• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Yeah and the Fourteenth Amendment - not to mention the equal protection clause is vague at best and says absolutely NOTHING about gay marriage.

The Equal Protection clause doesn't specifically mention most of the things it has ever been used to strike down, including one very related set of laws, interracial marriage bans.
 
I thought the argument from your side was that procreation isn't important to marriage, so incest isn't the issue for sibling marriage and it shouldn't be a problem right? Unless it's just too out of the norm for you....

Are you familiar with the word strawman?
 
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...

How do you know they're progressives? And how does someone else's intolerance excuse yours? You hate it when "progressives" (which I think is just your word for "jerk") rag on you for dating outside your race, yet you think it's OK to rag on someone for dating outside of what you consider acceptable.
 
And? Nobody is taking away their right to marry! Or, any of their rights. They are being protected under the 14th A just as the gays should be.

exactly, whats hilarious is mr nick makes post after post and it all the adds up to same thing time and time again, all the double talk and spin and lies and the but "i have a black friend" type of stereotypical talk/defense all adds up to the same thing.

at his foundation he factually supports unfair and illegal discrimination and is totally fine with gays being denied equal rights.

Post after post and the above fact still remains true
 
WOW, I got nothing.
The key is "consenting adults".
Without the consent, you enter multiple areas of negative and probably illegal activity. It's defining what that consent is which is difficult.

For example, say a set of twins, separated at some point before they can remember, adopted by different families on opposite sides of the country, meet, become enamored of each other, and engage in sexual activity.

They then part ways, neither ever being aware that they are related in any way.


Was that incest?

Biologically, yes. Mentally, I'd say no. If that matters...
 
Yes.

They do.

And there's little we can do about that in the short term.

But that's not the point.

While there can never be an absolute mandate that everyone treat eachother equally...

We can at the very least, make sure the law does.

It's not the "laws" responsibility to dictate others emotions - those are ideas that fascists, authoritarians and totalitarians dreamed from the bottom up, but more than occasionally from the top down...

An individual is not a robot- they're human - they have emotions and when those emotions are attempted to be altered by a am authoritarian platform or party line they tend to use their free unbiased education as a means of dissent... Not propaganda aginst the controlling regime but truth and knowledge -not only at he political level but the national level - to let all know the totalitarian regime is bull****. Similar to Orwells 1984...

Sure it's possible to enslave 1,000,000's into obedient work camps but they;re the less educated and hence the most obedient but the educated with their civil liberties will be a massive problem with the progressive Communists and considering their agenda is too weak considering their lack of agrgession, which would in theory contradict the entire the whole "hippie peace" movement..

Don't forget there are plenty of "poor folks" who envision the American dream that you write off as dissidents, beggers and otherwise losers ..

Damn this could be a movie script about present reality,,,,,
 
I guess they fit that limited definition, but that just makes the point that exclusions are inevitable to the "right" of marriage. In addition, what limits or exclusions are you willing to put on marriage, and how is that legally different from excluding homosexuals? For example any two platonic males, maybe two old guys that just want benefits?

Restrictions within laws are not the problem at all. The state simply must be able to support the restrictions by showing how those restrictions further a legitimate state interest. The state can show how restrictions on too close relations getting married furthers a state interest in not encouraging relationships that have a high probability of producing children with severe genetic problems, are pretty likely to have been influenced into starting prior to age of consent (if they were raised together), and/or where the participants already have the main benefit of marriage, legal family recognition due to their blood relationship status.

Nothing prevents two platonic friends/people of the opposite sex now from just getting married for the benefits. It happens all the time. In fact, it happens in the military a lot. And it happens for green cards a lot.
 
Yes.

They do.

And there's little we can do about that in the short term.

But that's not the point.

While there can never be an absolute mandate that everyone treat eachother equally...

We can at the very least, make sure the law does
.

yep and facts like these will go over looked by those that support discrimination.
 
It's not the "laws" responsibility to dictate others emotions - those are ideas that fascists, authoritarians and totalitarians dreamed from the bottom up, but more than occasionally from the top down...

An individual is not a robot- they're human - they have emotions and when those emotions are attempted to be altered by a am authoritarian platform or party line they tend to use their free unbiased education as a means of dissent... Not propaganda aginst the controlling regime but truth and knowledge -not only at he political level but the national level - to let all know the totalitarian regime is bull****. Similar to Orwells 1984...

Sure it's possible to enslave 1,000,000's into obedient work camps but they;re the less educated and hence the most obedient but the educated with their civil liberties will be a massive problem with the progressive Communists and considering their agenda is too weak considering their lack of agrgession, which would in theory contradict the entire the whole "hippie peace" movement..

Don't forget there are plenty of "poor folks" who envision the American dream that you write off as dissidents, beggers and otherwise losers ..

Damn this could be a movie script about present reality,,,,,

who said "emotions" thats right nobody making the rest of your post meaningless straw man you are trying to sell, why do you make stuff up all the time
 
Are you familiar with the word strawman?

Yes I am. Do you believe that procreation is central to the states sanction of marriage? If not my post stands.
 
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....

I am conservative, and I think the above is a totally ridiculous thing to say.
 
The key is "consenting adults".
Without the consent, you enter multiple areas of negative and probably illegal activity. It's defining what that consent is which is difficult.

For example, say a set of twins, separated at some point before they can remember, adopted by different families on opposite sides of the country, meet, become enamored of each other, and engage in sexual activity.

They then part ways, neither ever being aware that they are related in any way.


Was that incest?

Biologically, yes. Mentally, I'd say no. If that matters...

At least the sentiment was consistent, even if it is just plain wrong.
 
Restrictions within laws are not the problem at all. The state simply must be able to support the restrictions by showing how those restrictions further a legitimate state interest. The state can show how restrictions on too close relations getting married furthers a state interest in not encouraging relationships that have a high probability of producing children with severe genetic problems, are pretty likely to have been influenced into starting prior to age of consent (if they were raised together), and/or where the participants already have the main benefit of marriage, legal family recognition due to their blood relationship status.

Nothing prevents two platonic friends/people of the opposite sex now from just getting married for the benefits. It happens all the time. In fact, it happens in the military a lot. And it happens for green cards a lot.

I morally object to this as it leaves marriage, as an institution and for the reason that state sanctions marriage, meaningless.
 
Yes.

They do.

And there's little we can do about that in the short term.

But that's not the point.

While there can never be an absolute mandate that everyone treat eachother equally...

We can at the very least, make sure the law does.

In short you and all your minions believe gay marriage should be legal JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, and you have absolutely no idea how the legislator workd, our Bill of Rights and more specifically the Tenth (you know the 10the of the othr9..

My entertainment here is not to insult those who disagree especially those playing American Football with my objective politics..
 
I morally object to this as it leaves marriage, as an institution and for the reason that state sanctions marriage, meaningless.

It is not and has never been the duty of the state to ascribe a particular meaning to marriage. The meaning comes from the culture and how it is practiced.
 
Yes I am. Do you believe that procreation is central to the states sanction of marriage? If not my post stands.

no it doesnt

incest pregnancy endangers the child
if you want to argue siblings should be allowed to marry if they are not going to procreate, that be fine by me but it has nothing to do with gay marriage, it also has nothing to do with discrimination since nobody can marry there siblings give or take the distance of the relationship

the discussion was about discrimination and trying to relates incest to the not granting gays equal rights. that analogy totally fails and you post didnt change that

incest and allowing gays to marry are nothing alike.
d=fighting for or against them are not the same fight/arguments and never will be
 
I morally object to this as it leaves marriage, as an institution and for the reason that state sanctions marriage, meaningless.

I don't care what your "moral" objection is. Plenty of people I have known in my life "morally object" to interracial marriages.

The state "sanctions" marriage because they recognize legal familial relationships. It has nothing to do with procreation or the ability to procreate, which is the only thing that separates what no two people of the same sex can do from what most people of two opposite sexes can do. The state does not require procreative ability be positively proven to get married, and in fact, we have several states that require certain couples basically prove they can't procreate in order to get married.

Marriage legally means what it always has, a legal contract that comes with many protections for the couple and the individuals within the marriage, from others and from each other. Your personal definition of "meaningless" in regards to marriage means nothing legally. My marriage is fine, not "meaningless" at all from allowing same sex couples to marry. I haven't been kicked out of my house or lost my insurance (both of which I have due solely to my marriage) just because DOMA was struck down or ssm is now legal here in CA.
 
I am conservative, and I think the above is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

I'm not - maybe if you stuck you're ground you would have done better but apparentty you were lazy...
 
In short you and all your minions believe gay marriage should be legal JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, and you have absolutely no idea how the legislator workd, our Bill of Rights and more specifically the Tenth (you know the 10the of the othr9..

My entertainment here is not to insult those who disagree especially those playing American Football with my objective politics..

translation: you support discrimination and are against equal rights, nobody is fooled with ever post its obvious.

the funny part is we all see it, you try to hide behind your failed reasons but your post is complete irony because its YOUR argument not ours. you want to say its not equal rights and discrimination JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO



but the difference is what do you have supporting your argument?? NOTHING lol

what do we have?
facts, laws, rights, courts cases and precedence already decided

i think ill go with that over your emotions and biased
 
It is not and has never been the duty of the state to ascribe a particular meaning to marriage. The meaning comes from the culture and how it is practiced.

How can the supreme court rule that it is so important that it is a protected right if, at the same time it is meaningless in the eyes of the state?
 
In short you and all your minions believe gay marriage should be legal JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, and you have absolutely no idea how the legislator workd, our Bill of Rights and more specifically the Tenth (you know the 10the of the othr9..

You want the State to to take precedence over individual rights. That is authoritarian you are the totalitarian.
 
no it doesnt

incest pregnancy endangers the child
if you want to argue siblings should be allowed to marry if they are not going to procreate, that be fine by me but it has nothing to do with gay marriage, it also has nothing to do with discrimination since nobody can marry there siblings give or take the distance of the relationship

the discussion was about discrimination and trying to relates incest to the not granting gays equal rights. that analogy totally fails and you post didnt change that

incest and allowing gays to marry are nothing alike.
d=fighting for or against them are not the same fight/arguments and never will be

NON sense there is no legal distinction.
 
You want the State to to take precedence over individual rights. That is authoritarian you are the totalitarian.

yep and he isnt the only one
 
NON sense there is no legal distinction.

im sure you think that but the fact is they are different, its obvious to all those without a biased angle and motive

gay marriage is not equal to incest and never will be

theres no legal precedence and arguments that link the two
 
I don't care what your "moral" objection is. Plenty of people I have known in my life "morally object" to interracial marriages.

The state "sanctions" marriage because they recognize legal familial relationships. It has nothing to do with procreation or the ability to procreate, which is the only thing that separates what no two people of the same sex can do from what most people of two opposite sexes can do. The state does not require procreative ability be positively proven to get married, and in fact, we have several states that require certain couples basically prove they can't procreate in order to get married.

Marriage legally means what it always has, a legal contract that comes with many protections for the couple and the individuals within the marriage, from others and from each other. Your personal definition of "meaningless" in regards to marriage means nothing legally. My marriage is fine, not "meaningless" at all from allowing same sex couples to marry. I haven't been kicked out of my house or lost my insurance (both of which I have due solely to my marriage) just because DOMA was struck down or ssm is now legal here in CA.

So in your mind, anything goes? Doesn't the state have any obligation to uphold any of the moral sensibilities of the majority?
 
Back
Top Bottom