Since the definition has been changed to legalize gay marriage, why stop there? Why aren't marriages between all consenting adults be legal? Or why stop there, how about marriages between all living creatures? In ancient Rome the emperor married his horse. Who says the relationship wasn't consensual, maybe there was a spiritual connection ie. the life force, the circle of life ect.
sort by best latest
I think you're on to something here, the laws are altered based on the strength of the advocate but what about equal protection under the law, it seems the law is for sale to the highest bidder?
Gays only make up 10% of the population. They became a powerful lobby over the course of 50 years. It takes time to change minds. It took African-Americans almost 100 years between the end of slavery, and signing of the Civil Rights Act.
equal protection under the law is the perfect example for the strong advocate.
Standing alone it is an ambiguous, and vague phrase. What does the phrase , All Men Are Created Equal.
It didn't include blacks or women.
But later on it was changed via Constitutional amendment's, not arbitrarily altered to suit a political agenda.
Why change the definition of marriage to suit one group of consenting adults while denying other groups? The similarities are that they're all consenting adults looking for a legal sanction for there marriage.
Because the legal definition of marriage is in the hands of the majority, i.e. the will of the people. The other two groups do not represent the views of the majority. If one day that changes, we can address that side of the issue. But not now.
Isn't an important function of the courts to protect minorities, from the tyranny of the majority?
You're grasping for straws, wba. Your last comment is completely nonsensical. No "minorities" are being hurt from the decision to allow gay marriage.
I was referring to the minorities supporting incest and polygamy.
A government can protect its minorities, sure. But a democracy is ruled by the majority.
Isn't the US a republic?
Even a republic suggests the people have the power. We elect representatives, based on a majority vote, who follow our ideals. A candidate who supports polygamy and sibling marriage, wouldn't have the votes to win. i.e. it's will of the people.
Isn't the point of having a Constitution being that the law applies equally regardless of sentiments. Now if the majority want to change the Constitution, let them do it by the agreed upon way which is the amendment process.
That last paragraph is exactly it. As long as it involves consenting adults, how my neighbor chooses to define his or her marriage is none of my business.
Isn't it a common new age belief, that we're all connected by some sort of life force? What about the Dog whisperer, doesn't he claim to understand the dogs feelings? It would be difficult to disprove, wouldn't it?
wba - you have quite the imagination! Why do you think "some sort of life force" is a common new age belief? Speak for yourself, dude. Speak in specifics, not generalities that you "assume".
I'm certainly no expert but according to Wikipedia the life force emerged in the spiritualist movement and inspired thinkers in the modern New age movement.
You can define it however you want to, of course. But that doesn't make it a "common" belief as you are saying. It may be "common" to SOME people, but not as a general statement. Again, try to think in facts and specifics. I know u can if u try!
Didn't I say that I thought it was a common New Age belief ?
Yes, you did say that. I'm saying it's NOT common at all. A lot of people think it's nonsense. I'm also trying to tell you not to ASSUME things! Try thinking with an open mind.
What am I assuming?
Dodging the issue, wba? The issue really is about consent. If you are a supporter of liberty then it would follow that you wouldn't want to try to dictate what consenting adults do with each other.
if you asked someone from PETA if animals have human like feelings and a free will they would probably agree, wouldn't they? Then whose to say they can't give consent. And what about minors under 16 can't they give consent?
Bigamy would increase the chance of half siblings marrying, thus ruining the gene pool.
In the eyes of the state its a legal contract that recognizes a religious union and now also unions forbidden by many churches.
The state does not recognize a religious union. The state recognizes a civil contract, which is why you can't be legally married without a license. If you stand up in church to marry, the law will not recognize it without filing of state paperwork.
wba - you are incorrect. The government only deals in legalities. The government is not interested in religious dogma. You are free to practice any religion you want or no religion at all.
Marriage is really just a license and not a real contract. If it were a contract the terms would defined by the parties, and not the state. Because it isn't a contract dissolution of it depends on presumptions made by the laws of that state.
A license is the same thing as saying a legal contract. The license grants you certain legal rights.
Bunch if tax breaks... Talk about discrimination! Gay couples were paying so much more to live here, with less of the privileges!!
Should laws be altered to suit powerful and popular causes while denying justice to the less powerful or ever a small minority group?
The law is always influenced by powerful and popular. Gays make up 10% of the population, but gay marriage is now legal. It takes time, legal challenges, and persistence to change laws. Absurdity rarely works as a legal argument.
Aren't laws supposed to be equally applied regardless of how we feel about them or how popular they are? The modern NAZI party or KKK can hold public rallies can't they?
Why yes they can! What's your point?
That if the definition of marriage can be altered to accommodate Gay marriage then it logically follows that any other union should be legal, no matter how absurd.
If you would like to make the argument in court that incest and polygamy should be legalized, go for it. Meanwhile, the law allows two people not first degree relatives to marry, regardless of gender. That's the law 'til your case is successful.
I think you'd agree that all Supreme Court decisions are not good, how about years ago when marriage equality was denied, did u agree with that ruling?
You're right! And they NEVER consult Bible which this country was supposedly established on!
Guess what? Satan's winning down here! (Jn 10:10)
He's already been defeated! But look how many lost souls he's "twisted the minds" of!
If Satan is influencing people to support stuff like marriage equality and pro-choice women's rights then I must say, Satan sounds like a pretty cool guy.
Does your Pro- Choice view also for the unborn child, it seems that they're given no choice at all! And does your marriage equality extend to siblings or other arrangements? How about between adults and consenting children?
Children, fetuses, the mentally incapable, and a few others do NOT have the luxury of "free will". Someone must do their choosing for them. The choice SHOULD be contraception, not abortion, THAT is "pro-choice". Why do you try to confuse the issue?
Haven't we already discussed the issues that complicate marriage between siblings/children? No need to be obtuse.
I'd be interested to hear what you think a <12 week old fetus will do when you ask it to make a choice.
Austinstar- I would dispute that I child doesn't have a free will, even an unborn child would try to avoid pain and death. And choosing to murder an unborn child gives no choice to the child.
How about when we choose to murder BORN children? How about those who starve to death, while we watch? How about all these kids SHOT bang bang? And where is the choice of the living, breathing woman? She becomes your pawn. Nature gave to women.Finito
Good point SH and this is a sticky point but in the very rare case where the women would die giving birth, I would leave the life of the child in her hands.
The point of my question isn't to knock gay marriage, but to question the logic of changing existing laws to accommodate some unions while excluding others, however small a group they may be.
The reason for legalizing gay marriage has to do with the legal rights of the couple. Before legalizing, gays lived together without any legal rights to the estate of the their partner. Now they have that legal right just like any married couple
There is also the ethics of the power struggle issue, where one (usually the older one) could be using manipulation to trick the other into consenting (the same reason why it’s frowned upon for doctors to date patients, even if they are adults).
So then according to your reasoning, it be ok for siblings to marry as long as one of them is sterile and there was no chance of having children because your concern is for the quality and health of their offspring?
That's not at all what I am saying. As a mentioned I couldn't fit all I wanted to put in my original post because of character maxes and added a comment after that I couldn't put in the original post. Next time, read everything before you comment.
Couldn't the case be made that legitimizing Gay unions also has deleterious effects on society? Doesn't history show that public support of homosexuality usually proceeds the decline of that culture, look at Rome and Greece?
History also shows that Christianity had a lot to do with the fall of the Roman Empire.
Oooooh, let's outlaw Christianity....see how they like it.
Its admittedly difficult to prove specifically what would bring the decline of a civilization. I think its safe to say the immorality in itself is never good for any society.
What about the government's interest in promoting heterosexual unions because they believe the family unit is the glue that holds society together. Hasn't this been the majority opinion for most of history?
What are your opinions based on? Logic, the consensus among your peers, historical norms, scientific evidence or just a combination thereof?
The key word in this forum is legality. The scenarios that you describe would be a legal nightmare. That's the reason the supreme court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. It provides legal rights to an both partners.
Not necessary, most nations that once legalized polygamy, the men need the permission of their 1st wife, if he want to take a 2nd. So, there is no real problem there
Thanks, I'll take that to heart!
Are you saying now that there's marriage equality laws we should eliminate all laws? Was discriminating against gays and lesbians the only thing that was holding society together? Now that is gone we might as well start anarchy? It's the end?
I think she's being facetious.
Yes, and come to think of it....now that corporations are people, when can I marry Dunkin Donuts?
Krispy Kreme would make a better catch! LOL!
I think you made a valid point SH, the state does have an interest in regulating certain behavior for the general welfare of all of us
To glut, pig out and enjoy til death do us part! YUMMMM
Lots of things lead to greater risk of genetic abnormalities: smoking, age, existing genetics, obesity, etc. We don't prevent any of those, so it becomes a weak excuse to prohibit incest - unless the risk is drastically higher.