long ago pot smokers were considered abhorrent demon seeds. How about 14- 15 year olds as a start? Incrementalism ya know.
Personally I think the time to reform government has long since slipped by us. I'm old enough now to realize the drastic downfalls to this country are not likely to happen in my lifetime and am content with just watching the slow spiral downward.

 

Pot smoking was considered as normal as anything else prior the 1930's. It was very common. George Washington is known to have smoked it. Corrupt politicians demonized it because it was a danger to corporate profits.

 

And child brides were once fairly common and still are in some societies. Thanks for proving my point.

 

Most 'child brides' were married only in name only in most societies until the came of age. Fo example, my Great Great Great Grandmother was Romani, a gypsy. She was part of an arranged marriage with my Great Great Great Grandfather. They were married when she was 9, but she did not actually live together until she was 16, which in many states is the age of consent to begin with.

Very few societies ever allowed girls who has not reached sexual maturity, around age 13 or 14 to marry. That was how most societies measured adulthood for girls. When she could have children.

 

Once again, thanks for proving my point of societies changing mores. I think your missing my original point but that's ok.
FWIW have you ever considered the story of your GG grandmothers living arrangements have changed as societies views have changed also? Just sayin.

 

Yes, societies do change, but they very rarely do so in a backwards fashion. You will be hard pressed to find an instance where a society that progressed to a point where marrying children became immoral to return it being moral. Your entire argument is based on the false premise that it's reasonable to assume that American society may consider (*)(*)(*)(*)ing children to be ok sometime in the future.

 

Actually that wasn't my premise. It seems you did miss my point.

 

You stated that American society could change to consider childrn consentng to sex to be acceptable. It is very unlike that will ever happen.

 

We have millions who are happy living off the govt and not working then voting to keep the free money rolling. How's that for backwards?

 

Pot smoking was considered as normal as anything else prior the 1930's <citation needed>. It was very common. George Washington is known to have smoked it <citation needed>. Corrupt politicians demonized it because it was a danger to corporate profits. <citation needed>

George Washington grew hemp for rope and fabric as one of his three main crops. here

 

`
I would disagree on this aspect; too often religion champions certain moral beliefs that affect laws. Religion and its morals change little as they are considered sacrosanct by it's believers whereas the mores and many times customs of a society are more apt to change with the environmental conditions. Case in point; the Industrial Revolution.

Prior to that, we were an agrarian nation where children were many times treated as a drag until they became old enough to be of use around the farm. There was no such thing as "childhood" as we know it today. Kids were pushed to grow up and be productive. When a female reached puberty, she was considered marriageable, so to speak. Large families which started young were common and these were the mores and customs for that time. Religion and morals had little to do with it. However, the centralized mechanization of industry changed all of that. Where factories were formed, towns and cities grew up around them and the need for large families, for the sake of survival, slowly became less and less important. Urbanization shook the very foundation of the family unit.

As mechanization increased so did the concept of "free time" time begin to evolve and with that, the notion of "childhood". Free-time and Childhood are not inherently religious or moral constructs yet laws were eventually formed protecting both. In just these two cases, morality did not define nor mandate these laws. On the contrary, the more Calvinistic of the religious morals considered both, "tools of the devil', metaphorically speaking.

At this junction, allowing morals to dictate laws has already become problematic by groups such as the 'religious right" who want to force their brand of morals upon a secular country they consider to be Christian.

 

When they begin infringing on my (or someone else's) rights to perpetuate or consummate their delusion.

If they are 4 feet tall and they identify as a taller person and insist on riding the tilt-a-whirl, then they (or their guardian) can sign a liability waiver and take their chances.

The minor, no matter how he identifies, cannot legally consent, so the 30/yo is in a world of trouble for having sex with him.

In both cases, as you said, reality matters. But only because damage is being externalized to others. Whereas, Jenner is only affecting himself, so far.

 

Looks like this forum is filled with trolls, so many people making silly comparisons just to bash left progressivism.

 

I don't want to use the law here because I doubt they have been made for what I do. It could mute to my stuff but I doubt they will.

We don't care if they pretend themselves adult, they need to class themselves in age so it can work. I say that when a girl born, a boy born. So we got a lot of boys than in town that will search for girls in town. To make their life and have child themselves. What if 30% of the girls are gone with older guy? How are the boy going to find a wife? The boy has 10 years old and search for baby in town so it will grow up and go with him?

 

Society has not progressed to a point where greed and laziness have been abolished. So your premise is false. We have progressed to a point where marrying children is considered immoral. You will be hard pressed to find a example of a society that has reached that point later returning to it being moral.

 

Possibly by answering the question of "what is reality"?

 

I could see the time coming when an 18 year old who has consensual sex with a 16 year old can no longer be charged with a felony. These laws and statutes have gotten out of control and hopefully, soon they will be abolished.