• 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!

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They're legally father and son

Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Deuce said:
Am I the only one who read the article long enough to find out they were only "father and son" on paper?

They've been a couple for forty years. They aren't related to each other. It's just another same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

tell that to the dumb asses at CNN!
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Jack Fabulous said:
Marriage is a contractual arrangement and thus requires the consent of both parties. This eliminates non-humans and inanimate objects since neither could give consent. It also eliminates minors and I believe incest laws would cover your concerns about daughters. Sons, brothers, and sisters, too, for that matter.

It may leave open the door to polygamy, though...
Click to expand...

I appreciate the effort but that doesn't really answer my questions either. What you've explained is why people won't be allowed to marry their dogs or their telescopes but that doesn't explain why anyone should care if someone else did marry their dog or their telescope.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

sangha said:
I appreciate the effort but that doesn't really answer my questions either. What you've explained is why people won't be allowed to marry their dogs or their telescopes but that doesn't explain why anyone should care if someone else did marry their dog or their telescope.
Click to expand...
Other than the "weird" factor I really couldn't tell you.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

sangha said:
You did not answer my questions at all. I asked why the redefinition of marriage has to stop and why you care if someone marries their dog, daughter or telescope.

Instead of answering my question, you went on a bogus rant about how marriage is sacred, blah, blah, blah.

on edit: I also asked if you objected when the law redefined marriage to include inter-racial marriages - another question you dodged
Click to expand...

Let's stop the definition right where it's at now. I concede gay marriages. I did dodge your question on the inter-racial stuff. I must confess I'm not up on past laws regarding this issue. I suspect different states and even local cities, etc. had different laws regarding this. I never had an issue with inter-racial stuff and concede the gay marriage thing. I could care less but I do respect the sanctity of marriage and I draw the line right where it is at now.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Jack Fabulous said:
Marriage is a contractual arrangement and thus requires the consent of both parties. This eliminates non-humans and inanimate objects since neither could give consent. It also eliminates minors and I believe incest laws would cover your concerns about daughters. Sons, brothers, and sisters, too, for that matter.

It may leave open the door to polygamy, though...
Click to expand...

What got me on my soapbox in this thread was the suggestion that as society changes then our definitions must change and that could mean your definition of a contract would have to change.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

sangha said:
You did not answer my questions at all. I asked why the redefinition of marriage has to stop and why you care if someone marries their dog, daughter or telescope.
Click to expand...
The consummation must be really painful...
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Moderate Right said:
Let's stop the definition right where it's at now. I concede gay marriages. I did dodge your question on the inter-racial stuff. I must confess I'm not up on past laws regarding this issue. I suspect different states and even local cities, etc. had different laws regarding this. I never had an issue with inter-racial stuff and concede the gay marriage thing. I could care less but I do respect the sanctity of marriage and I draw the line right where it is at now.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the honesty, but you *still* haven't explained why you care about who or what other people marry.

Your marriage is not affected by this in any way. Not even in the slightest. The legal advantages your marriage affords you are not affected at all, nor are they sacred in any way. And as far as the whole sanctity thing goes, both you and your church are free to continue thinking those other marriages are blasphemous while yours is sacred

So why the Effin Eff do you care if marriage, specifically civil marriage, is redefined by law?
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Moderate Right said:
What got me on my soapbox in this thread was the suggestion that as society changes then our definitions must change and that could mean your definition of a contract would have to change.
Click to expand...
Our definitions don't *have to* change. In this particular case a definition DID change but the idea that it HAD to is incorrect. It changed because the highest court in the land ruled that it was discriminatory not to change it.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

mtm1963 said:
tell that to the dumb asses at CNN!
Click to expand...

Why? They put it right there in the article.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

PoS said:
The consummation must be really painful...
Click to expand...

I just hope it doesn't become fashionable to marry belt sanders...
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Jack Fabulous said:
Our definitions don't *have to* change. In this particular case a definition DID change but the idea that it HAD to is incorrect. It changed because the highest court in the land ruled that it was discriminatory not to change it.
Click to expand...

Is there something beyond semantics you'd like to add?
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Deuce said:
Is there something beyond semantics you'd like to add?
Click to expand...
You're trolling and it is boring?
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Deuce said:
Am I the only one who read the article long enough to find out they were only "father and son" on paper?

They've been a couple for forty years. They aren't related to each other. It's just another same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

yes, the adoption was a way to become legally related, which many gay couples settled for back when marriage was a pipe dream

the usual gay bashers are acting like it's the same as blood relatives trying to marry
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Moderate Right said:
Marriage is sacred all over the world. It has been for centuries. That's why you have vows and all that stuff. If you are going to turn marriage into a total travesty then what would be the point of having marriages at all? Let's just turn it into a free for all, anything goes and skip the worthless piece of paper. Just have sex with your dog without having to marry it first. Who cares?
Click to expand...

that's already usually the order in which with sex with dogs happen, i suppose

and with humans
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Oh the horror! How long until dogs marry cats!
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Moderate Right said:
What got me on my soapbox in this thread was the suggestion that as society changes then our definitions must change and that could mean your definition of a contract would have to change.
Click to expand...

definitions often change to *exclude* gay people, but you had no objection to this i'm guessing. For instance, the original california marriage law was "consenting adults" but when gay couples started to marry a law was quickly passed to prevent this. Then the supreme court simply changed the definition back to its original
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

GoNavy said:
Father, adopted son seek same sex marriage in Pennyslvania - CNNPolitics.com

I'm curious - how would you define marriage in the United States, and why ?? I think a good starting point is - to establish a purpose of marriage. A person yells - usually - because they have a purpose. A person runs - usually - because they have a purpose.

A man can marry a man. A woman can marry a woman. And now - a father wants to marry a son. SO - why can't a son marry his mother? A brother marry his sister? A father marry his daughter?

Let's take it even further. Why can't a person marry their dog, or cat? Is marriage limited to two members of the same species? Can a person marry an object ... in the land of freedom? Can we marry a painting, a car, or a cell phone?

What is marriage? And how do you define it? And thus - how do you establish tax breaks for ANYONE !! ?? ... because let's be honest, it's all about the money in the end.
Click to expand...

I've heard of the adoption thing before, for two people who want to establish an heirship or become relatives for some reason, so one of them adopts the other. I can see it happening on occasion with same sex, since marriage was not possible.

So it's probably been a gay relationship all along.

I'm not sure if it's against the law in all states for two non-biological relatives to marry, anyway. A father and stepdaughter, for example. Or stepbrother and stepsister. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Paleocon said:
Not understand "no true scotsmen" doesn't change reality.
Click to expand...

It is a logical fallacy :)

Logical Fallacies» ?No True Scotsman? Fallacy

I have not heard it for a while :)

Anyway, SSM is legal, but I do not see how this expands to cover father and son relationships also. If they are registered as a father and son then even though it is an adopted son then legally it should be considered as incest, right? If the "son" is under age then it may even be considered as pedophilia.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

DDD said:
It is a logical fallacy :)

Logical Fallacies» ?No True Scotsman? Fallacy

I have not heard it for a while :)

Anyway, SSM is legal, but I do not see how this expands to cover father and son relationships also. If they are registered as a father and son then even though it is an adopted son then legally it should be considered as incest, right? If the "son" is under age then it may even be considered as pedophilia.
Click to expand...

Incest is a felony in PA, and they ought to be prosecuted for it.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Paleocon said:
Incest is a felony in PA, and they ought to be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

Is there any state that is exempt from incest laws?
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Cephus said:
You stop changing things when society stops evolving, which means most things will never stop changing. There is no constant but change.
Click to expand...

We confuse ourselves into believing that social change is somehow analogous of evolution and evolution is "good" in and of itself. Change is not evolution. Useful and sustaining change is evolution. The vast majority of genetic change leads to death.

Is SSM an "evolution", a useless but benign change or is it a critical failure in our social DNA? Nobody can answer that at this point. The big trouble with Progressive movement is they don't really care because they think the only direction of change is "forward".
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

When we discarded the biblical "one man, one woman" as appears in anti-bigamy law, we also discarded the ability to formulate defense against all other forms of marriage. We have effectively licensed all other forms of marriage.

There is nothing under "equality" that will enable us to deny poly-marriage of three, four, participants, or even three or four hundred participants. There is nothing that will enable us to deny incestuous marriages, or prevent one from marrying their pet, or their pet rock.

The tax benefit intended to encourage hetero marriage for the support of children will be discarded, as will all other federal benefits, including things like social security disability. And it's not like this wasn't predictable; constitutional attorneys have been writing about this for at least ten to fifteen years.

In short, politicians simply do not care. What they care about is appeasing special interest groups, to sufficiently muster the votes necessary to stay in power.

Should we care about marriage or the "social fabric"? The left is saying no, definitely not.

Still we cannot assume that in discarding all benefit that the impact on the social fabric will be minimal; it'll be huge.
 
Last edited:
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

The problem is not so much the marriage as the adoption. Why are we allowing 75 year old men to adopt their 65 year old lovers? There was never any desire to make this a father/son relationship.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Moderate Right said:
This is what happens when you try redefining what marriage has been defined as for centuries on top of centuries. When do we stop redefining it? There is no end.
Click to expand...

Nice try. Even among Judeo-Christians, there have been multiple definitions and most different from what modern Christians claim as the trew definition of marriage
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Paleocon said:
The reality is that God decides what a marriage is. The judges of this country can play make believe for a few decades, but eventually the burning reality of the situation will come crashing down on them.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the same thing was said about interracial marriage as well, and.....no burning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom