California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[Rudey]

Nobody seems able to answer why someone can't marry their pet, their sister, or engage in polygamy. Sure, sure you judge it as a bad thing but I'm sure the people that engage in it would rather not be judged for what they do in their own time.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Nobody seems able to answer why someone can't marry their pet, their sister, or engage in polygamy. Sure, sure you judge it as a bad thing but I'm sure the people that engage in it would rather not be judged for what they do in their own time.

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry.

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to marry their sister or more than one person.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Dionysus

Honestly, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to marry their sister or more than one person.

Coming from you, I am not surprised.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because they can't.

I think this another part of the issue with gays getting married. The fear is that if you let them get married, then why stop there? Why not let people marry their pets (this was actually part of an episode on Southpark), sister or openly and legally engage in polygamy.

As noted earlier, this issue becomes a very slippery slope. How do you know when to stop. Because just as gays feel that their rights are being violated, then those that want to marry their pig, sister, neighbor's girls who live down the street will want to fight for the same right.

All in all, the only group who would benefit from all these marriages would be Target's bridal registry.

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.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

[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.

[Rudey]

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.

Gays being married really hurts no one.

Kevin, you should learn to read better.

An animal does not consent to being shocked, having a bullet put into its head, being cut up, and served to you on your dinner plate. But you do it anyway. So now you're worried about its right to consent?

And you don't have to have babies with incest. Now what? It hurts no one right?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Kevin, you should learn to read better.

An animal does not consent to being shocked, having a bullet put into its head, being cut up, and served to you on your dinner plate. But you do it anyway. So now you're worried about its right to consent?

And you don't have to have babies with incest. Now what? It hurts no one right?

Some would argue, marriage is a different (and often worse) fate than becoming someone's dinner.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some would argue, marriage is a different (and often worse) fate than becoming someone's dinner.

HAHA I see what you did there by avoiding the question I asked.

Look folks, I didn't say what is or isn't right. I just am saying that you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others. It doesn't matter what the source of those "morals" are...bible, your mother, etc.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Look folks, I didn't say what is or isn't right. I just am saying that you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others. It doesn't matter what the source of those "morals" are...bible, your mother, etc.

But morals themselves are completely subjective. It doesn't matter what the source of the morals are??? So people like Warren Jeffs? Fred Phelps? David Duke? They all have their own defined sets of "morals".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rudey

HAHA I see what you did there by avoiding the question I asked.

Look folks, I didn't say what is or isn't right. I just am saying that you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others. It doesn't matter what the source of those "morals" are...bible, your mother, etc.

How about this:

The government has several non-moral objections to animal marriage. The first that occurs to me is that if we were all allowed to marry our animals, the IRS Code could basically forget about having a "single" status for taxpayers. We'd ALL be "married, filing jointly" with Toonces. Being married to someone who doesn't produce income greatly reduces your own tax liability.

-- so there's a non-moral reason for you.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Look folks, I didn't say what is or isn't right. I just am saying that you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others. It doesn't matter what the source of those "morals" are...bible, your mother, etc.

I'm totally grunching this total trainwreck of a thread (seriously, can a mod just rename it "lessons in logical fallacies"?), but it seems like we're getting into a cum hoc ergo propter hoc deal here.

That is to say, I agree completely with your first assertion ("you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others") while completely disagreeing with the second ("it doesn't matter what the source of those morals (is)"). In fact, it very much does matter - not only because there are (relatively) universal moral and ethical standards and there are standards from dubious or non-universal sources, but also because there is a stated dissociation from one source of moral relativism in the United States that precludes that from being the sole source of moral authority.

Let's look at it like this, since you keep bringing up the example: universally, barring exceptionally niche elements such as Satanists or whatever, people know that it is unacceptable and immoral (and unethical, whichever term you'd prefer) to kill another person. The reason is because that person has its own rights (which cattle do not share; cattle as we know them would likely be extinct without human intervention, and it is also a universal moral standard to separate people from animals in at least some regard).

This is not a strictly "Christian" moral. However, the overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage advocates openly (and honestly, which I find very respectable) declare that they are relying on a strictly Christian definition of marriage. There is no universal sympathy on this issue, and the relative moral outcry comes from churches (and some synagogues and mosques).

The two are not akin, nor should they be in the eyes of the law - a strict separation of Church and State requires that the state enact laws that utilize a moral authority more universal than any one church (or even any majority set of churches).

It does, indeed, matter which source is used for "moral" lawmaking.