It’s a strange thing. We have these federal judges who are beginning to say that it does not logically follow that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to widespread bestiality with dogs. In other words, people like us who go around talking about Man on Dog are acting illogically. We’re not making sense. We’re full of crap.
Now, the hope is, if we can just get a Republican back in the White House, we can get some judges appointed who don’t value logic and don’t use it to make judicial decisions. The last thing we need is more of these reality-based judicial activist intellectuals telling us that our real American values are full of crap.
Because it’s obvious that if I can marry another man then I can marry my dog. And if it’s okay to marry my dog, it’s obviously okay for me to have sex with it. And if I can have sex with it, obviously I am going to do that.
Every time the silly marrying-dogs-marrying-children slippery slope crap comes up, I am struck by how that objection makes it clear that the person speaking does not consider meaningful consent to be an important thing.
True. I mean what dog would want to sleep with Rick Santorum?
I don’t think about meaningful consent, though. I just wonder how the brain can be wired in such a way that such an argument seems logical.
But that’s my reaction to a LOT of Republican arguments. The sincere ones, I mean. I know they make a lot of bad faith arguments that they don’t themselves believe.
I just wonder how the brain can be wired in such a way that such an argument seems logical.
They are people who think that sex, love, and family are primarily about rules.
Don’t break the rules! It’ll be chaos!
Speak for yourself! I want to marry my computer and she really loves me and vice-versa. She certainly can give intelligent consent. Are you a machinophobe?
Please don’t say that too loudly. My SO is already in the habit of muttering about my “affair” with my computer.
LOL
Speaking of logic, this story:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Corbett-not-destroying-Pennsylvania-schools-fast-enough-
for-the-Koch-brothers.html
is both scary and instructive. Scary because our public schools are going to be destroyed and we’ll be a third world country soon. Instructive because it’s obvious the Koch brothers are not happy with the speed of change. So they blast their waterboy for not carrying it out fast and good enough for them.
One thing I’ve still not been able to parse is why polygamy or polyandry would be logically illegal when homosexual marriage isn’t. Consenting adults, doesn’t hurt anyone (more than a regular marriage can). Why not?
Too complicated legally, rarely does involve actual consent (usually when it’s incestuous), associated frequently with child abuse. But the first part is probably key.
Not all poly relationships have this problem; polymorphous ones I haven’t seen this same pattern.
that come with the state marriage contract cannot be split among two spouses. For example let’s say someone is on life support and a decision has to be made. One person has to have the final say in that decision. That person is the spouse if someone is married unless otherwise noted in a another document like medical proxy. If there were two spouses how would it be determined who makes that decision?
That is just one example. But there are many other rights and responsibilities that come with marriage that by design force it to be a contract between two consenting adults.
Right. Gay marriage requires only changing who can do certain things, enjoy certain rights, as already envisioned by the law. It’s letting more people play an existing game.
Poly- marriage would require actually changing the game. It’s not just a case of not discriminating in the implementation of existing law.
Now, this argument doesn’t actually address what the law should be for poly- arrangements, it just answers the question you responded to. There are other questions, certainly.