Are societal limits on our private lives a good or bad thing? (1 Viewer)

[Empirica]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

 

[instagramsci]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

Are you really asking whether trashing DOMA will make posthumous, incestual, and animal marriages lawful or even common for that matter?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The SCOTUS decision on DOMA simply said to leave marriage laws up to the states, that is hardly "unrestricted" since any still are free to challenge the state' s marriage laws (or procedures to enact them, like CA's proposition 8) in court.

 

[ChrisL]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

I don't think people will ever be able to marry things that cannot give consent. :lol:

Although I did hear a story once (Japan I think) where a man actually did marry a blow-up doll.

 

[Paschendale]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

Oh look, this nonsense again. Slippery slope, anyone?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group

Polygamy, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.

a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister

Incest, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.

an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Consent, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.

By all means, debate each issue on its merits, though I don't think there really are any merits to support removing the element of consent. But lumping them together is pointless, dishonest, and has no bearing on actual legal or constitutional processes. There might be a case for polygamy, and in a future where all our reproduction takes place in a test tube, one could be made for incest.

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

We're discussing changing laws, so obviously order is protected. What does homosexual marriage have to do with decency other than you not liking it?

 

[Fisher]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

The court continued to use the rational basis test for gay marriage. Basically, does the government have a rational reason for banning certain marriages. As for incest, the rational basis would be two-fold--to protect against both genetically goofed up kids and to prevent people from using their position in a family to take advantage of vulnerable family members. For polygamy, the arguments might range from it being an unhealthy and inherently unequal social unit to SS and estate laws are not predicated on multiple wives. As for the animals and inanimate objects, taking an argument to the extreme ends of logic usually tells just how shaky the underlying position is.

 

[Empirica]

Are you really asking whether trashing DOMA will make posthumous, incestual, and animal marriages lawful or even common for that matter?

It appears so_

 

[Empirica]

The SCOTUS decision on DOMA simply said to leave marriage laws up to the states, that is hardly "unrestricted" since any still are free to challenge the state' s marriage laws (or procedures to enact them, like CA's proposition 8) in court.

Which raises a whole new set of questions_

 

[Empirica]

I don't think people will ever be able to marry things that cannot give consent. :lol:

Although I did hear a story once (Japan I think) where a man actually did marry a blow-up doll.

Animals can be bought, sold, caged, enslaved, slaughtered for food, used as lab-rats and have their babies taken away by humans without consent_

Considering these things, Daisy Mae marrying Old McDonald might very well be the least of her worries_

In fact, a very good argument could be made that if Daisy was able to give her consent, she would_

 

[wolfsgirl]

Animals can be bought, sold, caged, enslaved, slaughtered for food, used as lab-rats and have their babies taken away by humans without consent_

Considering these things, Daisy Mae marrying Old McDonald might very well be the least of her worries_

In fact, a very good argument could be made that if Daisy was able to give her consent, she would_

But animals can not enter into a legally binding contract as that requires consent.

 

[ChrisL]

Animals can be bought, sold, caged, enslaved, slaughtered for food, used as lab-rats and have their babies taken away by humans without consent_

Considering these things, Daisy Mae marrying Old McDonald might very well be the least of her worries_

In fact, a very good argument could be made that if Daisy was able to give her consent, she would_

That's just not at the top of my list of things to be concerned about, whether or not people marry animals.

 

[Empirica]

Oh look, this nonsense again. Slippery slope, anyone?

IMO the opening line was very fair and open-ended which seemed obvious by the first 2 words; "Could or Should"_

Polygamy, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.

Incest, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.

"Homosexuality, a unique issue unrelated to the sexual requirements of opposite gender unity"

See my point Pas???

Society once believed homosexuals to be sick disgusting perverts, but that hurdle has been cleared_

Consent, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.

A parent or guardian can legally sign a child's consent form and there are parents out there who would do it_

And, there are Emancipated Minors that can sign their own consent forms__Ever heard of Sui Juris?

Animals don't have any rights to speak of, so consent isn't an issue with them_

By all means, debate each issue on its merits, though I don't think there really are any merits to support removing the element of consent. But lumping them together is pointless, dishonest, and has no bearing on actual legal or constitutional processes. There might be a case for polygamy, and in a future where all our reproduction takes place in a test tube, one could be made for incest.

We're discussing changing laws, so obviously order is protected. What does homosexual marriage have to do with decency other than you not liking it?

Debating "merit" is no longer necessary__It became a non-issue when DOMA bit the dust_

The biggest obstacle has been cleared from the tracks, which was convincing society that;

"homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals including marriage"

The only point that now has to be made is; "Does society have the right to deprive anyone else of happiness?"

 

[rathi]

The only point that now has to be made is; "Does society have the right to deprive anyone else of happiness?"

The state may only enact a ban when it serves a compelling state interest. Irrational dislike of homosexuality does not meet that standard. Polygamy is reasonably prohibited based on the practical legal implications of marriage law. If legal, you could have one person marrying thousands of foreigners to bypass immigration and get them residency. That is probably especially important to you given your extreme xenophobia.

 

[Paschendale]

The state may only enact a ban when it serves a compelling state interest. Irrational dislike of homosexuality does not meet that standard. Polygamy is reasonably prohibited based on the practical legal implications of marriage law. If legal, you could have one person marrying thousands of foreigners to bypass immigration and get them residency. That is probably especially important to you given your extreme xenophobia.

Keep in mind that for Polygamy to be legal, each member of the marriage would likely have to consent. Managing more than a few people like that would suggest a great deal of complication. That sort of abuse could be very complicated very fast, and imagine the risk that this person would take. If some of these immigrant spouses were irresponsible with loans, the original person could have their credit completely destroyed, as married couples often have a joint credit rating, for a mortgage for example. Intestate law could also end up denying this person's preferred heirs of their intended inheritance. Also likely this sort of abuse could lead to legalized polygamy being rethought. What's the harm in a threesome, but a fiftysome really doesn't satisfy the intentions of marriage. A gay couple does, a straight couple does, a group of three certainly could, a group of five might. Legal polygamy might not necessarily mean that a marriage can have as many people as one might want. There could still be a reasonable numerical limit. It just might not be two. A polygamous marriage might very much mirror an extended family, only they all have sex with each other. Or have sex with some of each other. But there's no reason why those six people couldn't take care of all their children together, share a house, and have a life together. But eleven people probably couldn't do that.

"Homosexuality, a unique issue unrelated to the sexual requirements of opposite gender unity"

See my point Pas???

No, I don't. Because it's my point that you seem to be supporting. Each of those issues are different and unrelated. DOMA and the current debate about SSM only deals with homosexuality. It has nothing to do with any of the other issues you referenced.

Society once believed homosexuals to be sick disgusting perverts, but that hurdle has been cleared_

Society also once believed that black people made excellent farm equipment and that a woman was property, owned her by father or her husband. Society maintains a lot of stupid ideas and it is excellent that we disabuse ourselves of such trite.

I second Rathi's explanation to your final query.

 

[Jerry]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

It shouldn't and it won't.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

As a matter of morality, and of basic societal survival, it is the duty of any society to uphold and preserve those principles that are essential to the stability of that society and the well-being of the members thereof.

The family as the most basic unit of society, founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, is the single most basic, essential, and vital of such principles. No society of any size has ever deviated very far from this foundation, and survived; and no society ever will. Ours will not be an exception.

 

[captainawesome]

It appears so_

No one sincerely asks if allowing gay marriage will lead to women marrying a dog or a man a blow up doll.

It's a troll and a disguised insult.

 

[HonestJoe]

Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

No.

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Not as an intention but it is an inevitable consequence of societal rules. Pretty much anything is going to make someone unhappy.

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?

Yes. Decency and order makes some people unhappy though. Differing opinions of what is decent mean again, someone is going to be unhappy regardless. Individual happiness isn't to only relevant factor in development of a good society though. We could make everyone happy (at least short term) by putting euphoric drugs in the water supply but it wouldn't necessarily be good.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

As a matter of morality, and of basic societal survival, it is the duty of any society to uphold and preserve those principles that are essential to the stability of that society and the well-being of the members thereof.

The family as the most basic unit of society, founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, is the single most basic, essential, and vital of such principles. No society of any size has ever deviated very far from this foundation, and survived; and no society ever will. Ours will not be an exception.

Since SSM accomplishes all of the goals that you indicate are essential to a society, once again, and as usual, you are incorrect and don't know what you are talking about.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

IMO the opening line was very fair and open-ended which seemed obvious by the first 2 words; "Could or Should"_

"Homosexuality, a unique issue unrelated to the sexual requirements of opposite gender unity"

See my point Pas???

Society once believed homosexuals to be sick disgusting perverts, but that hurdle has been cleared_

A parent or guardian can legally sign a child's consent form and there are parents out there who would do it_

And, there are Emancipated Minors that can sign their own consent forms__Ever heard of Sui Juris?

Animals don't have any rights to speak of, so consent isn't an issue with them_

Debating "merit" is no longer necessary__It became a non-issue when DOMA bit the dust_

The biggest obstacle has been cleared from the tracks, which was convincing society that;

"homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals including marriage"

The only point that now has to be made is; "Does society have the right to deprive anyone else of happiness?"

Your entire argument is based on the fallacy of false equivalency. With each comparison, you use words like "if" and "should", however, unless you can demonstrate "is" your argument has no merit. For example, when you attempt to compare SSM to marrying an animal, fact is an adult can give consent, an animal cannot. Your "if" creates a false equivalency. Unless you can demonstrate similar constraints and allowances, AND similar benefits, comparing SSM with any of the issues that you have is illogical.

 

[Empirica]

That's just not at the top of my list of things to be concerned about, whether or not people marry animals.

I seriously doubt that it's any where near the top of anyone's list of concerns Chrissy_

But is it possible we feel that way because we don't believe society would ever tolerate it?

After all, there was a time when most people thought the exact same way about Homosexuals_

 

[Empirica]

The court continued to use the rational basis test for gay marriage. Basically, does the government have a rational reason for banning certain marriages. As for incest, the rational basis would be two-fold--to protect against both genetically goofed up kids and to prevent people from using their position in a family to take advantage of vulnerable family members. For polygamy, the arguments might range from it being an unhealthy and inherently unequal social unit to SS and estate laws are not predicated on multiple wives. As for the animals and inanimate objects, taking an argument to the extreme ends of logic usually tells just how shaky the underlying position is.

These things you mentioned are indeed rational concerns but should they be concerns of government?

After all, Government is (supposedly) simply a representative of society, in place to enforce it's will_

(and, if worse case scenarios were grounds for intolerance, there would be a bunch of stuff banned)

 

[captainawesome]

I seriously doubt that it's any where near the top of anyone's list of concerns Chrissy_

But is it possible we feel that way because we don't believe society would ever tolerate it?

After all, there was a time when most people thought the exact same way about Homosexuals_

lol humans are not going to marry animals.

do you horse take this woman to be your lawfully married wife.

lol crazy talk.

 

[Fisher]

These things you mentioned are indeed rational concerns but should they be concerns of government?

After all, Government is (supposedly) simply a representative of society, in place to enforce it's will_

(and, if worse case scenarios were grounds for intolerance, there would be a bunch of stuff banned)

Well, the concerns of busy-bodies are the concerns of government. I don't care if people want to marry their vibrator.

 

[Empirica]

It shouldn't and it won't.

There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_

And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_