"Consenting adults" can't do plenty of shit, why should the gays be special? If two women agree to marry the same guy, that's completely illegal, and I don't see anyone but the most disgusting poly people (and a few off the grid Mormons who are only off the grid because its illegal) arguing for it.
So clearly, "consenting adults" only matters when it allows people to let something happen that opposing might get them backlash socially.
The only reason poly marriage isn't legal is the tax ramifications. It's all about the money. LGBT is a multi-billion dollar industry, like it or not, and it doesn't significantly alter the tax code, while no one cares much about the Mormons and the IRS keep their thirteen silver.
But nobody is arguing about it from a pro-tax point of view. They are pushing it from a moral one, which means they are either hypocrites or ignorantly spouting phrases they heard on TV without thinking about it.
That's the problem with principles and morals, if you try to use them as a bat for change and social causes you need to actually have them instead of just using them when it might win your argument for you.
those laws are in place because feds believe women are incapable of making healthy life decisions, same reason abortion is propped up everywhere. I don't agree that things like polyamory should be illegal, let alone even considered by feds.
So lesbians shouldn't be able to marry then, since two women cannot consent to a marriage.
It should absolutely be illegal because it would completely destabilize an already problematic dating market, and turn the already tumultuous "incel" issue into a rapidly exploding problem. If the point of government is to help maintain a nation's cohesion and cooperation, its absolutely in their interest to prevent a handful of rich or degenerate men from taking up the majority of the available women. Logically it makes perfect sense to keep it forbidden. After all, women cannot be trusted to make good decisions for the fate of the nation.
But we aren't arguing logic, just morals/principles. Which somehow only ever get people going out and marching for the Gays and everything else is an afterthought or a punchline.
I think you need to reread my post. My argument is that people, women included, are capable of making their own decisions when they reach adulthood, and it is not the business of feds to determine what is best for individuals.
Morality is irrelevant because morality changes between cultures and people. Feds are probably the worst group to be in charge or morality.
I read it fine, my argument is that the idea of "consenting adults should be able to do their thing" only ever applies at certain times and is a moral position because logically there are plenty of places where they should not be allowed because the alternative is the tyranny of anarchy which leads to even less freedom ironically.
Including allowing gays to marry because by doing so we were further eroding marriage into a government defined entity (since the big argument for it at the time was tax/insurance reasons) instead of a personal or religious union.
Not even getting into that it completely divorces actions from mental states, and thereby assumes people actively destroying themselves (in this case, through lust) should be allowed without question which also only applies here and not to gambling or drugs or many other limited vices.
"Consenting adults" can't do plenty of shit, why should the gays be special? If two women agree to marry the same guy, that's completely illegal, and I don't see anyone but the most disgusting poly people (and a few off the grid Mormons who are only off the grid because its illegal) arguing for it.
So clearly, "consenting adults" only matters when it allows people to let something happen that opposing might get them backlash socially.
The only reason poly marriage isn't legal is the tax ramifications. It's all about the money. LGBT is a multi-billion dollar industry, like it or not, and it doesn't significantly alter the tax code, while no one cares much about the Mormons and the IRS keep their thirteen silver.
And that's a perfectly fine reason.
But nobody is arguing about it from a pro-tax point of view. They are pushing it from a moral one, which means they are either hypocrites or ignorantly spouting phrases they heard on TV without thinking about it.
That's the problem with principles and morals, if you try to use them as a bat for change and social causes you need to actually have them instead of just using them when it might win your argument for you.
those laws are in place because feds believe women are incapable of making healthy life decisions, same reason abortion is propped up everywhere. I don't agree that things like polyamory should be illegal, let alone even considered by feds.
So lesbians shouldn't be able to marry then, since two women cannot consent to a marriage.
It should absolutely be illegal because it would completely destabilize an already problematic dating market, and turn the already tumultuous "incel" issue into a rapidly exploding problem. If the point of government is to help maintain a nation's cohesion and cooperation, its absolutely in their interest to prevent a handful of rich or degenerate men from taking up the majority of the available women. Logically it makes perfect sense to keep it forbidden. After all, women cannot be trusted to make good decisions for the fate of the nation.
But we aren't arguing logic, just morals/principles. Which somehow only ever get people going out and marching for the Gays and everything else is an afterthought or a punchline.
I think you need to reread my post. My argument is that people, women included, are capable of making their own decisions when they reach adulthood, and it is not the business of feds to determine what is best for individuals.
Morality is irrelevant because morality changes between cultures and people. Feds are probably the worst group to be in charge or morality.
I read it fine, my argument is that the idea of "consenting adults should be able to do their thing" only ever applies at certain times and is a moral position because logically there are plenty of places where they should not be allowed because the alternative is the tyranny of anarchy which leads to even less freedom ironically.
Including allowing gays to marry because by doing so we were further eroding marriage into a government defined entity (since the big argument for it at the time was tax/insurance reasons) instead of a personal or religious union.
Not even getting into that it completely divorces actions from mental states, and thereby assumes people actively destroying themselves (in this case, through lust) should be allowed without question which also only applies here and not to gambling or drugs or many other limited vices.
Gonna give you a big disagree on that one. Most people aren't fit to decide anything that has an effect past their own nose. Let alone vote.