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.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
my rights end where yours begin
your rights end where mine begin
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
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.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
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.
so who is? you?