Page 24 of 31 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 304

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

  1. #231
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    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.
    Yes, it's ONE of the many arguments, not the defining argument - which is what you tried to present it as.

    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?
    Simple - contract law is designed for two parties. Of course, theoretically, two cousins should be allowed to marry, however this becomes a problem as it's impossible to regulate whether or not they will have children and the high incidence of inbreeding actually begins.

    How much medical risk is too much?
    How much medical risk is there in inbreeding? May I suggest you try google?

    That's just the first page of "risks of inbreeding"

    Inbreeding Tied to Alzheimer's Risk
    Muslim outrage as professor Steve Jones warns of 'inbreeding' risks | Mail Online
    Effects of Inbreeding, Endogamy, Genetic Admixture, and Outbreeding on Human Health: A
    Problems with Inbreeding Dogs
    Genetic Problems With Inbred Boxers - Pets
    Dating a relative: medical consequences, health issues

    Conclusion: Inbreeding has been found to have negative effects on not just human populations but also - animal ones.

    Is it a government responsibility or is it a violation if first amendment to direct moral thoughts by "destigmatizing", ie opposing some religious teachings?
    No. You're more than allowed to keep those beliefs. You, however, have no right to make your beliefs into law. The law remains neutral when it does not discriminate.

    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.
    Only it applies uneven to homosexuals who are not interested in the opposite sex. The rest of your post is nonsense.

    New family nuclei: The best situation for kids that need to be adopted is to be adopted into a traditional family,
    This has been proven over and over to be false by psychologists, teachers, psychiatrists, medical studies etc:

    Same-sex Parents and Their Children

    Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages.
    Further compounding how wrong you are - how do you propose we enforce the "traditional families" view with 50% divorce rates? Oh, that's right. We can't because divorce is not illegal.

    Socially destigmatizing: I disagree that this is a valid governmental interest.
    It has been a valid government interest for some time. For a well working harmonious society the government has an interest in ensuring minorities of all races, creeds and abilities are not seen as pariahs. This creates social anomie. The government doesn't have to teach that it's right/wrong but simply that it will not discriminate against them.

    Your attempt to accuse my state of being backward is based on your own straw man, incest isn't even in discussion here.
    YOU brought it back into discussion by ironically putting cousin marriages, which have been found to be medically risky to the table. If you wanted to discuss cousin marriages, which your state had no problem with since it came into existence, you shouldn't have tried to paint it as the same as homosexuals unions.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #232
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    No but I have become under fire by progressives for dating woman outside my "race" as if they can even tell my race considering I'm Sicilian yet progressives attempt to get ethnic with me and speak Spanish -as if the relationship I have with a woman is somehow "warm to their soul" when they get both their ideas ass-backwards...

    It's disgusting to me because you don't see two people having a good time, holding hands and kissing at time - you see two different races bonding and I can clearly see that - so can she considering (albeit in on the social experiment) but is still my GF considering we have similar social ideas..

    My findings thus far are that progressives are more than vocal about their politics and feelings when it comes to interrelationships and pay more attention to my relationship with my GF. (who is a dark skinned eastern Indian who could appear to be "black"..

    In short hardly anyone pays attention when we're in public doing a study - we get no hate but tons of comments from progressives who think integration is fantastic and the right way to progress society - some have even applauded the destruction the the white race...

    I can add a lot more info on this subject but I would like to keep some private.
    There are racist people in the world, even those that would call themselves progressive. I really don't understand how this has anything to do with Homosexuals, rights, or the 14th Amendment. To be perfectly honest, if you feel that your rights are being taken away, then why would you want to take away the rights of others?!

    It's not about giving rights to minorities, it's about protecting everybody's rights, including minorities; the 14th Amendment protects the majority as much as it does the minority. Banning SSM punishes a group without due cause, that's why it's unconstitutional; until anyone can prove that Gays getting married hurts them personally, there was no justification for banning it. That violates the 5th A, 9th A, and 14th A, at the very least.

  3. #233
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    WOW, I got nothing.
    I simply see no problem with incest among consenting adults. It doesn't hurt me, you, or anyone else, at all. The law is there to prevent harm, and nothing else. When it's used to enforce a moral code, as in a "victimless crime", it's almost guaranteed to be unconstitutional. Homosexuals marrying doesn't hurt anyone, just as incestuous marriage doesn't hurt anyone; they should be legal. I really don't see the point of marriage between relatives, since it doesn't grant them many rights that they don't already have; this is the big difference between it and SSM, since the Gays don't have these rights as the law stands.

    The law isn't there to enforce morality, or what any group deems "common sense"; I don't understand the point of drag-racing, sky-diving, or jig-saw-puzzling, but there's no valid reason to make them illegal. The actions of others don't need to "help" me to be legal, they just need to not "hurt" me; if drag-racing, sky-diving, or jig-saw-puzzling "hurt" me, then I'd have a claim for why it causes harm and needs to be banned. (Like lawn darts) Until you can prove that SSM, Incest, or incestuous Marriage (Given that they are all consenting adults), has harmed you, it's unconstitutional to ban them. Our opinions on any of those things are not relevant to a discussion of their legality. For the most part, I have no opinion on marriage or sexual relations between others, of any configuration. It's none of our business.

    Personally, I dislike most sports, reality tv shows, and most magazines; but they aren't hurting me. I've never claimed that they should be illegal, even though I truly dislike them.

  4. #234
    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 roguenuke View Post
    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.
    I wish you would address the definition of marriage, because that is the snag. If Traditionalists define it OMOW they are said to be discriminatory, but other definitions are also at some level either discriminatory or completely destructive to the institution of marriage. That was the point of the Gov's statement. You see it's not enough to advocate for what you think is fair, you must think about the implications.

  5. #235
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

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

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    I simply see no problem with incest among consenting adults. It doesn't hurt me, you, or anyone else, at all. The law is there to prevent harm, and nothing else. When it's used to enforce a moral code, as in a "victimless crime", it's almost guaranteed to be unconstitutional. Homosexuals marrying doesn't hurt anyone, just as incestuous marriage doesn't hurt anyone; they should be legal. I really don't see the point of marriage between relatives, since it doesn't grant them many rights that they don't already have; this is the big difference between it and SSM, since the Gays don't have these rights as the law stands.

    The law isn't there to enforce morality, or what any group deems "common sense"; I don't understand the point of drag-racing, sky-diving, or jig-saw-puzzling, but there's no valid reason to make them illegal. The actions of others don't need to "help" me to be legal, they just need to not "hurt" me; if drag-racing, sky-diving, or jig-saw-puzzling "hurt" me, then I'd have a claim for why it causes harm and needs to be banned. (Like lawn darts) Until you can prove that SSM, Incest, or incestuous Marriage (Given that they are all consenting adults), has harmed you, it's unconstitutional to ban them. Our opinions on any of those things are not relevant to a discussion of their legality. For the most part, I have no opinion on marriage or sexual relations between others, of any configuration. It's none of our business.

    Personally, I dislike most sports, reality tv shows, and most magazines; but they aren't hurting me. I've never claimed that they should be illegal, even though I truly dislike them.
    The problem is that laws against incest aren't based on morality but a large amount of studies that show that inbreeding is not beneficial. They're also based on the very real possibility that children being out of such unions will more than likely have development problems. Obviously, marriage does not necessarily include procreation - however, there is a medical/societal interest in ensuring the gene pool remains as diverse as possible. This makes the approach some states have taken to the matter the most legally consistent one: allow cousin unions as long as at least 1 of the partners is unable to procreate.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #236
    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
    I wish you would address the definition of marriage, because that is the snag. If Traditionalists define it OMOW they are said to be discriminatory, but other definitions are also at some level either discriminatory or completely destructive to the institution of marriage. That was the point of the Gov's statement. You see it's not enough to advocate for what you think is fair, you must think about the implications.
    The definition of marriage is in the dictionary and includes same sex couples in it. The legal definition of marriage, just like the legal definition of a driver's license or a business license or rental agreement, is in how it operates, not in who is or is not allowed to enter into those contracts or have those licenses. A driver's license is defined as a license that allows a person to drive a motor vehicle on public roads, not as something that is only allowed to those over a certain age. A business license is a license that allows a person to operate a business of a certain type in a certain area, not something only available for to whatever restrictions are put on it. A rental agreement is a contract between parties allowing for one party to use the property of another in return for money and/or services. It is not defined by who can or cannot enter into a rental contract.

    So a legal marriage license must be defined as an agreement between two people who wish to make a commitment to each other that comes with legal recognition of kinship and legal protections both for each spouse and for the couple.
    "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.

  7. #237
    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
    Yes, it's ONE of the many arguments, not the defining argument - which is what you tried to present it as.
    I believe it is a central reason as to why marriage was sanctioned by government in the first place, however if it was not the defining argument I accept that... and now it is as I have stated, any two or more consenting are acceptable despite their intimate status. Marriage no longer has meaning.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Simple - contract law is designed for two parties.
    Two party contracts do not prohibit three party agreements in any way, it happens all the time in business. Example: #1+#2, #1+#3,#2+#3, that covers all parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Of course, theoretically, two cousins should be allowed to marry, however this becomes a problem as it's impossible to regulate whether or not they will have children and the high incidence of inbreeding actually begins.
    If you allow it will you also require bedroom checks? C'mon, It's a ridiculous position not to make judgments about what defines the limits of marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    How much medical risk is there in inbreeding? May I suggest you try google?

    That's just the first page of "risks of inbreeding"

    Inbreeding Tied to Alzheimer's Risk
    Muslim outrage as professor Steve Jones warns of 'inbreeding' risks | Mail Online
    Effects of Inbreeding, Endogamy, Genetic Admixture, and Outbreeding on Human Health: A
    Problems with Inbreeding Dogs
    Genetic Problems With Inbred Boxers - Pets
    Dating a relative: medical consequences, health issues

    Conclusion: Inbreeding has been found to have negative effects on not just human populations but also - animal ones.
    Exactly. What about sodomy? Is that healthy? Sodomy laws were struck down in TX, remember?



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    No. You're more than allowed to keep those beliefs. You, however, have no right to make your beliefs into law. The law remains neutral when it does not discriminate.
    Straw man again, I was responding to destigmatization, not discrimination. nice try.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Only it applies uneven to homosexuals who are not interested in the opposite sex. The rest of your post is nonsense.
    Sniping my reasoning isn't a response. This section that you conveniently snipped is the heart of the story. How will marriage be defined, will the definition render it meaningless, if not what are its limits?



    [QUOTE=Hatuey;1062391169]This has been proven over and over to be false by psychologists, teachers, psychiatrists, medical studies etc:

    Same-sex Parents and Their Children



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Further compounding how wrong you are - how do you propose we enforce the "traditional families" view with 50% divorce rates? Oh, that's right. We can't because divorce is not illegal.
    You didn't read what I wrote did you. I suppose that you only got to the first line and had an emotional reaction? Tissue?



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It has been a valid government interest for some time. For a well working harmonious society the government has an interest in ensuring minorities of all races, creeds and abilities are not seen as pariahs. This creates social anomie. The government doesn't have to teach that it's right/wrong but simply that it will not discriminate against them.
    That's wrong, government may not be the moral arbiter, unless upholding current law. Equality is included, yes, but that is the point. What practices deserve protection as equal? None, people are equal... their acts are distinct. That is why defining social institutions like marriage is important.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    YOU brought it back into discussion by ironically putting cousin marriages, which have been found to be medically risky to the table. If you wanted to discuss cousin marriages, which your state had no problem with since it came into existence, you shouldn't have tried to paint it as the same as homosexuals unions.
    That wasn't me. My point was that sibling marriage does not equal incest. If it did, as you imply, we would definitely have to draw the line that discriminates against incestuous people. See the dilemma for your side?

  8. #238
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The problem is that laws against incest aren't based on morality but a large amount of studies that show that inbreeding is not beneficial. They're also based on the very real possibility that children being out of such unions will more than likely have development problems. Obviously, marriage does not necessarily include procreation - however, there is a medical/societal interest in ensuring the gene pool remains as diverse as possible. This makes the approach some states have taken to the matter the most legally consistent one: allow cousin unions as long as at least 1 of the partners is unable to procreate.
    I understand the concern about inbreeding, but I don't agree with such laws. It's perfectly legal for two unrelated individuals to be married and procreate, even if they already know that there's a good chance of birth defect. We don't illegalize the act of unsafe procreation. We treat incest differently, when all other factors are identical; it smacks of a 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment Violation.

    Personally, I think it's a grey area when it comes to inbreeding; it's analogous to child abuse or neglect, but it's kind of ridiculous to charge someone with abusing a child that doesn't exist. Possibly the legality could simply be contingent on mandated birth control, with heavy fines for pregnancies. The problem all comes down to protecting unborn children, whilst also not infringing the rights of potential parents. But, this is a TANGENT, Homosexuals can't procreate.

  9. #239
    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 roguenuke View Post
    The definition of marriage is in the dictionary and includes same sex couples in it. The legal definition of marriage, just like the legal definition of a driver's license or a business license or rental agreement, is in how it operates, not in who is or is not allowed to enter into those contracts or have those licenses. A driver's license is defined as a license that allows a person to drive a motor vehicle on public roads, not as something that is only allowed to those over a certain age. A business license is a license that allows a person to operate a business of a certain type in a certain area, not something only available for to whatever restrictions are put on it. A rental agreement is a contract between parties allowing for one party to use the property of another in return for money and/or services. It is not defined by who can or cannot enter into a rental contract.

    So a legal marriage license must be defined as an agreement between two people who wish to make a commitment to each other that comes with legal recognition of kinship and legal protections both for each spouse and for the couple.
    And as I predicted that definition leaves it open to both charges. Marriage is now meaningless. Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.

  10. #240
    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
    And as I predicted that definition leaves it open to both charges. Marriage is now meaningless. Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.
    First, marriage is not meaningless at all. It is what it has always been, a way to join two unrelated people as legal family and set up protections for those people. Personal marriages too are what they always have been, whatever the couple wants their marriage to be.

    Second, we simply cannot have multiple spouses in marriages due to the way marriage functions within the US. It is within a legitimate state interest to limit the number of people who can enter into a contract, particularly this contract. All discrimination is not bad. We discriminate against people of a certain age all the time. Why? Because doing so furthers legitimate state interest. Discrimination is bad when it is done for arbitrary reasons, not to further any legitimate state interest at all, but rather to simply keep things a certain way or enforce a certain belief system.
    "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 24 of 31 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... 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
  •