I reviewed Wolf v. Walker case that my professor suggested me to read. The case was about same-sax marriage in the United States. Frankly speaking, I was not that interested in such topic but all of sudden I felt curious about the moral standards for sexual minorities. Of course I'm not part of them and neither support them nor oppose them.
Currently, a homosexual marriage is gradually being accepted in our society. Then, what about an intermarriage or a marriage between human beings and animals? Here, I am not treat those things as the same, but considering a social or legal basis for same-sex marriage is to ensure the right to pursue one's happiness or the right to marry, and suppose this is kind of acceptable in our society now, what makes other minor marriages not admissible?
What are legal, social, logical, and ethical basis for considering other sexual minorities as a sin?
Is ethical belief changing as our society develops? Think about at somewhere on our history there was a time that fat persons were regarded aesthetically beautiful, and an incest was permissible.
You are making a "slippery slope" argument. I thought the judge addressed this well. The legal question was whether two consenting human adults are being denied their rights under the Constitution. As to whether this would lead to other forms of marriage that society cannot accept was not an issue. I think the human-animal argument is silly. As for polygamy - - which used to be traditional marriage for many societies - - perhaps some advocates will try to argue that it should be permitted. But should the possibility that someone might advocate for polygamy in the future prevent two people from equal treatment under the law today?
You are making a "slippery slope" argument. I thought the judge addressed this well. The legal question was whether two consenting human adults are being denied their rights under the Constitution. As to whether this would lead to other forms of marriage that society cannot accept was not an issue. I think the human-animal argument is silly. As for polygamy - - which used to be traditional marriage for many societies - - perhaps some advocates will try to argue that it should be permitted. But should the possibility that someone might advocate for polygamy in the future prevent two people from equal treatment under the law today?
Thank you for your comment. Yes, you are right. in Wolf v. Walker case as you said, my question was not an issue. I just mentioned such case to say that I was motivated to think application of constitutional rights to other forms of marriage. The thing that I wanted to discuss in this post was 'moral, ethical, or even constitutional standards for deciding whether certain special forms of marriage are subject to the right to marry, or right to be happy.'
I didn't raise the human-animal marriage example to be sarcastic, and I'm not saying that the same-sex marriage and other forms of marriage are exactly the same because they are all minors. Instead, I wanted to discuss the phenomenon, or process of changes in laws and ethics. This is because it is true that same-sex marriage has been regarded as 'taboo', but it is gradually changing due to recent trend of perception that LGBT is not a taboo.
I thing main problems of traditional polygamy were repression of women, or underage girls, and all those are things that same-sex marriage doesn't have. However, LGBT rights clearly alleviated deterrent effect of other minorities by permitting adults to get married consensually. Considering that, I think assuming the possibility of applying constitutional rights to other forms of marriage is not a very dangerous slippery slope argument.
