Dear Mary...

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have
raised informed consent as a ground for marriage, which you
ignore in order to change to straw men -- or straw sheep.


If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.



I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.


That's not an issue.

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have
raised informed consent as a ground for marriage, which you
ignore in order to change to straw men -- or straw sheep.


If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.


Has ABSOLUTELY ANYONE proposed that except people like you who don't
want any changes? Do you have any data that says people are out to marry
sheep, other than perhaps the existence of the inflatable sheep product,
"I Love Ewe"?



I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.


That's not an issue.


Because? You keep saying gender is an issue. Gender is not always clear
by objective standards.

Oh. I'm sorry. I forgot. Nothing is an issue if it might cast
aspersions on your positions.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:01:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

And if we think about it really really hard, and yell really really
loud, we can re-define sunrise as occurring in the West.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...
If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

If by "we", you mean the people of the US, then you are merely stating
the obvious. It might take a constitutional amendment or two, but
there is, in theory, a process for doing it. You don't even need the
"if" part. Just this alone is true, in a technical sense:

We can define marriage so that informed consent is not
a requirement.

And my response is: So what? There are many things you can do that
you won't do, right?

The real issue is whether or not the legal argument used to justify
the marriage of two men can also be used to justify nonconsensual
marriage. That is, if we make gay marriage legal, will there be a
SCOTUS case that will allow nonconsensual marriage. If you think
that's true, then you are in black helicopter land, and there's no
point in saying anything more.

On the other hand, more problematic is whether or not an argument for
gay marriage could be used to justify marriage between siblings. That
is a lot less clear, and has been debated between legal scholars of
all persuasions in the blogosphere.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of gay marriage. I'm only saying
that trying to claim that legalizing gay marriage might lead to
legalizing nonconsensual marriage is silly. There are other, more
persuasive, arguments against gay marriage.

"Aloha" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

If by "we", you mean the people of the US, then you are merely stating
the obvious. It might take a constitutional amendment or two, but
there is, in theory, a process for doing it. You don't even need the
"if" part. Just this alone is true, in a technical sense:

We can define marriage so that informed consent is not
a requirement.

And my response is: So what? There are many things you can do that
you won't do, right?


I seem to recall there is Biblical precedent for non consentual marriage. I
do not have the chapter and verse but I think there is a Mosaic law that
allows a man who rapes your daughter to pay a fine then marry her. It seems
there are some consensual issues there. The idea of marriage changes over
time. I wonder how many folks today would consider that Solomon with all his
wives and concubines would fit into their definition of a good marriage.
Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"Victory at all costs, victory
in spite of all terror, victory
however long and hard the
road may be; for without victory,
there is no survival."
Winston Churchill:
speech, May 13, 1940