Consenting adults

Why does it have to stop?
BTW - when do inanimate objects give consent?
Or non speaking animals?

 

It never left the churches.
Gov't, for whatever reason, recognizes them for tax purposes, legal benefits, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. But they need to stay together until death does them part. That is part of the belief of a good society.

 

Try using some common sense and you will come to the logical answer. It stops when it no longer involves consenting adults. Children, animal, inanimate objects cannot consent. That is the deal breaker. I will also say that in some cases involving consenting adults, such as in the case of siblings, it may be possible to identify some compelling state interest that would justify banning such marriage, but I'm not here to make that argument.

 

you do realise of course that if consent cannot be given it is presumed to not have been given, for example it cannot be presumed that a person who has died would have or has given consent to their organs being harvested.

 

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

Source: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...they-the-same-fight/marriage/2013/12/16/80300

 

As others have said, it's a matter of how the legal system works. Specifically, it's the legal issue of standing:

You're mistaken in thinking "it's based on the same argument". It really isn't, from a legal standpoint. The informal discussions and debates we have concerning "equality" on the forum are often far removed from what that term means in a legal setting.

A same-sex couple does not automatically have the legal standing to bring suit in court to overturn bans on incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, etc. The Court only deals with the facts of the case before it, and the circumstances of the individuals bringing it, as those things relate to the specific law being challenged. People who demand that same-sex couples should be trying to make the courts overturn other bans if they really support "marriage equality" are therefore being wholly unreasonable.

When we're talking about "marriage equality" in the context of discussing same-sex marriages, we are talking about the equal legal recognition of those marriages. It is not true that those who support equal recognition of same-sex marriages unanimously oppose the legal recognition of other currently unrecognized marriages. Some of us do, however, object to those other forms of marriage being brought into the discussion as red herrings, as is typically the case. It's nearly always introduced in an effort to avoid discussing same-sex marriages, to derail the discussion into something else in order to "divide and conquer" the supporters of same-sex marriage. It is used as a tactic to attack supporters of same-sex marriage, labeling them as hypocrites for not including everything but the kitchen sink in the discussion of same-sex marriages.

I happen to think there is merit to limiting the discussion to dealing with same-sex marriages. If someone wants to discuss other forms of marriage, they should create a separate thread, and NOT post it in the Gay & Lesbian Rights forum, since it has nothing to with the purpose of this forum. This forum is not "The Marriage Forum", after all.

 

It would appear that we are at an impasse here. Everyone should read the article that I just posted here above. It's a complicated issue and there are similarities but I still come down on the side that says that other alternative lifestyles should be debated separately.

 

remains aren't a person.

 

and I never said they were .. still doesn't change the fact that if consent cannot be given it is assumed to not have been given.

 

Things can't give consent only animate sapient adults can. And that includes human remains.

So it's like saying a toaster can't give consent.

 

This explains a lot:
Lord of Maelstrom #29 - Planar Cosmology

http://lordofmaelstrom.com/media/main_1i/Intermission-1-04.png

 

I thought we were talking about people, not toasters, and as I said if consent cannot be given it assumed it has not been given ie unless you have consent prior to a persons death you cannot harvest their organs after they die (unless the immediate kin gives it). A child cannot consent as it is assumed a child does not have the decision making ability or legal power (competence) to provide true consent.

 

You were talking about human remains, not people. Corpses aren't people.

Irrelevant, human remains aren't people they are objects. The next of kin can decide whether or not organs can be harvested. But the dead can't do squat, much like a toaster.

 

Even the dead have certain rights that remain, and if as you say it is irrelevant then explain why after a persons death their organs cannot be harvested unless they have given consent to do so prior to death or the next of kin gives consent, after all they are not people any more.

 

Well that's the thing, the same reasoning does apply. The question is whether or not there is other compelling reasons to need to restrict it despite the fact that the same reasoning would apply otherwise. If the government has absolutely no legitimate reason to block any of them, then of course all such restrictions should be removed. There are concerns that have been raised that challenge the logistics and potential for harm caused by plural marriages and incest. I don't know how well founded they are, frankly that is more the responsibility for experts in the subject matter to weigh and discuss. But it is not a foregone conclusion that if same-sex marriage is allowed, that those arguments cover anything and everything regarding these other restrictions. They are applicable to some of the questions, but there are others that will be raised, and I do believe the government has a fairly high burden to justify any such restriction.

 

human remains aren't people they are possessions like a toaster.

 

then we shall have to agree to disagree

 

Okay than. But human remains aren't people. If they were cremation would be homicide as would burial and autopsy.

 

same ole song and dance....


gay is like interacial....


no it's not... because for one, you can prove you are born black.... you can't prove you were born gay, despite the assertion. Find me a gay gene, then we can discuss how bad your life is

 

Find me a Christian gene and then we can discuss why Christians can claim that their religious rights are being violated when told that they can't discriminate against gays.

 

Gay isn't a religion....

 

And religion is not genetic but I'm sure that you believe in religious rights. Yet you seem to think that gays should not have rights unless they can prove it's genetic. So what's up with that?

 

awwwww, does something you don't believe in have more protections?


Jealousy is not a valid argument for more rights.


You have exactly the same marraige rights as I do


no more than one spouse
opposite gender
no close relations....


everything is equal.... you simply want MORE while calling it "equal"

>>>MOD EDIT Flame Removed<<<

 

Quite the bait and switch.

So you agree that whether someone is born Gay or Christian or African American is not relevant to discussing discrimination?

 

It IS a stumper for those antipathetic to gay rights, huh?

If they say homosexuality is genetic....then discrimination against gays is equivalent to discrimination against racial minorities.

If they say homosexuality is "chosen".....then discrimination against gays is equivalent to discrimination against those who CHOOSE to be a Christian, Jew, whatever.

and are left with "It's different, is all!!!!!!" schoolyard excuses.