Subject:
|
Re: More Election Bad News?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:54:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1603 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, the church has no authority to issue legally binding licenses of any
> > > sort, except insofar as the church is empowered to do so by the state.
> >
> > Licenses? Or just recognition of contracts? The state ought not to be granting
> > licenses of this sort, merely recognizing contracts. (or in the case of non
> > consenting or non adult, NOT recognizing)
> >
> > This is an example of the more general question... when and where do you have
> > standing to file a civil suit?
>
> While I mostly agree with you Larry, are we ready to open this box? If we agree
> that government should not interfere with any type of "Union" are we ready to
> accept the full repercussions of that decision. The immediate effect would be
> the acceptance of homosexual couples, but the next unavoidable consequence is
> the acceptance of polygamist units, whether it be one man and many wives, one
> woman and many husbands, or some odd combination of the two. What does the
> government then do when an apartment or home owner decides that they do not want
> to rent to one of these “love commune” types? How about the union of close
> relatives? First cousins (currently legal in some states)? Siblings? Parents? I
> am not usually a slippery slope kind of guy, but I can see some real dangerous
> potential.
Hi Scott--haven't seen you in ot-debate for a while...
You raise several points, so I'll try to address them in order:
If three or ten or fifty people want to marry, why should this trouble me? This
type of union may (or may not) be objectionable to me, but does that give me the
right to restrict others who might value this kind of arrangement? If I
personally object to polygamist or polyandrist unions, then the answer is that I
shouldn't enter such a union. Some have argued that multi-partner "marriages"
would be damaging to the children. I don't accept this argument because it is
not supported by evidence.
As far as cousins/siblings are concerned, if there is a legitimate concern that
children will suffer genetic defects as a result of the union, then perhaps a
more careful examination is in order, but an all-out ban seems arbitrary and
poorly grounded. Any two people may inadvertantly transmit a genetic defect to
their children; should all prospective parents subject themselves to genetic
testing to eliminate this risk? Again, I may (or may not) personally object to
the marriage of siblings/cousins, but that doesn't entitle me to forbid others
to marry in this fashion.
It has also been suggested that any informed, non-coercive union should not be
forbidden. I happen to agree with this, but I don't believe that there's any
evidence that it's an absolute or inherent principle. Although coercive union
is strongly objectionable to me, that's not the same as an absolute "wrongness"
in such a union. I'd be interested to see an effective argument in rebuttal, of
course.
> As for the propositions and amendments in those 11 states, it should come as no
> surprise; California, the most liberal of all states, passed a similar amendment
> a few years back. If it passes here, there is a pretty good chance it will stand
> up elsewhere.
This establishes a dangerous precedent IMO, and those amendments should be
struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. By the logic of these
amendments, any state should have the right to ban inter-racial or inter-faith
marriage, or even marriage between "ugly" people and "pretty" people. This is
legislated bigotry and it should be eliminated as the unlawful discriminatory
practice that it is.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) While I mostly agree with you Larry, are we ready to open this box? If we agree that government should not interfere with any type of "Union" are we ready to accept the full repercussions of that decision. The immediate effect would be the (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
