[tsomer]

So we must have some arbitrary standards, the same way we have arbitrary standards for blood alcohol and safe speed limits. I disagree with your so-called 'moral argument.' The vast majority of people are revolted by the idea of true pedophilia

I certainly agree about standards. But I wouldn't call standards like blood alcohol or consent arbitrary; they are the result of accumulated experience (history) as well as scientific study.

We have systematically studied and quantified the effect blood alcohol level has on reflexes. That's easy to do. Then correlate the data with probability of past mayhem where the driver had drunk, and after allowances for socially responsible drinkers (there may actually be a human gene for wanting a buzz) you can set a workable boundary.

It's harder to do this for cultural mores and proscriptions. We say the child abuse is universally despised.But we've never really studied the issue in any laboratory, remote from cultural influences to verify the claim. We'd probably need a distant planet to colonize for that purpose.

There may be a universal innate reaction we call guilt. But to assume that this guilt is sufficient to control behaviors we now disapprove of now, is wrong. The cannibal who refuses to eat the missionary probably feels guilt.

So, in this realm we only have the wisdom of accumulated experience, as shown by history.

We look at societies that define marriage as between one man and one woman, and compare its achievements--material and psychological with those of societies diverging from this standard. The original decisions that defined this arrangement may have been arbitrary, "King So&So proclaims..." and so on. But experience has shown it is the best and surest way to widespread contentment.

This is what I mean by my moral argument. If we remove this side of the equation, the foundation of all we have is undercut. We've begun to allow gay partnering to be defined as 'marriage' and entitled it to all the societal obligations and protections accruing to it. As the result of this, we're now obliged to debate the propriety of polygamy. If we concede even one inch of this debate, we'll certainly find ourselves defending our revulsion of child abuse.

"Ye shall know them by their fruit"

[dsc]

"But I wouldn't call standards like blood alcohol or consent arbitrary; they are the result of accumulated experience (history) as well as scientific study."

Well, there's as much bad science there as there is in the global warming hysteria.

I participated in an early study back in the 70s, and the dirty little secret is that most healthy people actually drive *better* at a blood alcohol level of 1.0. When you get very much over that, performance drops off sharply, but 1.0 was actually below the level at which good sense and science would have put the level.

And now every state has lowered the level to .08. Where's the science behind that?

One problem is that every accident in which there is any excuse at all is classified as "alcohol related," whether alcohol played any role in the accident or not.

Guy has a beer in a bar, gets in his car to go home, is stopped at a stoplight, and some stone-sober citizen slams into him from behind. Bam. Another "alcohol-related accident" for the hysterics to use as an excuse to further restrict our freedoms.

High-school kids get a case of beer and start driving around recklessly at high speed. The driver has half a beer in him and half a beer on him when he fails to negotiate a curve. Another "alcohol-related accident."

Subtact out accidents like that and the number of "alcohol-related" accidents would plunge sharply.

The laws we have no are arbitrary, because they're just a way station on the march to the ultimate goal -- no drinking at all, in any amount, before driving.

The old limit of 1.0 was low. 0.8 is ridiculous. 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.0 are coming.

[calenel]

The accumulated data on blood-alcohol content not withstanding, is a 5% likelihood of a serious accident an appropriate threshold? 1%? 10%? And how serious should serious be? How many fatalities are acceptable? Why not have zero tolerance?

How young is too young? Why is 18 accepted as adult for most concerns instead of 15 or 20 or 25? Why do you have to be 35 to be President? How come you can use tobacco at 18 but not alcohol? My 17 year old is brighter and more responsible than many 20 somethings I knew in college. Hell, my 7 year old is. Should they get the vote? Why do we say 18 to vote instead of administering an adulthood test to gain the privilege of voting, driving, drinking, joining the military, procreating, expressing political opinions and so on? Well, because somebody would have to establish standards for the test - arbitrary standards - and that would be unacceptable.

So, we have the arbitrary standards we have. They may be based on accumulated statistics and majority acceptance of assessed or perceived risk, but they are still arbitrary.

Oh, you might have misunderstood my position on polygamy. I wasn't supporting it, merely rejecting your argument against it.

The example of ages of consent merely illustrates that even something as important as marriage/sexuality/procreation is subject to arbitrary standards. Why not simply say you can't have sex until you are married and you can't get married until you are 18(or 20, or 15 or passed the adulthood test?) Why even have an age of consent? Why is (was?) the age of consent in WV 12? Probably so some influential legislator or governor could legally get his side nookie - but, gee, isn't adultery still illegal? And isn't adultery defined by many (arbitrarily?) as any sexual act outside of marriage? So why have rules for the conduct of something that is against the rules in the first place? Oh, please define marriage while you are at it. One-man-one-woman-one-time? One-man-at-a-time-to-one-woman-at-a-time? Can clergy marry? Not even all Christians can agree there.

Also, 'We' have not allowed gay 'marriage'. A few have abused their positions and arbitrarily declared it to be a right. Others have rejected it. That boat has not yet docked.