But as to defining marriage, this 'small government conservative' just feels it is an issue left to the statesI would be inclined to agree, but there are so many unanswered questions that way. If a gay couple marries in MA, and moves to MD, you're okay with that constituting an automatic no-fault divorce? What if they move back to MA?
And can straight couples claim the same right, by moving to a state that chooses not to recognize any marriages?
I would suggest that we could look at situations where someone marries under the age of consent, with parental permission in one state and then moves to another where the legal age with parental permission is higher. I have no idea how many cases there are in the law history, but there may be a few.
Of course those cases may also involve criminal charges as well, which a same-sex union wouldn't have issues with.
|
The question has been asked over and over in this thread. Who does SSM hurt? Whose rights does it violate?
If there is not a very compelling answer to this I don't see any point to the debate. For me the issue is settled.
If the argument outside of harm is that it's OK to restrict the liberty of others because we already do so, I simply reject that argument.
It seems like the thread has gone down a semantic rabbit hole, where small government conservatives are arguing in favor of more intrusive government. Then we wonder why we aren't taken seriously.
I have to go vote in the primaries now, so good luck.
If we were to allow people to legally marry their Realdoll (TM), how would that harm mixed-sex or same-sex marriages?
Just because something doesn't hurt someone, doesn't mean that society HAS to be forced to give it special recognition. Society could just say, "Do what you want to do, but leave us out of it." And if you are pro-same-sex marriage, you in fact do want society involved with it, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned with getting special governmental benefits.
A real doll cannot provide consent a real-doll cannot inherit debt or property, a real-doll cannot make decisions for your care when you are incapable. Someone tried to argue that ridiculous examples allow for discussion that isn't as contentious but what it also does is turn the argument into a derailment of silliness.
There are serious legal questions inherent in recognizing plural marriages, as well as marriages to creatures incapable of rational thought. Issues of inheritance and decision making that become muddled when multiple partners disagree. These problems aren't apparent in a OSM or SSM, and thus are not relevant to the discussion because they have significantly different repercussions. Which is why making arguments for SSM does not open the door for plural-marriages etc.
|
If we were to allow people to legally marry their Realdoll (TM), how would that harm mixed-sex or same-sex marriages?
INANIMATE OBJECTS CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT!!! "Arguments" like this have no place in any discussion. Most of the time your posts add value (even if they are a bit snarky). This thread has been the exception. Your arguments thus far have been disjointed and asinine.
Just because something doesn't hurt someone, doesn't mean that society HAS to be forced to give it special recognition. Society could just say, "Do what you want to do, but leave us out of it." And if you are pro-same-sex marriage, you in fact do want society involved with it, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned with getting special governmental benefits.
Until the government provides no benefits for being married, it will continue to be an issue. Civil unions do not provide the same benefit, leaving people in a separate but (un)equal status. Making SSM illegal hurts somebody...at the bare minimum it hurts the 18,000 couples who married while it was legal. OTOH, legal SSM hurts nobody.
A real doll cannot provide consent a real-doll cannot inherit debt or property, a real-doll cannot make decisions for your care when you are incapable. Someone tried to argue that ridiculous examples allow for discussion that isn't as contentious but what it also does is turn the argument into a derailment of silliness.
So what, how would it harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages to allow it? Who cares if we all think it is silly. That is the yardstick BT and the judge in the Cali cases set. Prove that there would be HARM. If you can't prove harm then you have to allow it, even if it is ridiculous (or you view it as such).
INANIMATE OBJECTS CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT!!! "Arguments" like this have no place in any discussion.
They do if the standard is "prove there is harm". So prove that it would harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages. Otherwise according to the judge in the case, it must be allowed.
Until the government provides no benefits for being married, it will continue to be an issue. Civil unions do not provide the same benefit, leaving people in a separate but (un)equal status. Making SSM illegal hurts somebody...at the bare minimum it hurts the 18,000 couples who married while it was legal. OTOH, legal SSM hurts nobody.
Nobody has claimed that same-sex couples are "harmed" (very loose definition, they are not given a bonus but again I know people can't separate lack of bonus to harm), but that isn't the question that was posed, it was prove there is harm by allowing it. So if that is the standard, then we as a society should allow many things to get special governmental recognition based solely on the fact that there is no harm not to.
|
|
A real doll cannot provide consent a real-doll cannot inherit debt or property, a real-doll cannot make decisions for your care when you are incapable. Someone tried to argue that ridiculous examples allow for discussion that isn't as contentious but what it also does is turn the argument into a derailment of silliness.So what, how would it harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages to allow it? Who cares if we all think it is silly. That is the yardstick BT and the judge in the Cali cases set. Prove that there would be HARM. If you can't prove harm then you have to allow it, even if it is ridiculous (or you view it as such).
It doesn't harm them, what it does harm is the legal processes (what happens when a man who knows he's dying wracks up 10,000 in unsecured personal debt then leaves everything to his spouse/realdoll)that revolve around our financial and legal systems, so things are harmed, can you say the same about allowing single partner SSM?
It doesn't harm them, what it does harm is the legal processes (what happens when a man who knows he's dying wracks up 10,000 in unsecured personal debt then leaves everything to his spouse/realdoll)that revolve around our financial and legal systems, so things are harmed, can you say the same about allowing single partner SSM?A real doll cannot provide consent a real-doll cannot inherit debt or property, a real-doll cannot make decisions for your care when you are incapable. Someone tried to argue that ridiculous examples allow for discussion that isn't as contentious but what it also does is turn the argument into a derailment of silliness.So what, how would it harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages to allow it? Who cares if we all think it is silly. That is the yardstick BT and the judge in the Cali cases set. Prove that there would be HARM. If you can't prove harm then you have to allow it, even if it is ridiculous (or you view it as such).
(Rich crazy) People do it with their pets, which are legally property and not persons, so what? Somehow we have survived those situations.
EDIT: Also, I don't see how the situation you describe would be any worse for allowing a person to marry their doll versus not. How would that make any difference?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It doesn't harm them, what it does harm is the legal processes (what happens when a man who knows he's dying wracks up 10,000 in unsecured personal debt then leaves everything to his spouse/realdoll)that revolve around our financial and legal systems, so things are harmed, can you say the same about allowing single partner SSM?A real doll cannot provide consent a real-doll cannot inherit debt or property, a real-doll cannot make decisions for your care when you are incapable. Someone tried to argue that ridiculous examples allow for discussion that isn't as contentious but what it also does is turn the argument into a derailment of silliness.So what, how would it harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages to allow it? Who cares if we all think it is silly. That is the yardstick BT and the judge in the Cali cases set. Prove that there would be HARM. If you can't prove harm then you have to allow it, even if it is ridiculous (or you view it as such).
I'd assume the same thing that would happen if I dropped dead on the way home from work today since my will isn't updated. So is my not having a will 'harming' anyone?
<SNIP>...small government conservatives are arguing in favor of more intrusive government. Then we wonder why we aren't taken seriously.</SNIP>
Indeed. It's not a logically consistent position.
For the record, BT, I take you quite seriously. I think I've said on a number of occasions that you've often given me a lot to think about.
|
|
Nobody has claimed that same-sex couples are "harmed" (very loose definition, they are not given a bonus but again I know people can't separate lack of bonus to harm), but that isn't the question that was posed, it was prove there is harm by allowing it. So if that is the standard, then we as a society should allow many things to get special governmental recognition based solely on the fact that there is no harm not to.
No, the primary argument against SSM is that it will harm "traditional marriage." Prove it. Prove that people in opposite marriages are going to leave their spouses in droves to start "gaying it up" and you'll have a case for making SSM illegal.
They do if the standard is "prove there is harm". So prove that it would harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages. Otherwise according to the judge in the case, it must be allowed.
Allowing people to enter into contracts with inanimate objects threatens the entire foundation of our legal system (as lastknightleft has already said). Seems as though there's a bit more at stake than marriage in this one.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now on to the million dollar question:
Rights should only be limited when limiting those rights protects the rights of another. How does disallowing SSM protect your rights? How would allowing SSM harm you?
You mean besides the right of my consent as the governed to petition to determine which civil contracts my government choses to recognize?
The right to petition my government for redress? The right to have my elected officials do their job? The right to live in a society with a legal structure with fairness?
Why no, my rights aren't affected at all...
(And you keep putting out this fun position that I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing a society can't change the definition of marriage. I'm arguing that a society can, through the legal structures it agrees on. This has not been allowed to happen.)
It's like buggly's 'we can't allow people to own nuclear weapons!' one, who can afford one? two, there's nothing wrong with owning any weapon... using it is something else entirely. If the argument is 'well he might kill hundreds of people with it' then the rebuttal is 'SSM might cause issues, we'd better not allow it!'
Should I not be allowed to collect RPG books, because I 'might' go all Columbine on someone?
INANIMATE OBJECTS CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT!!! "Arguments" like this have no place in any discussion.They do if the standard is "prove there is harm". So prove that it would harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages. Otherwise according to the judge in the case, it must be allowed.
Well, although this is a ludicrous argument, I'll go ahead and demonstrate a counter.
Firstly, marriage conveys rights to the couple in which the state has a direct concern with. One of these is a tax benefit (married filing status increases standard deduction on taxes).
Therefore, since only one person is actually generating an income (he has a SSN and withholding - the blowup doll does not), he'd be cheating the state out of additional tax revenues (because his deductions would be higher than allowed if he were still on a single status).
Therefore, harm is done in the eyes of the state and to it's citizenry (decreased tax revenue to the state - increased tax burdon to fellow citizens).
And the kicker: This harm wouldn't apply to same gender marriages due to their dual incomes. :)
INANIMATE OBJECTS CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT!!! "Arguments" like this have no place in any discussion.They do if the standard is "prove there is harm". So prove that it would harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages. Otherwise according to the judge in the case, it must be allowed.Well, although this is a ludicrous argument, I'll go ahead and demonstrate a counter.
Firstly, marriage conveys rights to the couple in which the state has a direct concern with. One of these is a tax benefit (married filing status increases standard deduction on taxes).
Therefore, since only one person is actually generating an income (he has a SSN and withholding - the blowup doll does not), he'd be cheating the state out of additional tax revenues (because his deductions would be higher than allowed if he were still on a single status).
Therefore, harm is done in the eyes of the state and to it's citizenry (decreased tax revenue to the state - increased tax burdon to fellow citizens).
And the kicker: This harm wouldn't apply to same gender marriages due to their dual incomes. :)
So in all same sex couples, both partners work?
So in all same sex couples, both partners work?
This is irrelevant. The law applied to all persons across the board regardless of their income level, employment, employment potential, etc.
I have demonstrated there is a harm in the blow up doll scenario. Do you yield?
Nobody has claimed that same-sex couples are "harmed" (very loose definition, they are not given a bonus but again I know people can't separate lack of bonus to harm), but that isn't the question that was posed, it was prove there is harm by allowing it. So if that is the standard, then we as a society should allow many things to get special governmental recognition based solely on the fact that there is no harm not to.No, the primary argument against SSM is that it will harm "traditional marriage." Prove it. Prove that people in opposite marriages are going to leave their spouses in droves to start "gaying it up" and you'll have a case for making SSM illegal.
I don't have to prove that, because it is irrelevant. Marriage gives benefits, these benefits are to support the concept of marriage. A reasonable person can decide that mixed-sex couples require these benefits while a same-sex couple might not. Especially since according to a poster above all same-sex couples have both spouses working.
They do if the standard is "prove there is harm". So prove that it would harm same-sex or mixed-sex marriages. Otherwise according to the judge in the case, it must be allowed.Allowing people to enter into contracts with inanimate objects threatens the entire foundation of our legal system (as lastknightleft has already said). Seems as though there's a bit more at stake than marriage in this one.
Prove this would harm anything, you still haven't but a vague hand-wave. According to the Judge in the case, you have failed and it must be allowed.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So in all same sex couples, both partners work?This is irrelevant. The law applied to all persons across the board regardless of their income level, employment, employment potential, etc.
I have demonstrated there is a harm in the blow up doll scenario. Do you yield?
No you haven't. You've just compared a housewife to a blow up doll though.
So in all same sex couples, both partners work?This is irrelevant. The law applied to all persons across the board regardless of their income level, employment, employment potential, etc.
I have demonstrated there is a harm in the blow up doll scenario. Do you yield?
I don't yield, under your implication, that there is then not harm in same-sex relationships. The government loses money in that case as compared to just roommates.
There are a lot of one income families out there...
Of course - but the law doesn't change based on the very mutable status of employment among the married couple. It is static. They gain the benefit during periods of single income, no income, and dual income. The law is evenly applied and fair in all instances.
I have demonstrated there is a harm in the blow up doll scenario. Do you yield?I don't yield, under your implication, that there is then not harm in same-sex relationships. The government loses money in that case as compared to just roommates.
I am not talking about that point of my discussion. I am refering to your blow up doll marriage having no harm.
Do you acknowledge that it does?
You've just compared a housewife to a blow up doll though.
Actually, pres man did... and to househusbands too. :)
|
|
But as to defining marriage, this 'small government conservative' just feels it is an issue left to the statesI would be inclined to agree, but there are so many unanswered questions that way. If a gay couple marries in MA, and moves to MD, you're okay with that constituting an automatic no-fault divorce? What if they move back to MA?
And can straight couples claim the same right, by moving to a state that chooses not to recognize any marriages?
Funny thing: states that don't recognize SSM won't grant divorces. And Massachusetts won't grant divorces to people who aren't residents of the state.
So, your scenario is inaccurate in that MD would have to allow that the couple is legally married before forcing a divorce, and I don't think they want to open that can of worms right now. Ironically, the first couple to try to get a divorce after going to MA to get married was from MD, so that's kinda funny.
I have demonstrated there is a harm in the blow up doll scenario. Do you yield?I don't yield, under your implication, that there is then not harm in same-sex relationships. The government loses money in that case as compared to just roommates.I am not talking about that point of my discussion. I am refering to your blow up doll marriage having no harm.
Do you acknowledge that it does?
I yield that it could. But that doesn't prove it harms those other marriages just the IRS.
|
|
I don't have to prove that, because it is irrelevant. Marriage gives benefits, these benefits are to support the concept of marriage. A reasonable person can decide that mixed-sex couples require these benefits while a same-sex couple might not. Especially since according to a poster above all same-sex couples have both spouses working.
So much for equality of the genders. So mixed-sex couples (to keep it fair, we'll say mixed-sex couples who do not plan on or cannot have children) are less likely to have both parties working than same-sex couples? Even if same-sex couples are more likely to have both working, the only benefit they would get is that only one would pay into health insurance. It's actually less beneficial from a monetary standpoint to file jointly.
Most of the problem is that gays are placed into second-class-citizen status b/c they are given a separate but "equal" alternative.
Prove this would harm anything, you still haven't but a vague hand-wave. According to the Judge in the case, you have failed and it must be allowed.
Youre absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.
|
|
Drug use.So then how is giving drugs to kids not a victimless crime? They don't have to use it if they don't choose, nor do they have to accept it.For the same reason giving alchohol to a 7 year old is a crime, once again, reasonable debate. Do we want to turn this into lets play the ludicrous scenario game?
We shouldn't allow prop 8 because next conservatives will want to change the constitution to rid of the first amendment.
Can we please stop using ludicrous over the top examples to try and make our points on both sides please?
Um, just for the record, you have much more to fear from liberals on First Amendment grounds. They're the ones pushing the "Fairness Doctrine", aka "Our radio shows are too boring to draw listeners so we need to pass a law limiting the other side's access to the medium".
Why let the market decide when you can force stations to air unpopular programming? And to take popular programming off the air?
*For the record, the only radio I listen to is sports radio. I have an iPod for music, and that station doesn't suck.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You've just compared a housewife to a blow up doll though.Actually, pres man did... and to househusbands too. :)
Well you indicated that "only one person is actually generating an income (he has a SSN and withholding - the blowup doll does not), he'd be cheating the state out of additional tax revenues."
If only Ozzie (hey, I'm a 1950's kind of guy, if the husband isn't working and the wife is, I look askance) is working and Harriet is home raising the boys, then he must be 'cheating the state out of additional tax revenues' the same as if Harriet was a blow up doll.
[humour]Though with my record, I bet the doll would divorce me too.[/humour]
I yield that it could. But that doesn't prove it harms those other marriages just the IRS.
Fair enough.
EDIT: Well, the IRS (federal) and the state, since the state could (and in California - does in fact) have an income tax with marital brackets.
If only Ozzie (hey, I'm a 1950's kind of guy, if the husband isn't working and the wife is, I look askance) is working and Harriet is home raising the boys, then he must be 'cheating the state out of additional tax revenues' the same as if Harriet was a blow up doll.
The person is choosing not to work (either by domestic responsibilities, social mores of the time, or a browbeating sadist husband (haha)).
This is different from a metaphysical impossibility. :)
Youre absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.
LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOL
|
|
Drug use.So then how is giving drugs to kids not a victimless crime? They don't have to use it if they don't choose, nor do they have to accept it.For the same reason giving alchohol to a 7 year old is a crime, once again, reasonable debate. Do we want to turn this into lets play the ludicrous scenario game?
We shouldn't allow prop 8 because next conservatives will want to change the constitution to rid of the first amendment.
Can we please stop using ludicrous over the top examples to try and make our points on both sides please?
Um, just for the record, you have much more to fear from liberals on First Amendment grounds. They're the ones pushing the "Fairness Doctrine", aka "Our radio shows are too boring to draw listeners so we need to pass a law limiting the other side's access to the medium".
Why let the market decide when you can force stations to air unpopular programming? And to take popular programming off the air?
*For the record, the only radio I listen to is sports radio. I have an iPod for music, and that station doesn't suck.
um for the record I don't fear my first amendment rights being taken away by either side, I was merely using another ludicrous rebuttal to show why we shouldn't use ridiculous arguments back and forth, something that has been thoroughly ignored by the side that supports prop 8 because they want to use ludicrous examples of real dolls where the exemplified harm has been shown, but rejected by further examples that have no bearing on the subject matter etc. etc.
Simple fact, allowing SSM and the arguments for SSM does not automatically allow for marriages to real dolls and plural marriages because there are other legal considerations beyond the simple act of two people joining in union. People supporting prop 8 however have been pulling more and more ludicrous examples that do not further the discussion but instead mire it in silly minutae.
|
|
Youre absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.
Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOL
no because the difference is allowing contracts with inanimate objects means that we have to set up an entirely new system that accounts for the fact that objects can now enter into contracts, which is beyond the scope of our current system and creates fundamental problems with the way contract law is currently written. The same is not true of SSM
|
|
Youre absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.
Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOL
See, the difference is that, allowing an inanimate object incapable of making decisions or obtaining the age of majority, to enter into a legally binding contract opens the door for others who do not meet the current contract requirements to do the same. This truly is a scenario which would pave the way for man-dog, man-child, and man-toaster marriages.
And, before anybody says it, this is in no way similar to the arguments the crazies are making about SSM leading to those things. SSM advocates are simply asking that two adults, regardless of gender, be allowed to enter into contracts. Lack of mental capicity, age of majority, or humanity do not come into play with SSM.
no because the difference is allowing contracts with inanimate objects means that we have to set up an entirely new system that accounts for the fact that objects can now enter into contracts, which is beyond the scope of our current system and creates fundamental problems with the way contract law is currently written. The same is not true of SSMYoure absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.
Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOL
Even allowing that it would disrupt the legal system, which I don't buy ooohhh it is going to destroy everything. This still doesn't prove that it harms same-sex and mixed-sex marriages, just the legal system at large.
Youre absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.
Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOLSee, the difference is that, allowing an inanimate object incapable of making decisions or obtaining the age of majority, to enter into a legally binding contract opens the door for others who do not meet the current contract requirements to do the same. This truly is a scenario which would pave the way for man-dog, man-child, and man-toaster marriages.
And, before anybody says it, this is in no way similar to the arguments the crazies are making about SSM leading to those things. SSM advocates are simply asking that two adults, regardless of gender, be allowed to enter into contracts. Lack of mental capicity, age of majority, or humanity do not come into play with SSM.
In some states parents can already decide for a child that they can marry. Oops.
|
|
no because the difference is allowing contracts with inanimate objects means that we have to set up an entirely new system that accounts for the fact that objects can now enter into contracts, which is beyond the scope of our current system and creates fundamental problems with the way contract law is currently written. The same is not true of SSMYoure absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.
Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOL
A tool is an object. We have tools passing laws all the time. Stop hating on blow up dolls. They're probably better able to make informed decisions than the tools Americans elect every year...
People supporting prop 8 however have been pulling more and more ludicrous examples that do not further the discussion but instead mire it in...
Alarmist soundbytes turn heads and rile up the viscera. Rational, reasonable, and nuanced discourse doesn't.
|
|
Even allowing that it would disrupt the legal system, which I don't buy ooohhh it is going to destroy everything. This still doesn't prove that it harms same-sex and mixed-sex marriages, just the legal system at large.no because the difference is allowing contracts with inanimate objects means that we have to set up an entirely new system that accounts for the fact that objects can now enter into contracts, which is beyond the scope of our current system and creates fundamental problems with the way contract law is currently written. The same is not true of SSMYoure absolutely right, destroying the legal system as we know it wouldn't be bad at all.LOL
This sounds remarkably like people claiming that if you allow people of the same sex to marry, it will destroy society.
Bring on the apocalypse Johnny married his blow up doll. LOL
It's not an argument that the only thing it harms is anything. It's the fact that SSM harms nothing that OSM doesn't already harm which is why we shouldn't disallow it. The same isn't be true of the other marriages you propose which do harm other things that OSM doesn't.
If the issue is it might cause harm to the legal system, then same-sex marriage might also. Consider common law marriages and roommates. How would you like to find out that when you graduated from college that the guy you were rooming with is now your husband, even though neither of you asked for it. Where is Bitter, he'll tell you all about the evils of common law marriages.
If the issue is it might cause harm to the legal system, then same-sex marriage might also. Consider common law marriages and roommates. How would you like to find out that when you graduated from college that the guy you were rooming with is now your husband, even though neither of you asked for it.
This is a myth... and not true at least in California:
|
|
25In some states parents can already decide for a child that they can marry. Oops.Which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Much the same way I disagree with prosecuting minors as adults. The age of majority should be the age of majority...period (and there should be only one age).
25 is a bit high, IMO. Move everything to 18 or 21 (to include driving, drinking, voting, etc.).
In some states parents can already decide for a child that they can marry. Oops.Which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Much the same way I disagree with prosecuting minors as adults. The age of majority should be the age of majority...period (and there should be only one age).
Whether you agree or not, we already allow individuals deemed incapable of making consent to get married. So claims that allowing things incapable of making consent to get married will destroy the legal system is false.
|
25 is a bit high, IMO. Move everything to 18 or 21 (to include driving, drinking, voting, etc.).25In some states parents can already decide for a child that they can marry. Oops.Which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Much the same way I disagree with prosecuting minors as adults. The age of majority should be the age of majority...period (and there should be only one age).
I taught high school. I have good friends who teach college.
At least 25. Maybe 42.
|
|
Whether you agree or not, we already allow individuals deemed incapable of making consent to get married. So claims that allowing things incapable of making consent to get married will destroy the legal system is false.In some states parents can already decide for a child that they can marry. Oops.Which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Much the same way I disagree with prosecuting minors as adults. The age of majority should be the age of majority...period (and there should be only one age).
You are drawing a false comparison. There is still somebody who has a brain and the mental capacity of an adult signing off on the contract. An inanimate object has neither. Even the child in the scenario provided has one of the two.
Laws like these are the ones that need to be questioned, not whether two adults who love each other should be denied the right to marry.
You are drawing a false comparison. There is still somebody who has a brain and the mental capacity of an adult signing off on the contract. An inanimate object has neither.
Sure it does, it has the person it is marrying. That person has a brain and the (assumed) mental capacity of an adult.
Alternatively, if we were to make this legal, then the company creating the dolls could potentially give permission, being the creator which in essence is what a parent is.
|
|
You are drawing a false comparison. There is still somebody who has a brain and the mental capacity of an adult signing off on the contract. An inanimate object has neither.Sure it does, it has the person it is marrying. That person has a brain and the (assumed) mental capacity of an adult.
Alternatively, if we were to make this legal, then the company creating the dolls could potentially give permission, being the creator which in essence is what a parent is.
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
I taught high school. I have good friends who teach college.
At least 25. Maybe 42.
42 is always the correct answer. :P
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.You are drawing a false comparison. There is still somebody who has a brain and the mental capacity of an adult signing off on the contract. An inanimate object has neither.Sure it does, it has the person it is marrying. That person has a brain and the (assumed) mental capacity of an adult.
Alternatively, if we were to make this legal, then the company creating the dolls could potentially give permission, being the creator which in essence is what a parent is.
I will be happy to, as long as everyone drops the "prove it harms mixed-sex marriage, otherwise it has to be allowed".
Um, just for the record, you have much more to fear from liberals on First Amendment grounds. They're the ones pushing the "Fairness Doctrine", aka "Our radio shows are too boring to draw listeners so we need to pass a law limiting the other side's access to the medium".
Why let the market decide when you can force stations to air unpopular programming? And to take popular programming off the air?
{consults Seekrit Librul Conspeeracey Chart} Um, nope, Hipster Kitteh started that one.
{goes back to reading "Teaching Da Hetereos Ta Dress FABULOUSLY!"}
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The doll issue doesn't seem to be helping to clear the waters.
Let's try a more realistic proposition: could a consortium of investors incorporate as a limited partnership, called Bride, Inc., and should I be allowed to marry that corporation?
Kirth, you asked me to speculate about a valid legal argument for overturning Prop 8. I understand that Judge Walker based his decision on the Equal Protection clause, and that seems like a good place to start.