California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is actually pretty easily answered -- two adults have the capacity to consent and others are not hurt by their decision to marry. An animal/child doesn't have the capacity to consent.

As for incest, the likelihood of birth defects means that your decision to procreate hurts others.

I agree with this too.

But, an argument presented to me was that the basic human rights of gays are being denied because they can not marry who they want. Couldn't someone who wants to marry their pig say the same thing? Their basic human rights to marry who they want is being denied? Because they know their pig loves them as much as they do and the best way to express their love is to marry their pig.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

On a day to day basis, no. In terms of a moral fabric, I feel yes, it does.

[AGDee]

The argument was that two consenting adults who can marry without harming anybody should be allowed to. A pig is not a consenting adult. As noted above, if a brother and sister procreate, there is a great chance for harm to the child. I'm not convinced that polygamy should be illegal either. Perhaps if it were legal, there would be more control over whether groups like the FDLS would be marrying children and hiding out in compounds. I am of the mind frame that anything that doesn't harm anybody else or infringe on someone else's rights should be legal.

Not allowing gays to be married doesn't change the fact that they are gay and living a gay lifestyle. Allowing gays to be married isn't going to increase the number of homosexuals in our country. Either they are gay or they aren't. Nothing you believe is going to change that fact.

It seems as though our basic difference is that I don't believe you can or should legislate morality and you do. We clearly each feel strongly about that basic premise and we clearly won't be changing each other's minds. I think the debate is worth hashing out and I do appreciate a good debate that is done without insults and name calling

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The argument was that two consenting adults who can marry without harming anybody should be allowed to. A pig is not a consenting adult. As noted above, if a brother and sister procreate, there is a great chance for harm to the child. I'm not convinced that polygamy should be illegal either. Perhaps if it were legal, there would be more control over whether groups like the FDLS would be marrying children and hiding out in compounds. I am of the mind frame that anything that doesn't harm anybody else or infringe on someone else's rights should be legal.

Like I said, I agree. But, if the argument is about basic human rights and you should be able to choose who you love, then can't pig lovers make the same argument? I don't think they (pig lovers) are going to get anywhere with it though.

Not allowing gays to be married doesn't change the fact that they are gay and living a gay lifestyle. Allowing gays to be married isn't going to increase the number of homosexuals in our country. Either they are gay or they aren't. Nothing you believe is going to change that fact.

I agree with this too.

It seems as though our basic difference is that I don't believe you can or should legislate morality and you do. We clearly each feel strongly about that basic premise and we clearly won't be changing each other's minds. I think the debate is worth hashing out and I do appreciate a good debate that is done without insults and name calling

But we already legislate morality - where I live corporal punishment (spanking) of kids was taken out of schools and if parents are caught spanking their kids, they could get in trouble with CPS.

Some states allow the death penalty, some do not. Deciding who dies or not is a moral issue.

Pornography is a moral issue that is legislated.

The age of consent to engage in sex is a legislated issue too.

I agree that we disagree and I'm gald that there is a forum to allow us to do that.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Like I said, I agree. But, if the argument is about basic human rights and you should be able to choose who you love, then can't pig lovers make the same argument? I don't think they (pig lovers) are going to get anywhere with it though.

Animals are not human. That's why animal lovers can't make the same argument.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Animals are not human. That's why animal lovers can't make the same argument.

I know that animals are not human. All I'm saying is that the human can argue that their basic human right has been denied to marry their pet. Yes, it is silly, but people may try to argue that.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I know that animals are not human. All I'm saying is that the human can argue that their basic human right has been denied to marry their pet. Yes, it is silly, but people may try to argue that.

Children and animals are unable to consent. They do not have the capacity to understand the ramifications and they must be protected in this circumstance.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Children and animals are unable to consent. They do not have the capacity to understand the ramifications and they must be protected in this circumstance.

I'm sure that cow would rather partake in a marriage than be slaughtered so you can eat it. But feel free to protect that cow by killing it.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Children and animals are unable to consent. They do not have the capacity to understand the ramifications and they must be protected in this circumstance.

I've said numerous times that I agree that animals and children can not give consent.

I'm just proposing the counter argument that someone may try to make, that is all. The counter argument is silly and ridiculous - but someone may try to argue for it.

That is why we have laws to legislate this type of issue.