The case merely erased the requirement because it remains unfair for those who can be mentally adequate to consent outside of the area of the nuclear-family style marriage. The goal of most of this is to allow for the most overall happiness and freedom for the most individuals that are actually capable of consent outside of their own family. To answer your first question, yes, it possibly would, as this isn’t uncommon in many cultures due to the fact that culture is what defines the premise of marriage in many scenarios. For a long time, marriage was a political pawn between leaders or a contract for maximizing growth and profit. Its definition already changed when it added love as a requirement, thereby rendering its whole purpose as “static” irrelevant. It already isn’t required to be sexual love, it can be purely romantic, platonic, or sexual, or a combination. There’s many reasons people marry, and this is about the legal area, because the legal one doesn’t have to match that of common religious structures, but to merely serve the people the most, while maintaining morality that the vast majority consider common sense after whatever group wants to marry is considered. Pedophilia and incest aren’t okay because the family marrying itself leads to severe genetic problems for the child, and because children are not considered mentally capable of consenting until after 18, not because some magical switch in their head flips, but because that’s considered a safe benchmark for their brains to be developed enough to understand their choices and be safe. That’s the difference here, and legalizing gay marriage allows those couples to marry happily, while holding no direct harm to the nuclear family in any manner, it simply allows you the freedom to actually choose how the family is done within certain relatively obvious limits.
@9JZLWQL3mos3MO
“while maintaining morality that the vast majority consider common sense after whatever group wants to marry is considered. Pedophilia and incest aren’t okay because the family marrying itself leads to severe genetic problems for the child, and because children are not considered mentally capable of consenting until after 18, not because some magical switch in their head flips, but because that’s considered a safe benchmark for their brains to be developed enough to understand their choices and be safe.”
Interesting, I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, you mentioned that morality is dictated by what "the vast majority consider common sense." If this is the case, there is no objective standard for what consitutes morality. For example, "the vast majority considered common sense" the idea of segregation and slavery. If we dictate what is moral based on "common sense" we can justify horrendous injustices and immorality. A question back to you would be what if pedophilia was considered "common sense" (as it was in Ancient Greece)? Would that justify… Read more
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
I said that the majority reinforces what is moral, though the effect and fairness are the stronger measures of morality of the five principles that make up what is moral.
@9JZLWQL3mos3MO
Curious if you have any response to my previous thought?
@9JZLWQL3mos3MO
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What are the five principles that make up what is moral?
Also, not sure what you make of the questions I posed before? A question back to you would be what if pedophilia was considered "common sense" (as it was in Ancient Greece)? Would that justify marriage of adults and children? They certainly saw social benefit to these relationships and considered them to be fair in the sense that a younger boy would gain wisdom by virtue of being in relationship with older men.
Second, you said that incestuous marriage isn't okay because of gene… Read more
