South Africa approves gay marriage-what now?

[atheist_infidel0304]

Just heard about South Africa, which is now under court order to allow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/#a011540 gay marriage after a law restricting it was tossed out.

--When a law is instituted allowing same-sex marriage, how specifically will this new provision "hurt" marriage?

--Will allowing same sex couples to marry harm heterosexuals?, if so, please explain how this is.

[Cathar1950]

i don't see it hurting the sanctity of marriage any more then people praying to God or Jesus hurts prayer when some one prays to something else. You never hear hey your prayer to you God hurt my Prayer.
Maybe they just cancel each other out. I say if they have a relationship and want to marry it would help the sanctity of relationship.

[ST88]

But you have to remember that AmeriCHa is different. AmeriCHa is the shining city on a hill, the light to the world, the example by which all other nations should be shamed that they are not. This is God's country. That's why we have the death penalty, to show the world how religious we are.

Anyone who believes that is a fricking idiot. Well, actually that describes the whining anti-homosexual fundamentalists pretty well, doesn't it?

So, ST88 and Cephus have set up a straw-man and knocked it down. Were we going to debate anything here?

Is there any possible debate involved? I have never heard a convincing argument about how homosexual marriage will damage civilization that does not involve religious smiting.

[McCulloch]

Is there any possible debate involved? I have never heard a convincing argument about how homosexual marriage will damage civilization that does not involve religious smiting.

Since the Christians on this board do not seem to be rising to the challenge, can we assume

1. the Christians here approve of (or at least tolerate) secular same-sex marriage
2. the Christians here believe that the issue has been answered elsewhere
3. the Christians here do not believe that this is an issue that warrants debate

To get things going, with a better straw man, perhaps I can find some bona fide, christian arguments against gay marriage.
An article in Christianity Today, Week of February 16 entitled Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society. by Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott.

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.

1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
   Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
   The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
   A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
   In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
   Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
   Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
   Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
   In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in "Speaking Out" do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

To summarize, these particular Christians claim that

• sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage
• society that accepts same sex marriage will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons
• this will lead to the abolishment of governmental support for traditional marriage altogether
• some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents
• children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often
• gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens.
• gay marriage strengthens the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them
• the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

Now we can debate this topic. Do these claims have any validity?

[Cephus]

To summarize, these particular Christians claim that [*]sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage

No more than it is now. It isn't like heterosexuals are all that commited to marriage to begin with, more than half of all first marriages fail and the numbers get worse from there. People cheat on their spouses regardless of the gender of those involved.

[*]society that accepts same sex marriage will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. It'll lead to people marrying their sister, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria! Complete hogwash.

[*]this will lead to the abolishment of governmental support for traditional marriage altogether

There's nothing 'traditional' about marriage anyhow, but this is another ludicrous statement. There is no difference between 'traditional' marriage and gay marriage, save the gender of the people involved. Same thing, except for the people who are irrationally squicked by what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms

[*]some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents

That makes no sense whatsoever. It has nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise.

[*]children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often

Again utter nonsense. People raised by homosexuals are much more likely to be more tolerant of things than people raised by anal religious fundamentalists, that's what the fundies are threatened by. Why, these people might not fall for the lies of religion at all! The horror!

[*]gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens.

As opposed to commiting suicide, you mean. It's the teens who are told they are freaks, don't fit in, are abnormal, etc. that are more prone to suicide, not people who are comfortable and feel welcome. How gay marriage will encourage any of this is unclear.

[*]gay marriage strengthens the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them

Modern marriage is about being with the person you love, period. If you just want intimacy, there are plenty of ways you can get it without springing for a ring. People just live together all the time without the need for a walk down the aisle, this is just more fundamentalist stupidity.

[*]the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

Exactly how can the LEGAL ADOPTION of gay marriage bring contempt for the law? Gay marriage would be LEGAL! That's just ridlculous.

[ST88]

Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.

A) Lower marriage rates, marital instability, and children living in single-parent households are not, in and of themselves, signs of societal decay.
B) It would be amusing if it weren't so cynically horrendous that domestic violence is used as a canard for the stability of heterosexual marriage. Domestic violence is a valid reason for marital instability, and domestic violence decreases dramatically when marriages are dissolved.
C) Poverty is not a result of unmarried women having children. It is at the very least a correlative factor, but largely pop-sociology. The welfare argument is the best one here, but that's a bit like saying Ashton Kutcher is the best actor in a list that includes Pauly Shore and Tori Spelling. I would dispute that unmarried women having children is the cause of "a vast expansion of welfare". Increased rates of poverty is the cause of that. Poverty is caused by many things. Having children certainly increases expenses for a household, but it does not deprive someone who is already in poverty from becoming a member of the upper-middle class.

[*]The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself.

Re-definition of societally defined functions is not without precedent. "Government" used to be synonymous with a royal regency. Opposition to change because it is change is a losing battle and a mark of OCD sufferers.

One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much..."Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."

Does anyone dispute that "fidelity" is a concept that each individual couple accepts as they see fit? The homosexuality-promiscuousness canard is particularly galling because there are some homosexuals who argue that they shouldn't buy into the whole hetero lifestyle of marriage and monogamy. In my mind this is a lifestyle issue, and not a gender-orientation issue. And it is not exclusively homosexual, either. Arguing that homosexuals are inherently more promiscuous and are therefore less "able" to maintain monogamous relationships is ludicrous.

A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.

I'd be interested to see the figures for unmarried heteros. I'd guess they were about the same. Hmmm, assuming it's a bad thing to sleep around... Maybe we should give the homosexuals a means to publicly state their commitment so they were less promiscuous.

Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral."

This gay marriage to polygamy argument is very interesting. Personally, I see nothing wrong with polygamy. However, if one wishes to make the argument for gay marriage leading to polygamy, then one would have to show that the idea of marriage is not based on the family unit of two persons, that it can include "collective" situations in which more than two people are responsible for a child. It is easy for current law to include two or less persons to be responsible for a child, because the onyl change would be the gender-neutral nature of the statute. However, the numerical nature of child guardians would be a degree more difficult to change, as would regulations regarding community property (in California, for example). That would be an interesting legal battle, however. I hope it comes to that in my lifetime.

[*]Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.

I don't know where these people get their statistics. They are out of place, especially considering the other sections that are citation-heavy. The only correletive factor that has been proven to be an issue for raising children is economic status. Saying that children of gay parents are more "dissatisfied with their own gender" is like saying that because there are so many poor blacks, it must be because they are black that they are poor. I'd be interested to see if any of these studies had confounding factors, such as societal pressures: non-acceptance or outright hostility because of the family situation. Self-righteous people verbally abusing them because their parents are of the same gender, or even confusion surrounding the family's message vs. society's message.

Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations.

Gosh, that sounds like adolescence among families who do not love their children. That heterosexual marriages produce such confused children is baffling, isn't it?

Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children.

The same argument could be made for post-menopausal women and infertile couples in general, as well as those who are childless-by-choice.

Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason that people will think this is because it has been hammered into their brains by a group such as yours. And this also fails the heterosexual test.

In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.[/list]In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.

Gay marriage has nothing Constitutional in its way. The Constitution allows whatever it doesn't prohibit. Every age can interpret it as it sees necessary to maintain a stable society. There is no legal argument that can be made to prohibit gay marriage. Only demagogues who inflame the populace with lies and code phrases to pass laws that limit the freedom of a certain segment of society can stand in the way of societal progress.

[youngborean]

1.the Christians here approve of (or at least tolerate) secular same-sex marriage
2.the Christians here believe that the issue has been answered elsewhere
3.the Christians here do not believe that this is an issue that warrants debate

I would go for option 3. My personal perspective is that laws such as this are only a reflection of society. They really do nothing for human rights in my mind one way or another. For instance, in Canada it would be completely rhetorical to legalize gay marriage since they have already been awarded every benefit (tax and inheritance) that a heterosexual couple has. It really seems to be about changing the definition of a word alone, which is totally unecessary. I think we are wasting time by making lawmakers even talk about new ways of expressing ideas. There are unseen effects that can only be seen after a law is in action. For instance, will there be any ramification for a church refusing an individual their lawful right of marriage. Only time will tell what this law does to society. But I think it is so pointless to do this now when there are much more pressing issues in our society than whether or not we call a union between a homosexual couple a marriage or just a union. I'm really sick of hearing about it.

[McCulloch]

My personal perspective is that laws such as this are only a reflection of society. They really do nothing for human rights in my mind one way or another. For instance, in Canada it would be completely rhetorical to legalize gay marriage since they have already been awarded every benefit (tax and inheritance) that a heterosexual couple has.

This is not completely true. Before same-sex marriages were made legal in Canada, a same-sex partner would not be considered the next-of-kin for purposes of making medical decisions. So same-sex couples would have to go through the legal process of signing powers of attorney in order to have the same rights granted automatically to married heterosexual couples.

It really seems to be about changing the definition of a word alone, which is totally unecessary.

Words are important. There is a societal recognition of legitimacy associated with the word "marriage". This is why the fundamentalists are fighting so hard to prohibit the use of the word marriage in relation to same-sex couples.

I think we are wasting time by making lawmakers even talk about new ways of expressing ideas.

In Canada, the law was first changed by the court's interpretation of the Charter of Rights. The legislators then had to change the wording of the laws to comply or make a constitutional amendment.

There are unseen effects that can only be seen after a law is in action.

This should never be a reason to avoid lawmaking. When the unseen effects become evident, then new laws or changes to laws can be made.

For instance, will there be any ramification for a church refusing an individual their lawful right of marriage.

This concern has already been addressed in the wording of the Canadian law. Although, legal experts believe that explicit protection would not be necessary. Churches can refuse to marry couples based on whatever criterion they wish. A church can refuse to marry a couple where either of the pair does not belong to that church, or if they eat the wrong foods, or they tie their shoelaces strangely.

Only time will tell what this law does to society.

Yes, it will.

But I think it is so pointless to do this now when there are much more pressing issues in our society than whether or not we call a union between a homosexual couple a marriage or just a union. I'm really sick of hearing about it.

That is why many of us wonder why so many persons of faith are so active in trying to impose their religious values on the rest of society. Why don't they just let the godless do what we are going to do? I don't see the churches trying to pass laws to prohibit divorce, sunday shopping and pork consumption.

[McCulloch]

I don't see the churches trying to pass laws to prohibit divorce, sunday shopping and pork consumption.

After submitting, I realized that this statement could be read as the logical fallacy, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Maybe person's of faith should try to encode the articles of their faith into the law of the land. Maybe the fundamental principals of religious freedom and the separation of church and state are wrong. Perhaps protecting minority rights is a bad thing.
No, what I meant was that the churches realize that on some issues it would be incorrect to make enact laws based solely on matters of faith. But on the issue of same-sex marriage, some of them seem to have problems realizing that their objections are completely and utterly in the realm of faith and should therefore not be included in the law of the land.

[youngborean]

After submitting, I realized that this statement could be read as the logical fallacy, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Maybe person's of faith should try to encode the articles of their faith into the law of the land. Maybe the fundamental principals of religious freedom and the separation of church and state are wrong. Perhaps protecting minority rights is a bad thing.
No, what I meant was that the churches realize that on some issues it would be incorrect to make enact laws based solely on matters of faith. But on the issue of same-sex marriage, some of them seem to have problems realizing that their objections are completely and utterly in the realm of faith and should therefore not be included in the law of the land.

I don't think this is relavant. Christians never brought up the political significance of gay Marriage. It was only after it became a political issue that they responded. Certainly if a political discussion is brought up a Christian should be entitled to express their opinion on the politics of an issue in a democratic country. We live in a land with laws that reflect are supposed to represent everyones ethics, it is entirely unfair to throw out the religious perspective hiding behind the "seperation of church and state" argument. The church is not making the laws, they are like any other lobbying group on this issue. It is still seperate, like any non for profit group that has their mits into this issue. Objections and support for this issue rely on faith that their position is more ethical. There could be factual merits to either side. But it takes away from any real dicussion when either side throws away the other's position. That is why this whole issue (and so many other hot button political issues) bother me. When two sides disagree the fundamental elements talk louder and begin to devise plans to negate the other side's position. You get lost in polemics like you just provided. There is no reason that faith wouldn't be represented in laws. What other mechanism do people believe in their ethical position?

[McCulloch]

Christians never brought up the political significance of gay Marriage. It was only after it became a political issue that they responded.

Um, no. Gay couples challenged the existing law. They won the challenge in court. Legislators would have quietly changed the law to reflect the court's ruling except that persons of faith turned it into a political hot potato.

Certainly if a political discussion is brought up a Christian should be entitled to express their opinion on the politics of an issue in a democratic country. We live in a land with laws that reflect are supposed to represent everyones ethics, it is entirely unfair to throw out the religious perspective hiding behind the "seperation of church and state" argument. The church is not making the laws, they are like any other lobbying group on this issue. It is still seperate, like any non for profit group that has their mits into this issue. Objections and support for this issue rely on faith that their position is more ethical. There could be factual merits to either side. But it takes away from any real dicussion when either side throws away the other's position.

You would be right if there were any arguments on the side of the anti-gay marriage issue that were based on facts. The problem is that they are all, completely based solely on faith.

That is why this whole issue (and so many other hot button political issues) bother me. When two sides disagree the fundamental elements talk louder and begin to devise plans to negate the other side's position. You get lost in polemics like you just provided. There is no reason that faith wouldn't be represented in laws.

No, absolutely not. Faith should not be represented in laws. We do not live in any sort of theocracy. Laws should be made for the objective common good and for the betterment of society.

What other mechanism do people believe in their ethical position?

People of faith who believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, should refrain from marrying someone who is not of the opposite sex. If they feel strongly about it, they could extend that mechanism to refraining from participating in those weddings which offend their sensibilities. But if they want to change the law of the land to prohibit those marriages, then they better come up with a reason better than it is against my religious faith and everybody else has to play by my rules.

I would not deny persons of faith their opinion. What I would deny is their right to impose an ethical standard which is based only on their faith, on the whole of society. I would suggest that matters of public ethics (our laws for instance) should be based on objective criteria not subjective faith. Not even all of the Christians can agree on the issue of same-sex marriage, yet some of them want to change our laws to reflect their faith, thereby imposing their particular religious views on the rest of us. How is that any different than making pork consumption illegal?