In response to:

Same-Sex Marriage Needs Voters' Stamp

Big O7 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 8:20 PM
So, let me get this straight, Saunders. If you were a conservative with friends who like to engage in sex with the dead, nothing would make you happier than for them to be able to marry? If your friends tended to engage in sex with animals, they, too, should be able to marry? You are one mentally sick and morally confused woman.
gtanv Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 8:43 PM
Moral confusion is equating homosexuality with necrophilia
Bill1895 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 9:40 PM
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 8:42 PM
Yup as soon as the animal and dead person is capable of giving informed legal consent they can get married.
Troglodite Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 9:58 PM

nmaking legal consent a sufficient condition for marriage, you actually are redefining marriage in an attempt to bring about your preferred outcome. Marriage has, always and everywhere (with negligible exceptions), been taken to involve a man and a woman, It has generally been taken, at least in the Western world for the last 2000 or so years, to involve consent. The pretense that consent is sufficient is as arbitrary as would be the pretense that, if a man and a woman are involved, that is sufficient and consent is not necessary.
Troglodite Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 10:03 PM
The first word in mine of 9:58 should be two words: "In making".

By the way, your silly over-emphasis on consent does not preclude a "marriage" involving, say, an animal, since the animal's owner (who can make every decision for the animal, including the decision to kill it) will certainly be deemed to be able to consent on its behalf.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 10:33 PM
Can the animal give consent on it's own behalf? No then that is simple. I base the two adults giving consent on the law as applicable.

For example, if the owner could give consent for the animal then Mike Vick would never have went to jail. An animal has never been acknowledged to give informed consent for ANY legal issue.

You wrote "Marriage has, always and everywhere (with negligible exceptions), been taken to involve a man and a woman, " So there are exceptions and there are no uniform rules, we have plural marriage legal at places, child marriages etc. ANd in 9 states we have couples of the same sex getting married.
sean242 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 5:21 AM
The issue of "informed legal consent" is a red herring. What is an adequate definition? Are there different degrees? Is the "consent" you contemplate the same as the the consent for risky surgeries? At what level would you say the "consent" is adequate for marriage?

The law could be changed back to a time when animals owners had complete control of their chattel. The interference of the govt in private property relationships is a relatively recent development. If under current law animal owners don't have the power to consent on behalf of their animals, how can they obtain veterinary services for them? Why are they obligated to license and vaccinate them and encouraged or even required to spay or neuter them?

As a conservative with gay friends, nothing would make me happier than to watch Californians pass an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage -- preferably with protections for religious objectors. Polls suggest it would pass today. Then the issue would be settled, and Californians -- not a court in Washington -- would have determined their own marriage laws.

So of course I was interested when 100-plus conservatives filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a legal challenge to Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment supported by 52 percent of voters in 2008 that limited marriage to a man and a...