Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[robvalue]

Anima: No, law is not simply morality. But I think it's reasonable to say that we try and make our laws as moral as possible. We don't make everything immoral illegal, but the things that are at the extreme end and specifically those that cause harm are things we generally prohibit. So law tends to prohibit immorality, just not all of it. After all, if we sentence someone to jail we have deemed them to have done something "wrong" and that is a subjective judgement. If our laws have nothing to do with harm or morality it would just be arbitrary. (Get your irony meters out.)

If I found something immoral, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it being law. It depends on what it is. It was a side comment, it wasn't supposed to be logical progression, but I understand how it was read that way. I didn't phrase it well.

There are plenty of things I find immoral which I would not want to be illegal.

However, can you give me an example of a law which most people would say is immoral? I would imagine that when this is the case, chances are, the law is going to change. Gay marriage being the perfect example! And I think you'd agree most people find child marriage extremely immoral and harmful, and while this is the case, it will stay this way.

---

Someone (I forget who, sorry) already made the excellent point that there is a very clear way to remove child marriage from this, which is to agree that marriage requires consent. So those not permitted to consent to legal contracts, of this nature at least, should not be an issue. However, we're not allowing anyone new to be able to consent to marriage even, just removing an arbitrary restriction that a pair of people able to consent can be rejected as a pair but not individually.