Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 304

Thread: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

  1. #221
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Good for you...

    I think a conservative with no humor is either an ailen or a democrat...
    Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #222
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,895

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    hmmm well i dont know what the consensus is outside the state

    but inside the state there are many jokes about how theres the cities Pittsburgh and philly and its Mississippi inbetween

    i myself have been throughout the Northeast and live here all my life and i have to agree it is unique, you go to the tright mall and you will have every stereotype presnt lol
    "Pennsyltucky" is how us more civilized folk north of the NY-PA border often refer to the flyover parts of the Keystone State.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  3. #223
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,895

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    It's no different than incest.
    Just like an apple is no different from a bus, amirite?
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  4. #224
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.
    I'm not a conservative so I just sit back and watch the dung fly..


    I'm hardly a progressive or democrat so I just sit back and watch the rubber fly....

  5. #225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.
    I suppose your information comes from the "Daily Shoe"

  6. #226
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I'm not a conservative so I just sit back and watch the dung fly..


    I'm hardly a progressive or democrat so I just sit back and watch the rubber fly....
    You're not a conservative, you just reflexively defend Republican politicians, hate gays, are against abortion....basically agree with them oneverything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  7. #227
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Just because you disagree doesn't make it not fact.... You just don't like it because you're partisan and take sides and don't give a **** what the rational counter argument is because you view it as a partisan political statement rather than a rational argument.

    Gay marriage discriminates against cousins who want incestrial marriage, polygamy, marriage to pets or inanimate objects etc... what about them??? you going to discriminate against them?

    No true ignorance is only focusing on one idea and ignoring the rest....
    While I can agree with your point (depending upon the context of the word "abnormal") your comparison can only go as far as incest and polygamy. The common thread among all is the ability of a adult to give consent. Since the animal or inanimate cannot stand before a legal official and attest to their consent they are ineligible for such legal statues as marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is none of my business. And none of yours and certainly none of the government's.

    But alas, most appear to be enormous hypocrites.

    As evidenced here.
    Do you hold to that point when it comes to incest? Otherwise you will be the hypocrite, as evidenced here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    For medical reasons - not moral reasons. Children born out of cousin marriages have a high incidence of developmental problems.
    Were this true, then incestial relationships between those who cannot bear children and same gendered couples would not be banned. In addition, relationships between those who are legally related but not blood related would not be banned as it is in several states.

    For legally pragamatic reasons - not moral ones. Who gets the house when a spouse dies?
    Partially correct. It was made illegal for moral reasons and the legal system has evolved to such a point where it would be problematic for simply reverse it. Had it never been banned the issue would not be there to worry about the pragmatism of the legal issues because the legal system would have evolved around the polygamy concept. So the ban is morally based, while the failure to remove the ban is based upon pragmatism. However, a lack of movement towards re-legalizing polygamy, by re-structuring the laws to provide the foundation by which polygamy could be viable again, is highly steeped in morality.


    For legal reasons again - pets an inanimate objects can't consent.

    Your lack of information as to why those marriages are illegal is showing.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Since the United States constitution doesn't recognize gay marriage how many state have used their Tenth Amendment right to grant civil unions???
    The constitution doesn't mention marriage in any form.

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    I am not suggesting one person be treated differently than another, people should be treated the same.

    however today marriage is by license, and nothing can be a right with a licensed attached to it, no right needs the approval of a government official and that's what your getting then the government bureaucrat signs off on it.

    yes government is suppose to protect contract, however I don't see their duty as promoting any such contract.

    currently marriage is presented as a privilege, and privileges which can be denied, because government controls privileges, they don't control rights.

    which is why government needs to remove themselves from marriage, and it recognized as a right, without that government interference.

    as long as government is involved in marriage and sexuality, there will continued to be problems, and government is given no authority in those two areas.
    Your premise is false by several standards. First not all states issue a marriage "license". My piece of paper states "certificate". The SCOUS has repeatedly recognized marriage as a right, so regardless of what states name their piece of paper, it remains a right.

    Secondly, government does indeed have an interest in recognizing marriage on a legal basis. By your standard, with government no longer recognizing the legal status of marriage, your work can refuse to cover your spouse via insurance, or more importantly, a hospital could refuse to recognize the right of your spouse over those of your parents or other family members.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Do people not realize they can cite the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as a constitutional means to establish socialism? -- the Clause is that vague!

    The document reads "give me whatever the **** I want or it's discrimination" unless congress shall pass no law...

    WTF...
    No it doesn't. Please show me in what way, the 14th establishes anything that allows for the property of one to be taken for distribution to others.

    Apologies if I repeat a point made later in the thread. I needed to stop at this point for time constraints.

  8. #228
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Your post only stands if the only argument in support of gay marriage is that procreation is not essential to the state sanction of marriage. As there are many arguments as to why gay marriage should be legal, including but not limited to:

    - legal consistency
    - new family nuclei (benefiting children who need to be adopted)
    - socially de-stigmatizing homosexuality

    your "post" - if that's what that straw man can be called - does not stand anymore than a worm does.

    Now, obviously - your entire post is funny sauce as there are many Southern states who find that "cousin" marriages deserve to be legal before homosexual marriages do. This is true even though there are many academic studies which make it obvious that mixing with somebody who shares your DNA is not a great idea. Now, the fact that you come from Texas, which only recently banned cousin marriages in, what I can only guess, was an effort to stop all the inbreeding in that state makes it all ironic.
    "For medical reasons - not moral reasons."
    This was the original statement I responded to. I didn't imply that incest should happen. As it is an argument from homosexual advocates that procreation is not important to marriage. That would imply that there is no problem in the mind of advocates that any two consenting adults should be free to marry anyone they choose. Except for reasons that the state finds would be in their interest to prohibit.
    How does the state decide what is prohibitive?
    Why limit it to two?
    How much medical risk is too much?
    Is it a government responsibility or is it a violation if first amendment to direct moral thoughts by "destigmatizing", ie opposing some religious teachings?

    to your points:
    Legal consistency: This isn't the issue at all. If marriage is defined as "one man and one women", that can apply to all equally. The problem for Gay mariage advocates is that while they are able to marry a women, they unable to marry who they "love". So the definition becomes two consenting adults that "love" one another. This definition isn't satisfying though, because how would one define "love" for the purpose of marriage? Siblings who plan to be celibate would fit the definition or two old friends of any sex. Opening marriage to practically any one. This leaves the institution meaningless.

    New family nuclei: The best situation for kids that need to be adopted is to be adopted into a traditional family, however where there is a need it could be filled by gay couples. I don't have a big objection at this point, except the terminology. "Alternative family" is more apt than "new family".

    Socially destigmatizing: I disagree that this is a valid governmental interest. This is akin to government teaching what is moral. This is the purview of the society at large and it's religious institutions. The first amendment freedom of religion clause was implemented for this very reason. Society should direct government in moral questions, not the other way around.

    Your attempt to accuse my state of being backward is based on your own straw man, incest isn't even in discussion here.

  9. #229
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Now, obviously - your entire post is funny sauce as there are many Southern states who find that "cousin" marriages deserve to be legal before homosexual marriages do. This is true even though there are many academic studies which make it obvious that mixing with somebody who shares your DNA is not a great idea. Now, the fact that you come from Texas, which only recently banned cousin marriages in, what I can only guess, was an effort to stop all the inbreeding in that state makes it all ironic.
    Actually, I wanted to just correct you on one thing here. Cousin marriages are completely legal in about 1/2 the states, and it really has little to do with southern states vs others. The midwest and the north west states almost all pretty much have laws against first cousins marrying, but many of the other states, including many northeast states, CA, Alaska, and Hawaii, allow first cousins to marry as well.

    State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

    Personally, I think this should be the next thing fought for (I would say it should start now, but there just isn't enough push and going for it prematurely could harm the ssm fights). First cousins are not normally raised together (although my family is an exception to this, I have the incest aversion to most of my cousins because we lived in the same town, sometimes next door, across the street, or even in the same house for most of my childhood). Most first cousins would not naturally develop a psychological aversion to each other, at least not here in the US. And second, first cousins have a pretty small chance of genetic problems, almost the same as just the average couple with no family ties to each other.

    All in the Family: Where Does Incest Begin? - ABC News

    It really isn't fair to tell first cousins that they can't be together while other people with high genetic risk factors can get together without problems. The increased risk is only about 1-2%, very small, compared to siblings, where the risk increases about 30-40%.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #230
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    "For medical reasons - not moral reasons."
    This was the original statement I responded to. I didn't imply that incest should happen. As it is an argument from homosexual advocates that procreation is not important to marriage. That would imply that there is no problem in the mind of advocates that any two consenting adults should be free to marry anyone they choose. Except for reasons that the state finds would be in their interest to prohibit.
    How does the state decide what is prohibitive?
    Why limit it to two?
    How much medical risk is too much?
    Is it a government responsibility or is it a violation if first amendment to direct moral thoughts by "destigmatizing", ie opposing some religious teachings?

    to your points:
    Legal consistency: This isn't the issue at all. If marriage is defined as "one man and one women", that can apply to all equally. The problem for Gay mariage advocates is that while they are able to marry a women, they unable to marry who they "love". So the definition becomes two consenting adults that "love" one another. This definition isn't satisfying though, because how would one define "love" for the purpose of marriage? Siblings who plan to be celibate would fit the definition or two old friends of any sex. Opening marriage to practically any one. This leaves the institution meaningless.

    New family nuclei: The best situation for kids that need to be adopted is to be adopted into a traditional family, however where there is a need it could be filled by gay couples. I don't have a big objection at this point, except the terminology. "Alternative family" is more apt than "new family".

    Socially destigmatizing: I disagree that this is a valid governmental interest. This is akin to government teaching what is moral. This is the purview of the society at large and it's religious institutions. The first amendment freedom of religion clause was implemented for this very reason. Society should direct government in moral questions, not the other way around.

    Your attempt to accuse my state of being backward is based on your own straw man, incest isn't even in discussion here.
    The problem with this argument is that marriage not being about procreation does not mean that we cannot be concerned with the health of those children that may come from procreation within marriages.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •