But there is no slippery slope, you say. Keep saying that, if it makes you feel better.
In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.
19 comments:
Theists wanting their polygamy back!
What they actually received was the right to cohabit (common law wives?); they are still denied the right to multiple marriage licenses. I suspect that the US Supremes will get to hear this. And they will likely get their multiple licenses. Why? because when homosexuals hear about this, they'll get on board. And homosexuals carry the weight of influence these days.
The term "marriage" no longer has meaning other than contractual obligation regarding possessions and progeny, having lost all moral implications. So there is no moral barrier to any sort of marriage based on any combination of individuals. So the government should get out of the marriage approval business, since it was in it originally for moral reasons and social engineering.
slap some sense into this girl Stan
www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2013/12/hold-your-slippery-slope-toboggans/html
Apparently all it takes is one immoral activist judge to undermine thousands of years of social norms and redefine an institution -- marriage -- to fit with any and all combinations. What's to stop them from doing the same with such terminology as freedom, rights, or anything else?
Recently in Mass., while the LGBT activists were fighting for transgenders to have the "right" to enter either male or female public bathrooms (because, according to their tortured logic, making a distinction between sexes is "discrimination"...), they sneakily overturned a law banning beastiality (hope I spelled that right).
The irony of all this is that the harder they push, the more they alienate society, because nobody in their right mind wants to be a part of this filth.
Fred,
Actually I agree with her, especially on this part:
"Different sects and religions can conduct marriages that are not legally recognized, and the question of whether they should is distinct from whether they’re criminal."
That was actually illegal prior to this decision. That separates the decision from the homosexual marriage issue, because homosexuals wanted the recognition as being moral, which they got via state recognition.
The original ban on polygamy was based on morality, which declared that polygamy is immoral and a threat to society (dubious claim, especially compared to homosexuality).
The more I think about it, the more I respect this decision, although it still needs to kick the government completely out of the dictation of marriage benefits, which is the only reason for marriage licenses these days since first cousins will copulate freely if they so wish in the current amoral environment.
are you serious? so what's criminal?
Part of the problem is the modern(?)conflation of legal and moral. It is entirely possible for something to be legal and immoral, and vice versa, for something to be moral and illegal. Without objective ethical grounding, laws cease to have any moral force. Morals, on the other hand, can have considerable force without any laws to enforce them.
As for "Theists wanting their polygamy back", it does not follow that a specific judge or court is theistic or is kowtowing to theist pressure to redefine the law regarding polygamy (or homosexuality, for that matter). In actuality, more often than not these days, theists are opposed to the arbitrary rulings which issue from the bench based on the personal ideology of the judge(s) involved.
I find it ironic that the US District Court in Utah (of all places) should find in favor of polygamy, given the history of the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ (Mormons) regarding polygamy.
I guess the next step will be a formal apology to the Mormons and a discussion of reparations for the hardships visited upon members of that religion by not allowing them to practice polygamy.
Actually the court did not find for official polygamy, which would be the legalization of state-issued multiple marriage licenses. The court decriminalized cohabitation, which officially sanctions multiple de facto spouses without giving them the state sanction of licensing more than one spouse.
That allows any sort of combination of individuals to live together as spouses-without-sanction. This undoubtedly occurs anyway, from couples (nonogomy?) to who knows what multiples of sexes/sexless.
Stan is marrying your daughter criminal?
"Different sects and religions can conduct marriages that are not legally recognized, and the question of whether they should is distinct from whether they’re criminal."
"Morals, on the other hand, can have considerable force without any laws to enforce them."
Not on this planet.
Fred,
I don't know if there are state laws against marrying one's daughter, although incest has historically generally been illegal. Look it up and let us know.
And apparently you think that there are no morals, period, since they have no influence? Human culture is built around the need to control all human activities with law, because humans are amoral? No influence from the Golden Rule? Interesting.
"I don't know if there are state laws against marrying one's daughter, although incest has historically generally been illegal. Look it up and let us know"
I don't know either. Regardless, do you think it's criminal to marry your own daughter?
"And apparently you think that there are no morals, period, since they have no influence? Human culture is built around the need to control all human activities with law, because humans are amoral? No influence from the Golden Rule? Interesting."
I didn't mean I think there are no morals. My point was that when you can legally marry your own daughter, how much power would doing otherwise have?
Crime: an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
No law = no crime (by definition)
Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
If there was no law regarding marrying your daughter, then it would not be a crime, regardless of how repugnant and immoral you (and certainly I) would find it to be.
On the other hand, if it violated "accepted standards of morality", then it would be immoral. The "fly in the ointment" of the definition: WHO defines the "accepted standards of morality"?
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
Quoting from Wikipedia:
Laws regarding incest (i.e., sexual intercourse between close relatives) vary considerably between jurisdictions, and depend on the type of sexual activity and the nature of the family relationship of the parties involved, as well as the age and sex of the parties. Besides legal prohibitions, at least some forms of incest is also socially taboo or frowned upon in most cultures around the world.
That last sentence describes the moral impact on behavior, regardless of the legal impact. It may have more preventative force than any number of laws.
Unfortunately, in a society such as the contemporary US, in which every "accepted standard of morality" undergoes continual change without reference to any framework except the libertine "If it feels good, DO IT!", it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to define or classify any behavior as immoral. There certainly are NOT any "accepted standards" any more.
Hence, the abandonment of morality (acceptable standards) leads inevitably to growing and excessive dependence on more and more laws governing behavior (even thought: consider "hate crimes" as one example).
As an example, we get politicians claiming "There is no controlling legal authority" to excuse their egregiously immoral behavior.
Perhaps (perhaps not) it would be easier to see the distinction from a personal point of view.
Did you find that the idea of marrying your daughter (and having sexual relations with her) was repugnant before or after you learned that there was a law against it?
If all laws concerning incest in all forms were to be repealed, would you still find that the idea of marrying your daughter (and having sexual relations with her) was repugnant?
In short, is your repugnance dependent on law or on your own code of morality?
Robert beat me to it with a very cogent answer, thanks Robert.
On the second issue, " didn't mean I think there are no morals. My point was that when you can legally marry your own daughter, how much power would doing otherwise have?"... I don't understand the question: one can always not perform legal acts. I suspect this is not what you mean.
Stan, the only power you have here with your blog is argument. How many atheists have changed because of your blog?
When the government, the ones with force, have opened up marriage to everything and the kitchen sink, what are you going to do about it?
Fred,
I realize full well that Atheists are stuck in an emotional state, not a rational state. However, there are others who are looking, seeking, questioning and actually trying to find rational answers. Those who are willing to use the logic and rationality with which humans are endowed to endorse premises which are undeniable and then use those premises to generate whatever answer rationally proceeds from those premises, those folks will arrive at a conclusion which is rational, and not based in emotional neediness and rejection.
Those folks deserve to see the Atheist irrationality deconstructed for all to see who wish to see. Admittedly the influence of what I do is small, but it is what I do.
In the culture war, as in any war, the individual contribution is small. But when individuals combine together, their influence multiplies.
If rationality and logic is a valued commodity, then I hope to purvey it to those who appreciate it, and especially to those who wish to use it in their pursuit of truth in their worldviews.
There are two broad categories of power: positional power and personal power.
Positional power is authority granted by virtue(?) of position within a collective organization, such as government. Thus, the source of power is external to the person supposedly possessing it, making it illusory.
Personal power comes from a strong sense of integrity and adherence to objective moral values, and is always internal to and solely owned by the individual.
It is unwise to assume that only positional authority carries any weight, and to then proceed to seek it by any and all means available in order to enforce whatever (dubious?) goals the collective organization may have.
The most well known example of this distinction is a certain itinerant Jewish "rabbi" who spent only the final 3 years of his short life teaching a bunch of fishermen and peasants in ancient Judea - and yet his teachings changed the entire world for the better.
Personal power (ethically grounded through the force of logic and reason) are what make this blog so valuable to those who seek truth and the evidence for it, no matter where that evidence leads.
Merry Christmas!
Robert,
Merry Christmas to you, as well!
Post a Comment