- Joined
- Oct 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,682
- Reaction score
- 1,905
- Location
- Lost at sea~
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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?
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?
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
Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?
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?
It appears so_Are you really asking whether trashing DOMA will make posthumous, incestual, and animal marriages lawful or even common for that matter?
Which raises a whole new set of questions_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.
Animals can be bought, sold, caged, enslaved, slaughtered for food, used as lab-rats and have their babies taken away by humans without consent_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_
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_
IMO the opening line was very fair and open-ended which seemed obvious by the first 2 words; "Could or Should"_Oh look, this nonsense again. Slippery slope, anyone?
"Homosexuality, a unique issue unrelated to the sexual requirements of opposite gender unity"Polygamy, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.
Incest, 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_Consent, a unique issue unrelated to sexual orientation or gender.
Debating "merit" is no longer necessary__It became a non-issue when DOMA bit the dust_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?
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.
"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_
It shouldn't and it won't.Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?
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?
It appears so_
No.Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?
Not as an intention but it is an inevitable consequence of societal rules. Pretty much anything is going to make someone unhappy.Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?
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.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.
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?"
I seriously doubt that it's any where near the top of anyone's list of concerns Chrissy_That's just not at the top of my list of things to be concerned about, whether or not people marry animals.
These things you mentioned are indeed rational concerns but should they be concerns of government?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.
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_
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)
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_It shouldn't and it won't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?