Congratulations California! Its nice to see your courts declaring all people have equal rights!
This week the California court system informed the people there that the ban on gay marriage (Prop 22) was unconstitutional. Good For Them!!! Two consenting adults that wish to join in the union of marriage SHOULD be allowed to marry!
Today I opened my email and the American Family Association (AFA) had sent me an email with the following:
Dear Kathleen,
As you know, the California Supreme Court has legalized homosexual marriage. This happened despite the fact that voters in California passed Proposition 22 with 61.4 percent of the vote. Proposition 22 defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.
The recent 4-3 ruling, if allowed to stand, would destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years. It would lead to the logical conclusion of the following:• Legalization of polygamous and other aberrant unions as "marriages"
• Legalization of marriage between an adult parent and adult child
• Legalization of group marriage
• Overturn all the marriage laws in the other 49 state
Apparently - the AFA equates homosexuality with incest and other "aberrant" types of marriages. Why can't these people live and let live? Why do they have to try to legislate other people's lives?
Bravo California! Now if only we could get ruling like these here in Michigan - then my aunt could marry her partner of two decades.
Comments
I want to marry my dog! Why can't I live and let live?
There's no end to the madness.
Talk about taking an argument to an extreme example. Just because two consenting same sex adults marry - does not mean you can marry your animals.
Sheesh.
Guess what - unless you have some mutated cloned half-animal/ half-human things roaming around your house - animals do not have a high enough thought process to give consent to marry. So your argument doesn't even compare to two consenting adults choosing to bind themselves in the legal bond of marriage (not necessarily the religious version of marriage).
I said two consenting ADULTS.
R Kelly is on trial for having sex with and videotaping a 14 year old CHILD. That is criminal.
It is criminal until the law changes. Like torture, prostitution, incest, polygamy, dog fighting, immigration and various other fuzzy areas that are not as simple as live and let live. How about the blog you just did about the skanky dress at the prom. Live and let live?
KK I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your argument can be used to defend all kinds of questionable things.
LOL...the child at the prom knew that the institution had rules. She agreed to follow those rules when she purchased her tickets. Personally, if the school had not set the rules before the prom and then notified each student of those rules - her attire would have been ok to wear at the prom. Its the whole freedom of expression thing...
There is a difference between arguments and cases. It is sloppy to say that your being FOR something is an argument for it. It is sloppy to rely on an argument that works sometimes, but not others.
If you are going to make arguments, make good ones.
What is a good one? One that works generally, and stands up to challenge, not just when you think it sounds good to you.
Live and let live is not one of those.
What you call (Indiana) the "open door argument" is a very common, strong, traditional, legal and social-science based argument. Another name for it is the "slippery slope".
Examples of its use are: (a) If we are weak on terror in Afghanistan, they'll be at our shores soon. (b) If you allow entitlements to a few, everyone will be lobbying for them. (c) If you start torturing detainees a little, it will lead to other forms of torture. (d) Legalize the right of women to vote, and pretty soon they're going to be in our boardrooms and country clubs. (d) Allow a little bit of fighting in sports and you're gonna see a lot. (e) If the president doesn't have to account to Congress like the constitution says, the executive branch will go off on its own and do whatever it wants.
In each of these cases, the argument that opening a door leads to a variety of stuff slipping in tends to be true, while the other argument that it is generally best to live and let live tends to lead to all kinds of problems.
Sorry KatieKat if we are taking over your topic here. Tell me to go away if I am diverting. But I think you raise important questions. I like important questions.
Anyway, one principle that we run up against in discussions like this - SHOULD the government pass laws that tell us what is what and how to live??? - is that there are things in life that are diverse and complicated. Do we want the law - any law or any court decision - to be made so specific that it flies in the face of what real people are successfully doing in society?
Myself, I prefer NOT to have laws specifically saying anything at all. The BEST law is the vaguest, laws that state principles instead of trying to pin details down. Law is about being smart and using good sense, NOT about writing a new dictionary.
Every effort by lawyers and legislators to specifically define ends up in a 500-page disaster.
I suspect at some level you agree with that KK??