Hive, all due respect but you are not even close to understanding what my post saying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are exactly right, but since when is that the issue? Legalizing one thing does not mean legalizing something else that may be similar is right around the corner. IF this were true we would all be in arush to make sure all handguns were banned, because if they were legal, obviously next people would want to own weapons-grade plutonium (I'm not saying I'm all yay for guns, just demostrating some flawed logic here)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The legislative branch decides those boundaries, not the judicial. If the legislature passes a law banning all heavy weapons (including bazookas MG42s SAW's etc) but allows light weapons (pistols), the job of the judicial branch is to interpret that law, not change the boundaries to fit their personal bias.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You were referring to a post about incest here, right? Making incest illegal is FAR from being a purely moral decision. Incest is illegal so people don't go around making extremely messed up kids, it's not fair to the kids. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This argument will fall flat if its used against incest. In the United States, we don't ban anyone from pro-creating (I believe it is also a constitutional right as well? I could be wrong) even though they are both retards or if both of the both partners has a debilitating genetic disorder (Huntington's Disease is one of the most known. Since it is a dominate trait, if one partner has it, there is a 50% chance their kid can have this genetic disease. If both parents have this disorder, there is a 99.99% chance of passing it on to their offspring!)
Don't these people make as you say "messed up kids"? Is it fair to them? The fact of the matter is that we incest is illegal mainly because a majority of Americans find it morally reprehensible. Yes, making "messed up kids" is apart of it but it isn't the main objection.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're saying that any "equal protection" arguments could also be used to defend polygamy, and maybe you're right, but that's still NOT THE ISSUE HERE. It's an issue for another time (and I for one think it would make great discussion). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is THE ISSUE HERE. What im saying is this, the people set boundaries and define institutions, not judges. If they OK **** marriage, they are essentially setting their own boundaries to their liking. You can guarantee that if **** marriage OKed by the courts, alternative lifestyles will be banning on the door demanding marriage status. This is why the legislative branch in my opinion needs to step in.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are exactly right, but since when is that the issue? Legalizing one thing does not mean legalizing something else that may be similar is right around the corner. IF this were true we would all be in arush to make sure all handguns were banned, because if they were legal, obviously next people would want to own weapons-grade plutonium (I'm not saying I'm all yay for guns, just demostrating some flawed logic here)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The legislative branch decides those boundaries, not the judicial. If the legislature passes a law banning all heavy weapons (including bazookas MG42s SAW's etc) but allows light weapons (pistols), the job of the judicial branch is to interpret that law, not change the boundaries to fit their personal bias.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You were referring to a post about incest here, right? Making incest illegal is FAR from being a purely moral decision. Incest is illegal so people don't go around making extremely messed up kids, it's not fair to the kids. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This argument will fall flat if its used against incest. In the United States, we don't ban anyone from pro-creating (I believe it is also a constitutional right as well? I could be wrong) even though they are both retards or if both of the both partners has a debilitating genetic disorder (Huntington's Disease is one of the most known. Since it is a dominate trait, if one partner has it, there is a 50% chance their kid can have this genetic disease. If both parents have this disorder, there is a 99.99% chance of passing it on to their offspring!)
Don't these people make as you say "messed up kids"? Is it fair to them? The fact of the matter is that we incest is illegal mainly because a majority of Americans find it morally reprehensible. Yes, making "messed up kids" is apart of it but it isn't the main objection.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're saying that any "equal protection" arguments could also be used to defend polygamy, and maybe you're right, but that's still NOT THE ISSUE HERE. It's an issue for another time (and I for one think it would make great discussion). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is THE ISSUE HERE. What im saying is this, the people set boundaries and define institutions, not judges. If they OK **** marriage, they are essentially setting their own boundaries to their liking. You can guarantee that if **** marriage OKed by the courts, alternative lifestyles will be banning on the door demanding marriage status. This is why the legislative branch in my opinion needs to step in.