[ArGee]

In your mind they are invalid. However, how can they make the same argument when one starts from the premise of consenting adults and one from the premise of adults and children?

The statements don't start with a premise. They start with the statement of the mentally ill. "I am this way, and that's ok." Neither says anything about whether they are this way with consenting or non-consenting anything. That's something that the libertarians added later to justify closing their eyes.

The statements, "we're born this way" and "we're not monsters, we're just misunderstood" say nothing about consent.

If they did, then I would have to remind you that the entire consent argument is a strawman, but that's a subject for a later post.

Shalom. Shalom.

[Dolphy]

The statements don't start with a premise. They start with the statement of the mentally ill. "I am this way, and that's ok." Neither says anything about whether they are this way with consenting or non-consenting anything.

We have the right to be mentally ill in this country. That doesn't make the statements invalid, they must be viewed in context. They could have just as well started with their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot responsibly consider that statement outside of the context with which it is declared.