Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Mr.Nick said:

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....

Click to expand...

You're not a conservative, you just reflexively defend Republican politicians, hate gays, are against abortion....basically agree with them oneverything.

Mr.Nick said:

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....

Click to expand...

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.

Dragonfly said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Hatuey said:

For medical reasons - not moral reasons. Children born out of cousin marriages have a high incidence of developmental problems.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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]

Mr.Nick said:

Since the United States constitution doesn't recognize gay marriage how many state have used their Tenth Amendment right to grant civil unions???

Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't mention marriage in any form.

ernst barkmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr.Nick said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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.

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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%.

johndylan1 said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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.

johndylan1 said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Only it applies uneven to homosexuals who are not interested in the opposite sex. :shrug: 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,

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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. :shrug:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Mr.Nick said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

johndylan1 said:

WOW, I got nothing.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

douglas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

johndylan1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hatuey said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Hatuey said:

Simple - contract law is designed for two parties.

Click to expand...

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.

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. What about sodomy? Is that healthy? Sodomy laws were struck down in TX, remember?

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Straw man again, I was responding to destigmatization, not discrimination. nice try.

Hatuey said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Hatuey said:

This has been proven over and over to be false by psychologists, teachers, psychiatrists, medical studies etc:

Same-sex Parents and Their Children

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Hatuey said:

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. :shrug:

Click to expand...

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.

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

And as I predicted that definition leaves it open to both charges. Marriage is now meaningless. Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.

johndylan1 said:

And as I predicted that definition leaves it open to both charges. Marriage is now meaningless. Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.

Click to expand...

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.

johndylan1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is "the institution of marriage"? If you're defining that as OMOW, then it's simply a circular argument.

If you mean, familial bonding, divorce rates, crime rates, etc., things that can be measured and linked to marriage, then you have absolutely no claim to harm done by SSM. All of those problems are not only found in Heterosexual Marriages, they are found in higher amounts. If that's "the institution of marriage", then the Gays are the best thing that could happen to it.

If "the institution of marriage", is just whatever the hell you want it to be at the time you make the argument, what's the difference between that and just your opinion? Unless it's an objective, quantifiable, and rational metric for judging the "harm" or absence there of, it's a meaningless argument. If you can't define it, then it's inherently meaningless.

johndylan1 said:

And as I predicted that definition leaves it open to both charges. Marriage is now meaningless. Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.

Click to expand...

So then you should lead the fight for that.

johndylan1 said:

1.)And as I predicted that definition leaves it open to both charges.
2.)Marriage is now meaningless.
3.) Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.

Click to expand...

1.) no it doesnt
2.) no it is not, you simply dont get to determine that
3.) legally, rights wise, equality wise no it does not

but if polygamist want to fight for a NEW right to marriage id support it as long as it follows the same rules, consenting sound mind adults.

Their own hurdle is setting up the foundation of the contract, rules of the relationship, what happens when the 3rd spouse dies, who gets what etc etc
The easiest solution though is probably have a very basic contract and let each couple define that themselves.

The institution of marriage can not be harmed and is in no danger at all by giving gays equal rights. Even suggesting so is nonsensical and fantasy implications after that are easily debunked with reality, facts, laws and rights.

douglas said:

But, this is a TANGENT, Homosexuals can't procreate.

Click to expand...

Just a good natured pick-a- nit (ya I'm that way)...

You may be confusing homosexual with infertile. Homosexuals (in general) are not infertile and can have children in exactly the same manner that heterosexual couples that are infertile together (where one or both of the individuals cannot conceive with their spouse) have children. Namely egg donation, surragacy, IVF, and adoption.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Just a good natured pick-a- nit (ya I'm that way)...

You may be confusing homosexual with infertile. Homosexuals (in general) are not infertile and can have children in exactly the same manner that heterosexual couples that are infertile together (where one or both of the individuals cannot conceive with their spouse) have children. Namely egg donation, surragacy, IVF, and adoption.



>>>>

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he meant "with each other", unlike siblings or other opposite sex, closely related couples, like was being discussed.

roguenuke said:

I'm pretty sure he meant "with each other", unlike siblings or other opposite sex, closely related couples, like was being discussed.

Click to expand...

I know, that's why I said it was "a good natured pick-a- nit".

When such statements go uncorrected though it leaves the impression that different-sex couples have and raise children and same-sex couples don't. However census data shows that about 25% of same-sex couples do in fact have and/or raise children compared to about 40% for different-sex couples.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-co...es-quarter-raising-children/story?id=13850332

>>>>

johndylan1 said:

Marriage is now meaningless. Marriage now discriminates against polygamists.

Click to expand...

Marriage is only "meaningless" if you chose to make it so.

My marriage isn't defined by anyone other than me and my spouse.
Whatever you define yours by doesn't effect mine.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone foolish enough to want to enter into a consensual group marriage arrangement should be more than free to do so.

I really don't see why people have a problem with that either.

So tell me, why would you let other people define your marriage?

Dragonfly;1062392209[B said:

]Marriage is only "meaningless" if you chose to make it so.

My marriage isn't defined by anyone other than me and my spouse.
Whatever you define yours by doesn't effect mine. [/B]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone foolish enough to want to enter into a consensual group marriage arrangement should be more than free to do so.

I really don't see why people have a problem with that either.

So tell me, why would you let other people define your marriage?

Click to expand...

there is no greater truth than this

I actually cant imagine how people falsely convenience themselves otherwise

the legal terms have to be granted by rights and laws but the rest is set by the individual and NOTHING else

maquiscat said:

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.

Click to expand...

whether you want to call it a license or certificate, anything that is government issued that gives government approval is not a right, rights do not have government authority connected to it, that is a privilege.

can you explain something to me, because I have asked this question many times and I can not get it answered!

if marriage is a right, as you say the court has ruled, then how are states banning its institution, since all that would be need would be referring the ussc court case your which you site, can you explain this?........how is unlawful action taking place over a ussc decision?

mind you, I believe marriage is a right, however if government is a recognizing factor that contracts between two people based on any sexuality then that is not a government authority.

marriage is a contract, government is here to recognize contract from a basis of economic legality, not sexual aspects , it is not here to decide who gets to make a contract, or to create benefits because citizens make a contract between themselves, or make sexual laws/ policies because of those contracts, because government is not a moral authority.

ernst barkmann said:

whether you want to call it a license or certificate, anything that is government issued that gives government approval is not a right, rights do not have government authority connected to it, that is a privilege.

can you explain something to me, because I have asked this question many times and I can not get it answered!

if marriage is a right, as you say the court has ruled, then how are states banning its institution, since all that would be need would be referring the ussc court case your which you site, can you explain this?........how is unlawful action taking place over a ussc decision?

mind you, I believe marriage is a right, however if government is a recognizing factor that contracts between two people based on any sexuality then that is not a government authority.

marriage is a contract, government is here to recognize contract from a basis of economic legality, not sexual aspects , it is not here to decide who gets to make a contract, or to create benefits because citizens make a contract between themselves, or make sexual laws/ policies because of those contracts, because government is not a moral authority.

Click to expand...

It is a right. Gun licenses are issued. Is gun ownership not a right?

But equal protection of the law is a right in everything the government has a hand in. Including marriage.