So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
Animals can't consent under the law, as they aren't self-aware.
Corpses can't consent because they aren't alive to consent.
Why not? Aren't you simply pointing out how we are restricting people's rights to do what they want to do
Children, animals, and the dead are not considered people. Although, I suppose in the case of necrophilia, so long as the body is yours, I would have no problem with you doing whatever you wanted with it. After all, you're not actually hurting anyone.
But, you see, the real problem here is that you are trying to introduce non-issues. There is a veritable army of homosexuals who are crying out for the right to marry their loved ones. Is there an army of polygamists out there crying out for the right to have multiple wives? Is there an army of animal lovers out there begging for the right to marry their dogs? Is there an army of necrophiliacs out there screaming for the right to **** dead people?
You see, you moralists keep bringing up this slippery slope argument as if the question of same-sex marriage was just some "progressive agenda" that sprang up for no reason other than, "We wanted to **** with the Church". Except that's not how it went. This movement grew because thousands of
actual homosexuals were feeling slighted, and wanted an injustice righted. No one is mentioning any of those other issues, except you moralists. is it any wonder that the rest of us have started to wonder if you, perhaps, have some secret desires that you would like to have legitimized, since you're the only ones bringing it up?
What you now define as 'children' includes humans who have reached age of sexual maturity, marked by natural changes such as menstrual periods, pubic hair and development of breasts, etc. So why should these humans be restricted to your pre-defined moral constraints on when you think they are capable of consent?
Yes, it does. However, what you are describing does not fall under pedophilia. Pedophilia requires,
by definition, that the "children" in question be pre-pubescent. That means they haven't even
begun to sexually mature, yet, let alone reached sexual maturity. As to the question of age of consent. I have argued for some time that our "age of consent" laws are purely arbitrary. As you pointed out, by 14, or 15 these adolescents have reached sexual maturity. What we need is a Master-Johnson type comprehensive study of adolescents to determine, quantifiably, when they are capable of making emotional, and cognitive maturity. We have neurological evidence that the frontal cortex doesn't reach
full maturity until age 26, however, we have no actual data on when adolescents develop the ability to make reasoned decisions. Once we have that information, if the data says 14, then 14 should be the age of consent. If it says 16, then it should be 16. If it says 19, then it should be raised to 19. The point is that "age of consent" should be demonstrably based on verifiable evidence, not some arbitrary number that makes "mommy, and daddy" feel "comfortable".
Animals are aware of themselves. They are capable of giving consent. Try giving a cat a bath without it's consent. Try riding a horse without it's consent. If a girl's german shepherd doesn't consent to mounting her, it won't. Again, who the hell are YOU to decide what is morally acceptable? How is that bothering you?
You may have a point. However, I think the difficulty comes in determining how one determines consent - legally i mean. Without the ability of verbal cues ("yes" or "No"), how do we determine that an animal has "given consent". Just because you "say so"? That doesn't work with humans, why should it work with animals?
So really, that only leaves "Polygamists". And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.
Well there are LOTS of things we don't currently do. Seems to me "there's no danger because we don't allow that" is a stupid justification for allowing something we've never allowed before. If we can change the meaning of "marriage" we can change the meaning of "consent" or "children" or any damn thing else, all bets are off.... if we want to do it, we can simply change the law.
Well, again, this is really a matter of those of us who support same-sex marriage not being the list bit interested in fighting for the rights of people who don't exist. Since there doesn't seem to be any polygamists coming forward demanding the right to marry multiple spouses, it's really kind of a non-issue, now isn't it?
