Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Perhaps we should tackle this one equality at a time. This thread isn't about beastiality, polygomy, or incest. I can see why someone might say, "When will it go too far?", but those things are arguabally much farther away from the norm than homosexuality. Obviously beastiality, pedophilia (outside of parental permission), necrophilia, and sock puppets are out considering that both members cannot enter into a contract. Polgamy is another thread, but I suppose that that and this are not completly dissimilar, though they are far from the same.
This needs to be argued on it's own merrits, not by trying to associate it with socially unacceptable behavior like necrophilia or beastiality.
|
Ah, but isn't homosexuality something which has only recently become relatively "normalized"? Don't the results on the recent State referendums strongly suggest that homosexual marriage is in fact NOT normalized? (Percentages voting in 2004 to ban homosexual marriage by state: AR: 75%, GA: 76%, KY: 75%, MI: 59%, MS: 86%!!!, MT:67%, ND: 73%, OH: 62%, OK: 76%, OR: 57%, UT: 66%, as reported at
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...llot.measures/ ). In the 11 states where the question was asked on the ballot, the answer was not only "no", but "HELL NO!", even in Oregon, which is generally seen as a relatively "progressive" place. These numbers are hard numbers, not based upon a survey or poll, but upon actual votes cast. How long ago was it that homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by psychologists? So how "normalized" has homosexuality actually become in society as a whole? Those numbers suggest that while there may be some tolerance for homosexuality, but that homosexual marriage certainly is NOT "normalized" amongst a supermajority of American voters, at least in the 11 states that we have unassailable figures for. Even among the Democratic party hierarchy, homosexuality is not universally "normalized", as demonstrated by Sen. Robert Byrd's comments and the party's general very recent backtracking on "God, Guns, and Gays" (never before November 2004 did I think I would see Hillary quoting the Bible), which are seen even amongst the party faithful as having cost the Democrats the 2004 election.
As for members not being able to consent, why would there need to be consent or a contract at all? After all, in most of the cases we're talking about, the "second partner" is alienable PROPERTY, not a legally recognized individual. It's like the definition of murder...murder is generally defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought." If your dog shoots you, it's not murder, and yes, that has actually happened. And a corpse at one time could indeed enter into a contract for the disposition of their remains, yes?