Yes, it’s Kurt Vonnegut. A creepy and horrifying tale, but not really that far afield from some things people believe. After all, if your wealth and its associated advantages were merely accidents of birth that give you an unfair advantage that must be compensated for, well aren’t your two sighted eyes also an accident of birth? You didn’t do anything to “earn” either of them.
To Marley23 and all those saying that a child can’t consent or is necessarily hurt: have you read the article linked in this thread?
Certainly seems like she consented.
I’m not sure this is definitely going to happen, and it would be an atrocity if it did, but one can certainly see the argument being made that we have no right to interfere with a child’s right to self-determination, even when it comes to sexual matters. See this book which bears the imprimatur of a former surgeon general. Seriously, what argument can a libertine raise against this?
Well, sure, all kinds of arguments could be made, but so what? It would be a totally different slippery slope, not connected with the legalisation of same-sex marriage.
Look at it from the other end; imagine, in the year 2030, the government decides that it is OK for an adult to have sex with a ‘consenting’ minor (leaving aside for one moment the very significant issue of what actually comprises ‘informed consent’ and whether a minor is capable of fully informed consent) - Son of Mangetout starts a thread on the SDMB entitled “Legalisation of paedophilia is wrong”, from the thread title, it looks pretty cut and dried, but opening up the thread, we find that the entirety of his argument is “If we had not allowed same-sex marriages in the early part of this century, this would never have happened!”.
It would be rather a weak argument, wouldn’t it?
A possible right’s movement that I’d not considered until recently: felons’ rights.
Apparently (if I remember the radio story correctly), the United States is the only developed nation that restricts the rights of an ex-felon to vote. The restrictions are strongest in Southern states, appeared shortly after the Civil War, and were new to Western law at that time.
Personally I see no advantage, and plenty of disadvantage, to preventing ex-felons from voting. Hell, I’d rather allow felons to vote while in prison, as long as we could develop a method of preventing coercion in voting.
Voting is not a right: it’s a responsibility. Voting ties the voter to her community. Voting encourages the voter to take an active role in society.
Removing voting has no practical effect. How many folks, on the verge of knocking over a 7-11, think, “Whoa, dude – if I get caught, I’ll never be able to vote again,” and refrain from the crime?
I’d love to see these restrictions eliminated.
Daniel
Not a chance. Saying yes and informed consent, fortunately, are very different. I’m really old fashioned for a man of 21: I don’t think (in your example) an eight-year-old kid should be able to legally consent to sex with her father. Sorry. To me, the fact that she wrote those things shows exactly why grown adults shouldn’t be allowed to fuck children.
I’m now repeating myself, and also Mangetout, but you can make an argument for anything. People here argue for all kinds of things I don’t understand. Is it something I can see a movement forming behind? Not in a million years.
Jocelyn Elders isn’t exactly a mainstream figure. And the book seems to me to be presenting a far complicated argument than you are based on the descriptions I read. I don’t think it’s wrong for 16 and 17 year-olds to have sex. That’s still worlds away from adults having sex with kids.
Favoring gay marriage doesn’t make one a libertine. This comment demonstrates to my satisfaction, if nobody else’s, that I was right when I said you started this thread to bash liberals instead of actually ask the question of what future rights movements will be.
Probably obesity rights, male rights and ex-convict rights.
Obesity rights because more and more of us are getting fat and i dont think that the majority will put up with harassment and shame if they don’t have to.
Male rights due to one sided domestic violence, divorce and child custody laws. Maybe.
Ex convict rights as ex convicts may get tired of being shut out of the job market due to something stupid they did 10 years ago.
Slight hijack: if that was in fact reported, they were wrong. I don’t know about other countries, but in Germany you lose the right to vote for five years (after the end of the sentence) if convicted to at least one year in prison, and for two to five years under some other statutes. Not indefinitely, though.
Why not? She consented. Why isn’t her word good enough?
I did say “libertine”, not “person who favors gay marriage.” But if you want to know why this thread was started, why don’t you ask athelas?
Because she is EIGHT YEARS OLD.
My apologies to Arcite and athelas about the name confusion. I did say that in an earlier post and got no response.
Who here is a libertine?
In the past, there were no laws against littering. Now there are. If this trend continues, people won’t ever be allowed to throw anything away. They’ll have to keep all their trash in their houses. Their houses will fill up with trash. They’ll have to dig their way to their bedrooms every night through gigantic mounds of trash, where they’ll have to sleep on big piles of trash.
I may be misremembering it; it may be that the US is the only developed country to permanently restrict the rights of felons to votes. Even then, it’s a state-by-state thing, which causes all kinds of confusion (viz. Florida in 2000).
Daniel
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Because she is EIGHT YEARS OLD.
[QUOTE]
My question is, why should that matter? Why does the government have a right to impinge on the child’s desires?
Children don’t have the legal ability to consent, I’ve said that two or three times. They lack the ability to make reasoned judgments on important matters, which is one reason they are still under the protection of their parents or guardians. Please, don’t bother saying that many adults often make bad choices as well. I know that. Instead of trying to force a rational argument into absurdity, can you give me a good reason a third-grader should be allowed to consent to sex and make other legal decisions?
The Fallacy of The Slippery Slope - of which this is a classic example.
I can see the first, but not the next two.
Obesity rights will arise as a reaction to the government’s imposing more and more restrictions on food as their investment in health care increases. The guidelines will not be enacted as law, but there will be restrictions on how much and what kinds of health care you are eligible for based on serum cholesterol, BMI, etc., from HHS. As more and more of us become obese, there will be a reaction as soon as obese people form a majority (if they haven’t already).
Male rights? Not a chance - the idea will be dismissed out of hand and without discussion. Ex-convicts? Also no - nobody will care enough, including the ex-felons. It will be too obvious that the only ones lobbying for this are politicians fishing for votes, and ex-felons don’t vote consistently enough to get the measure passed.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure if I’m being whooshed. First, how many politicians do you really think are going to fish for votes by standing up for convicted criminals? That’s not exactly a surefire campaign winner there.
Second, the whole point is that ex-felons CAN’T vote; if this becomes an issue, it’ll have to be non-ex-felons who support it.
Daniel
I would agree: what rights don’t we have? 
Women tend to win custody in divorce cases, but I can’t think of anything else. Again, hard to get a movement behind that.
I’m playing Devil’s advocate here, of course:
To bring up the issue of legality and age of consent is to beg the question. Why do we have those laws in the first place? Are they a good idea, or should children be able to do what they want? Shouldn’t everyone, including children, be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else? Do we really know for sure that children are harmed in all or even cases of sexual contact with adults, or is the only harm the emotional damage brought on by the societal taboo against it?
I wouldn’t be saying this if I didn’t think there were a (slim) chance that a “children’s rights” movement could arise and begin making some of these arguments. And I think that if that happens, those who place individual self-determination on a pedestal won’t really be able to object.
That should have read “all or even many cases…”
This might happen if it weren’t for the fact that the pharmaceutical companies will probably come out with a slew of anti-obesity drugs. Certain factions within the medical establishment are already working on defining obesity as a disease. The federal government will then begin paying for obesity medication for fat Medicare patients (and eventually all fat people, when we get socialized medicine.) There will be no need for an obesity rights movement, since fat slobs will be able to continue greedily stuffing their faces while keeping slim at the expense of taxpayers.
I may be wrong here, but it was my impression that in the majority of cases, paedophiles treat their victims as objects - and that it isn’t any kind of relationship. Now maybe it could be argued that this is because the whole thing has been forced underground, but I’m not so sure - what we have is a situation where a strong, determined person forcibly acts upon a weak, defenceless one - consent(if true consent were even possible) doesn’t make much of a difference, because failure to provide consent will not prevent the act from occurring.