View Poll Results: which are Constitutional rights?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • SSM

    12 23.53%
  • polygamy

    0 0%
  • both

    18 35.29%
  • neither

    18 35.29%
  • undecided/other

    3 5.88%
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 152

Thread: the right to marry whoever

  1. #71
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,750

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Well, without procreation there isn't continuation of the species, and without same sex relations there isn't ummmm... ummm..well, I got nothing. Entire functions of the human body and organs were made with heterosexual sex in mind and not a damn one was put in place for homosexual sex. That should probably tell you something.
    Procreation and marriage are fully independent of each other. One can engage in either without engaging in the other. Granted they often occur together, but far from always. And while procreation is, mostly, dependent upon sex, specifically male/female penis/vagina intercourse, this combination is not the limit of what sex is. Sex is more often a form of recreation between two, and sometimes more, individuals, and more times than not does not involve procreation. Sex is about the pleasure. Any given human being can provide that pleasure to another. Individual tastes and preferences influence how much pleasure is derived, but in the end, if blindfolded, you would never know whether that was a man or a woman sucking your **** or eating your *****. Procreation is the only aspect that has any limits to its participants. Sex does not. Try not to confuse the two
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Procreation and marriage are fully independent of each other. One can engage in either without engaging in the other. Granted they often occur together, but far from always. And while procreation is, mostly, dependent upon sex, specifically male/female penis/vagina intercourse, this combination is not the limit of what sex is. Sex is more often a form of recreation between two, and sometimes more, individuals, and more times than not does not involve procreation. Sex is about the pleasure. Any given human being can provide that pleasure to another. Individual tastes and preferences influence how much pleasure is derived, but in the end, if blindfolded, you would never know whether that was a man or a woman sucking your **** or eating your *****. Procreation is the only aspect that has any limits to its participants. Sex does not. Try not to confuse the two
    Marriage by itself means nothing and does nothing for anyone. Sex exists for procreation, but is many times done for pleasure. The pleasure exists so people actually involve themselves in the activity. If it didn't have any aspect about that was pleasurable then more than likely there wouldn't be enough children to maintain the species.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-27-15 at 12:31 AM.

  3. #73
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    That's my point is that many of the laws do not limit themselves to blood and thus are not about the genetic risk. Nor are there any laws which address potential birth defect chances by non-consanguineous procreation that are equal to or higher in probability of a first generation consanguineous procreation, which would be the lowest possible probability for incest. If they were only worried about the genetic factor then why not limit it to a procreation law vice marriage, and why expand it to non-consanguineous couples?
    Laws are constrained by practical and political realities. Barring incest is something easy to do politically, barring couple with genetic diseases, for example, from having kids would not be easy politically. Instituting some sort of system of testing for genetic factors that cause birth defects would not be easy practically, but knowing who is related how is easy practically. So, that's where the law landed.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Oh really? Let's look at it again
    I'm reading it as follows:

    The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either: (i) the whole or (ii) half blood without regard to: (i) legitimacy, (ii) relationship of parent and child by adoption, (iii) relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and (iv) relationship of stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild

    I do acknowledge that is ambiguously written though. One could potentially read it either way.

    But, you initially said that there is "not one state" that is based on risk of defect rather than the moral taboo. That I disagree with. Now you're saying many states' incest laws are based on the moral taboo instead. I'd definitely agree with that. Most states are even. But a few are trying to base it on the risk of birth defect.

  4. #74
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,698
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Incest has deleterious impact on potential offspring. Two gays marrying does not. hence the difference
    So do two unrelated people with recessive genes. Should DNA tests be required for proper marrying?
    Trump Attacked A Syrian Airfield. Trump will be a one-term president.

  5. #75
    Boo.
    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,252

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    So do two unrelated people with recessive genes. Should DNA tests be required for proper marrying?
    Are blood tests not required for marriage anymore? I know they used to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky
    It's easy to be a Conservative, until you need help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal
    After years of condemning Bill Clinton for being a rapist, Republicans apparently changed their minds about the whole thing and elected one of their own.


  6. #76
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    as of right now, only SSM is a "constitutional right".

    progressives had polygamy banned a long time ago.. and I don't see anyone making a fuss over stopping the government from violating that right.. no special flags, no movement, no polymarriage warriors on the prowl hunting down errant disbelievers..... so it will probably remain banned for the foreseeable future.
    ... cuz' government knows best how people should live their lives.

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,226
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution directly. However the 9th Amendment admits that not all Rights are mentioned in the Constitution. Also previous SCOTUS rulings regarding marriage, which are many, all agree that Marriage is a Right.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfly View Post
    Are blood tests not required for marriage anymore? I know they used to be.
    Wait.. so you have to take a blood test to get married? People are actually ok with that?

  9. #79
    Boo.
    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,252

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Wait.. so you have to take a blood test to get married? People are actually ok with that?
    Of course. Looks like most states don't require it anymore, but from what I understand, it was primarily done to ward off future birth defects, if the parents weren't compatible.

    Chart: State Marriage License and Blood Test Requirements | Nolo.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky
    It's easy to be a Conservative, until you need help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal
    After years of condemning Bill Clinton for being a rapist, Republicans apparently changed their minds about the whole thing and elected one of their own.


  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,889

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution directly. However the 9th Amendment admits that not all Rights are mentioned in the Constitution. Also previous SCOTUS rulings regarding marriage, which are many, all agree that Marriage is a Right.
    No point in keeping it as a public instrument anymore, though. It had been losing its societal value for quite some time and it was becoming difficult to justify the level of government support. But now that officially it is no longer the instrument to guaranty reproduction? It seems sort of like arguing that a right to eat means there must be free popcorn at the movies.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •