[quote]Makavali wrote:
To keep religious groups happy, I think (in terms of government interference) marriage should be a consenting relationship (not necessarily sexual i.e. Asexuals) between two or more consenting human adults.
[/quote]
Well, that’s certainely inclusive. Almost completely, in fact. But, aren’t there at least some marriage benefits Autosexuals could use?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
To keep religious groups happy, I think (in terms of government interference) marriage should be a consenting relationship (not necessarily sexual i.e. Asexuals) between two or more consenting human adults.
Well, that’s certainely inclusive. Almost completely, in fact. But, aren’t there at least some marriage benefits Autosexuals could use?[/quote]
Like what? Marriage is still a union of souls. I’ve ever heard of a union of one.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
To keep religious groups happy, I think (in terms of government interference) marriage should be a consenting relationship (not necessarily sexual i.e. Asexuals) between two or more consenting human adults.
Well, that’s certainely inclusive. Almost completely, in fact. But, aren’t there at least some marriage benefits Autosexuals could use?
Like what? Marriage is still a union of souls. I’ve ever heard of a union of one.[/quote]
Who said marriage is a union of souls? We don’t have souls. No.Such.Thing. That’s just a crazy religious belief you’re pushing on everyone else.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
To keep religious groups happy, I think (in terms of government interference) marriage should be a consenting relationship (not necessarily sexual i.e. Asexuals) between two or more consenting human adults.
Well, that’s certainely inclusive. Almost completely, in fact. But, aren’t there at least some marriage benefits Autosexuals could use?
Like what? Marriage is still a union of souls. I’ve ever heard of a union of one.
Who said marriage is a union of souls? We don’t have souls. No.Such.Thing. That’s just a crazy religious belief you’re pushing on everyone else. [/quote]
LOL. Ok, a union. Not of souls, but a union none the less. Two or more people pledging their undying love for each other.
If someone wants to marry themselves, I don’t see what rights they need. But if you or Sloth care to name a few, I’ll probably agree with a couple.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Gay marriage has been evaluated by the public and the public has overwhelming chosen not to recognize it.[/quote]
By objective evaluation, I’m referring to more than passing the court of public opinion. Scientific research should be conducted on the effects of gay marriage, polygamy, etc. on the lives of people, their children, and society. The conclusions of that research can then be used to inform public opinion.
[quote]Recognition of marriage is not an enumerated right, never had been, and thus should be subject to the democratic process.
[/quote]
The California Supreme Court disagrees with you:
“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
[quote]forlife wrote:
By objective evaluation, I’m referring to more than passing the court of public opinion. Scientific research should be conducted on the effects of gay marriage, polygamy, etc. on the lives of people, their children, and society. The conclusions of that research can then be used to inform public opinion.
[/quote]
Of course. I hope that all legislative decisions are made by people that have been properly informed. But that’s one of the downsides to the democratic process, it is not a requirement to be well-informed. (To hammer my point home, that is because voting is an enumerated right)
But you’re still describing a democratic process. The process by which we all try and inform ourselves based on evidence and then decide. You’re describing a situation where recognition of marriage is NOT a right, because if it were a right all of the scientific research you advocate would be meaningless. The whole point of rights are that they stand above the whims of public opinion.
If recognition of marriage is a right, all of your scientific evidence is meaningless. You could have scientific evidence that my genetic makeup makes me more likely to commit a crime, but you still cannot infringe on my right to free speech.
If marriage is a right, you cannot infringe on someone’s right to incestous marriage based only on their familial relationships, regardless of any scientific evaluation. That’s like saying scientific evaluation has shown that a certain subset of people are stupid, so they can’t vote. It’s a ridiculous proposition on its face.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The California Supreme Court disagrees with you:
“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
[/quote]
Yes, and I disagree with them. However, if they are correct and recognition of marriage is indeed a protected civil right, then making illegal a marriage between willing, adult father and daughter is a gross violation of civil rights. The same court must absolutely strike down laws prohibiting those marriages.
If we can violate someone’s civil rights based on who they are related to, or based on a statistical analysis, then this country just became very dangerous. What’s next, “evidence” showing that certain races have lower average IQ and thus their rights can be revoked based on “scientific research”?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
If recognition of marriage is a right, all of your scientific evidence is meaningless. [/quote]
The Constitution provides for equal protection, but not at the cost of hurting others. If it can be scientifically demonstrated that marriage of a particular form is inherently damaging to the couple, their children, and society then a conflict exists and the equal protection clause becomes secondary.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
If recognition of marriage is a right, all of your scientific evidence is meaningless.
The Constitution provides for equal protection, but not at the cost of hurting others. If it can be scientifically demonstrated that marriage of a particular form is inherently damaging to the couple, their children, and society then a conflict exists and the equal protection clause becomes secondary.
[/quote]
So in other words the way you view civil rights is that if I can scientifically prove that green people have lower average IQ than red people and allowing them to vote is damaging to democracy because they are systemically ill-informed, then a conflict exists and constitutional rights become secondary.
Or if I can scientifically prove (which has been done) that requiring search warrants or allowing people to speak freely damages society by drastically increasing crime rates, then a conflict exists and the bill of rights becomes secondary.
I can scientifically demonstrate to you that we can drastically decrease the amount gang warfare and societal violence in L.A. if we suspend search warrants and start an aggressive racial profiling campaign.
Of course I know you don’t believe those things. I think you’re trying to rationalize a system where the things you approve of are codified as rights while leaving yourself a back door for prohibiting things you don’t agree with, resulting in an inconsistency with our system of civil rights.
I (and the founding fathers) actually think the whole point of enshrining concepts as rights is BECAUSE they are dangerous and potentially damaging. Freedom of speech IS dangerous. Freedom from warrantless searches IS dangerous. That is exactly why they are rights, because they require extra protection from the whims of public opinion and evaluation.