California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I was discussing one aspect, not 5 others. You make no sense. Penn State's fault or yours?

No, you're arguing the whole issue with what you think is the "gotcha!" line of reasoning which has been counter-argued again and again, you just refuse to veer off your one-way one-lane highway.

And whatever your issues with Penn State are, oo, you're really getting me with your "digs". What, you didn't get into University Park?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

No, you're arguing the whole issue with what you think is the "gotcha!" line of reasoning which has been counter-argued again and again, you just refuse to veer off your one-way one-lane highway.

And whatever your issues with Penn State are, oo, you're really getting me with your "digs". What, you didn't get into University Park?

Again...you make no sense. I didn't argue against gay marriage. You can't read.

And no i didn't get into university park or whatever the area that should have been a parking lot but was turned into a school is called. I went to a real school.

[nittanyalum]

You convince yourself of whatever you need to to get through your day, big guy.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

You convince yourself of whatever you need to to get through your day, big guy.

So many brilliant words, so little time big girl!

[nittanyalum]

Looking forward to your next 3-month hiatus, Rude.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Oh now I get it. Picking who you can marry and sex are equivalent universal human rights...akin to being allowed to live.

The fact that they're NOT akin is kind of the entire point - legislating against something that has no universal moral authority (as in, the current situation) seems specious at best.

Is this a tacit admission that you're recanting on the "it doesn't matter which moral authority you use" gambit?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The fact that they're NOT akin is kind of the entire point - legislating against something that has no universal moral authority (as in, the current situation) seems specious at best.

Is this a tacit admission that you're recanting on the "it doesn't matter which moral authority you use" gambit?

My point was that moral compasses are different from person to person. Some folks may be pro gay marriage but against incest and beastiality and polygamy. So who's right? These aren't universal rights like "life". At the end of the day you can't just say "morals don't matter" and "some morals do, but not the ones from the bible".

[JonoBN41]

What the hell are you people talking about? I can't leave you alone for a minute. From this discussion, one would think it's already legal for a man to marry a cow and for a woman to marry a bull. Adding same-sex marriage recognition, therefore, would only allow a man to marry a bull and woman to marry a cow - which probably makes more sense than the other way around. Don't you just love barnyard humor?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

My point was that moral compasses are different from person to person. Some folks may be pro gay marriage but against incest and beastiality and polygamy. So who's right? These aren't universal rights like "life". At the end of the day you can't just say "morals don't matter" and "some morals do, but not the ones from the bible".

But I'm not saying any of those things - I'm saying that, when a law is purely based on a moral expectation, you can't use a narrow moral authority (such as a subset of certain religions), particularly an excluded subsection of moral authorities (such as religion in general), as dictum.

Incest and bestiality laws do not have root in a narrow moral authority - they are instead rooted in protection against predators for those without means to protect themselves (animals, children). Adult incest creates genetic problems that have no way to be monitored, and as such preventative measures are likely appropriate. First cousins are allowed to be married in many states, because that's (apparently) the scientific cut-off for safety. Some people can do heroin without harming others or themselves, but we don't take them into consideration for legislative purposes.

Polygamy laws originally had a similar intent, if I'm not mistaken - to prevent children from being leveraged into a polygamist situation. Whether that applies today, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to cede that point completely (it really is somewhat odd that polygamy is specifically outlawed).

This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What the hell are you people talking about?

This made me smile.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.

Let me pose a somewhat hypothetical question:


Then what about cultures that are non-Christian (also non-Western) but are still very anti-gay? What basis are they using to justify their reasoning for being anti-gay? In these cultures the issue of gay marriage would never come up because the issue of revealing that you are gay could lead to death.

Are these cultures using morality to justify their reason, their religion, or their laws?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

This made me smile.

He said what some of us were wondering.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Let me pose a somewhat hypothetical question:

Then what about cultures that are non-Christian (also non-Western) but are still very anti-gay? What basis are they using to justify their reasoning for being anti-gay? In these cultures the issue of gay marriage would never come up because the issue of revealing that you are gay could lead to death.

Are these cultures using morality to justify their reason, their religion, or their laws?

These cultures have absolutely no bearing on American law, nor a significant effect on the American response to laws attempting to legalize marriage for homosexuals.

It's totally irrelevant, and it's 100% a strawman - my argument does not apply anywhere except within the context of the American system of law.

If the United States were ruled by a junta or were a theocracy, obviously one moral authority could rule without any exception. Thankfully, it's not, so your examples are laughably irrelevant.

[Rudey]

So we protect animals by slaughtering them?

And incest is banned because the government doesn't want to pay the costs to monitor for freak children?

Originally Posted by KSig RC

But I'm not saying any of those things - I'm saying that, when a law is purely based on a moral expectation, you can't use a narrow moral authority (such as a subset of certain religions), particularly an excluded subsection of moral authorities (such as religion in general), as dictum.

Incest and bestiality laws do not have root in a narrow moral authority - they are instead rooted in protection against predators for those without means to protect themselves (animals, children). Adult incest creates genetic problems that have no way to be monitored, and as such preventative measures are likely appropriate. First cousins are allowed to be married in many states, because that's (apparently) the scientific cut-off for safety. Some people can do heroin without harming others or themselves, but we don't take them into consideration for legislative purposes.

Polygamy laws originally had a similar intent, if I'm not mistaken - to prevent children from being leveraged into a polygamist situation. Whether that applies today, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to cede that point completely (it really is somewhat odd that polygamy is specifically outlawed).

This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.

[JonoBN41]

To take this discussion to its logical conclusion*, if an undershirt married a pair of long johns, would it result in a union suit (ie US vs Hanes)? Would it matter if the garments were male or female; gay or straight? Could either side win or would it be a wash, or would one side fold? Would there be legal briefs?

Discuss amongst yourselves. Personally, I think it's morally wrong for undergarments to marry.

*absurdity