[Vision2020] gay marriage and bananas

[Joan Opyr]

Doug says:

>But obviously you believe that the law should be informed by morality. 
>Otherwise, why would you care about consent? The need for consent is 
>(obviously) a moral issue. But whose formulation? Whose morality? And if a 
>fifteen year old girl is not competent to decide whether to join the harem 
>of an old coot on the mountain named Elijah One Tooth, then how is she 
>competent to decide whether to sleep with some fifteen-year-old in her 
>class at school?

Why must the need for consent be construed as a moral rather than a legal 
issue?  An individual rights argument will suffice.  The jails are full of 
people who believe they have a right (divine or otherwise) to rape, kill, 
maim, or abuse.  The law is not interested in their beliefs, but in their 
actions.  One man's belief in his right to "yes" may not trespass on a 
woman's physical right to "no."  Call that morality if you like, and search 
for its roots in the Bible and the Torah, but I don't think we need look any 
further for legal justification than simple self-interest.  We're not 
obliged to believe in God to believe that assault on another human being is 
a bad thing.  Logic alone dictates that if I hit you, you might hit me back. 
  The law codifies that neither of us should hit the other, and it 
prescribes punishments if we do.  Whether or not you view this as a question 
of morality is up to you.  I view it as maintaining civil order.

(Now, if you’re going to insist that the concept of individual rights can 
only come from God, then we’re playing chicken and the egg, and we will not, 
contrary to your assertion, get anywhere.  You know the old saw, God created 
man, and man returned the favor?  Well, while I’m singing “We Shall 
Overcome,” you’re singing “What’s it all about, Alfie?”  Not a recipe for 
mutual enlightenment.)

As for fifteen year-olds having sex with old coots, the older I get, the 
more I think that no one under the age of thirty should be allowed out of 
the house.  That said, we can make an argument for impaired (or at least 
incomplete) judgment in fifteen year-olds based on simple biology.  The 
synapses in the human brain are not all up and running until we're in our 
early twenties.  Making decisions about whom to marry (or which harem to 
join) when you're not yet firing on all cylinders is a demonstrably bad 
idea.

Somehow, this conversation keeps slipping into what ifs about children when 
the subject at hand is whether or not adults -- old enough to drink, old 
enough to vote, and with all of their synapses ready, willing, and able – 
should be allowed to determine who they will marry.  Supporters of gay 
marriage have often been accused of wanting to impose their morality on 
others.  Nonsense.  Being compelled to recognize the legality of a gay or 
lesbian relationship is not the same as being compelled to recognize its 
moral or ethical legitimacy.  The latter is a matter of personal choice.  If 
Melynda and I were legally wed, it’s true that you would be unable to 
prevent me from inheriting or making decisions for her in the ICU, but I in 
turn would be unable to make you view our relationship as moral.  You would 
still be free to believe that we were destined for a spit on Satan’s 
rotisserie.

I can no more impose acceptance on you than you can impose it on me.  I 
happen to find marriage in which the wife is submissive to the husband 
ridiculous, and, given a test, I would fail to recognize Ward Cleaver as 
June’s God-appointed boss.  What I am obliged to recognize is that they have 
a legal relationship, and that he is her legally designated spouse.  I just 
wish he wouldn’t be so hard on the Beaver.

Joan

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963