Dear Mary...

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:25:31 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Gord Beaman" ) came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

Larry Kessler wrote:
--cut--
Redefining marriage to permit members of the same sex to enter into it
would not remove the legal requirement that they both be capable of
informed consent. Sheep can't give informed consent, because they
lack the mental ability to understand the concept of marriage. Sorry
to disappoint you.

That's a slippery slope that you're treading there Larry...you're
saying that before a human can consent to marriage he/she could
be challenged to show that he/she has the mental capacity to
understand the concept of marriage. Pretty hard to prove I'd say.

Actually, it's very easy to prove. The point has been made in several
cases involving the developmentally disabled when they wish to marry.
In general, it boils down to a couple of issues.

Can the person take care of themselves in modern society? Can he/she
buy groceries, remember to wear a raincoat in a storm, ask for help,
remember where he/she lives, etc.

Can the person acknowledge, in writing or verbally, to a judge's
stisfaction that he or she understands what marriage is, and what it
requires? This is a pure judgement call on the part of the judge,
burt most are willing to accept that DD's who can explain themselves
can understand what they are asking for.



--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Thst would require removing the functional basis of contract law and
most criminal laws. So you're reaching.


Not at all. We can either redefine marriage arbitrarily or we cannot. If
we can redefine it we can make it anything we choose.

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about
"cruel
and unusual punishment).

Al Minyard

I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
what age you chose to be a man?

Somewhere around the age of 13.



Remarkable...do you remember consciously making that
choice?...what factors convinced you?...


She said yes?


--Mike

"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

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:44:40 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

Thst would require removing the functional basis of contract law and
most criminal laws. So you're reaching.


Not at all. We can either redefine marriage arbitrarily or we cannot. If
we can redefine it we can make it anything we choose.

So long as we maintain the basic concept of a contract between
consenting adults, or juveniles with parental or court consent.

Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

So long as we maintain the basic concept of a contract between
consenting adults, or juveniles with parental or court consent.

Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.


Why do you discriminate against animal lovers? Why are you opposed to equal
rights?

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:34:44 GMT, Douglas Berry
wrote:



Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.

http://www.afunworld.com/img8.htm

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:44:29 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

So long as we maintain the basic concept of a contract between
consenting adults, or juveniles with parental or court consent.

Sorry, but that leaves you and your sheep out.

Why do you discriminate against animal lovers? Why are you opposed to equal
rights?

The moment you can show a sheep who can give inforned consent, go for
it. However, until you can do that, you are exploiting a creature
that cannot decide to take part... much like a child molestor.

Now, are you going to give up on this? And address your bizarre claim
that a legal contract somehow requires opposite genders?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
news

The moment you can show a sheep who can give inforned consent,
go for it. However, until you can do that, you are exploiting a creature
that cannot decide to take part... much like a child molestor.


My sheep loves me.



Now, are you going to give up on this?


Just using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.



And address your bizarre claim
that a legal contract somehow requires opposite genders?


A legal contract does not require opposite genders, but a marriage does.