• 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

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.

license as in carrying, is that what you mean?

yes, everyone is to be treated equally under the law, by GOVERNMENT only!

but because government uses a license as the tool of marriage, its sets it own standard [based on sexuality] for what people must do to get that license, therefore some people are denied marriage, and this is what I have stated many times, government is not in the business of sexuality in creating laws /polices, therefore they have no authority to stop people from marrying.

you and I have many many rights to marry ,carry a firearm, however government has moved into these rights, and asserting their powers over them unconstitutionally.
 
license as in carrying, is that what you mean?

yes, everyone is to be treated equally under the law, by GOVERNMENT only!

but because government uses a license as the tool of marriage, its sets it own standard [based on sexuality] for what people must do to get that license, therefore some people are denied marriage, and this is what I have stated many times, government is not in the business of sexuality in creating laws /polices, therefore they have no authority to stop people from marrying.

you and I have many many rights to marry ,carry a firearm, however government has moved into these rights, and asserting their powers over them unconstitutionally.

It doesn't work that way. The government has to be able to justify any restrictions on any licenses/contracts by showing that a legitimate state interest is furthered by that restriction.

For example, the government issues driver's licenses. They have a restriction on age for them. 16 most places. States can justify this age restriction easily by showing normal height needed to be able to drive safely, safe driver mentality likely to begin, and other things about age and maturity. On the other hand, the government could not restrict owning a driver's license by saying that Asian women cannot have one, or by saying that those between the ages of 35 and 45 cannot have a license, or that gay men cannot have a driver's license. They have to show how any restrictions further an actual state interest.

The same goes for marriage, and this was set forth in the biggest case Loving v VA but also in other cases, including Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley.
 
actually I think the incident for birth abnormalities from cousin type unions are pretty low

Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin | DiscoverMagazine.com

Very low. In general, the risk of birth abnormalities due to genetics for children of non-related couples is about 2%, that increases to about 4% when talking about first cousins, but it increases to around 40% when it is siblings or parent/children. Even aunt/nephew or uncle/niece is over 10% risk.
 
Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.

Are you kidding? Try making a joke about liberals and the refrains of "that's not true" and accusations of being a hack and a troll are inevitible. I don't think I've ever seen one liberal think a joke about liberals was funny and harmless. On the other hand, I've posted jokes about right wingers so put that in your juice box and suck on it. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
You're not a conservative, you just reflexively defend Republican politicians, hate gays, are against abortion....basically agree with them oneverything.

You really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being a shill. The resulting irony could literally rip a hole in the space time continuum.
 
It doesn't work that way. The government has to be able to justify any restrictions on any licenses/contracts by showing that a legitimate state interest is furthered by that restriction.

For example, the government issues driver's licenses. They have a restriction on age for them. 16 most places. States can justify this age restriction easily by showing normal height needed to be able to drive safely, safe driver mentality likely to begin, and other things about age and maturity. On the other hand, the government could not restrict owning a driver's license by saying that Asian women cannot have one, or by saying that those between the ages of 35 and 45 cannot have a license, or that gay men cannot have a driver's license. They have to show how any restrictions further an actual state interest.


The same goes for marriage, and this was set forth in the biggest case Loving v VA but also in other cases, including Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley.

government should not be denying people marriage on the basis of [sexuality], because it has no authority in that area, this also means other laws and policies over the people.

if government were to have power in that area, then they could makes laws, which favor or oppose a issue.

the people's sexual behavior is not a duty of government.
 
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.

It's been answered to you many times on many threads. First and foremost, the SCOTUS cannot act upon a law until it is brought before them after having gone through the lower courts. There have been laws made before that were unconstitutional that were ruled as such by SCOTUS. So how were they ever made if they were unconstitutional? Because they pass the legislatures. It sometimes takes years before a unconstitutional law makes its way up to SCOTUS. Sodomy laws are a good example. How long were they on the books before it was ruled that they violate privacy rights?

Simply because the government tries to regulate or control something via licenses or other methods, doesn't autocratically makes that something not a right. It can very well be a denied right. Interracial marriage was a denied right, one that took a while before the SCOTUS struck it down.
 
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.

Were that the only basis, I might concur with you but the issue remains that blood relations are not the only consideration that enters into many incest laws. Legal relations are also a factor. Depending on the state, Greg and Marcia Brady would be in violation for either having sex and/or getting married even though they share no blood. Obviously there is something more going on besides a worry of genetic defects. That is even before you consider the futility of such a basis for banning same gender incest or incest where one or both participants are sterile. Finally, if we are banning procreation based upon the risk of an incestuous couple giving birth then any activity/couple combination that holds that same risk or higher needs to be banned. Otherwise the argument fails as being against the risk of birth defects.

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.

In what manner does it no longer have any meaning? Obviously it will still have legal meaning. Outside of that any meaning placed upon it will be dependant upon individuals. For some, marriage lost its meaning when interracial marriage was no longer illegal. It seems that you will feel that marriage has lost its meaning now that same sex couples can get married. Others won't feel that marriage has lost its meaning until polygamy is reinstated. And for most of us, marriage will still have the meaning that it has always had for us.

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?

Marriage period does not automatically equal any kind of sexual relationship. It may occur in a super-majority of marriages, but it is not a 100% thing. Do we go back to proof that a marriage was consummated?

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.

And what if the child is born with no defects? Should the parents be punished for that even if they are related by blood?
 
And what if the child is born with no defects? Should the parents be punished for that even if they are related by blood?
They still kinda risked the health of a child (albeit a future one) by having a kid. Moreso than any other couple, that is.


That said, at some point in the future I expect that Sci-Fi will become reality, and parents will be able to have doctors scan their kids DNA before birth, then remove any potential problems from the inherited genes.
 
They still kinda risked the health of a child (albeit a future one) by having a kid. Moreso than any other couple, that is.


That said, at some point in the future I expect that Sci-Fi will become reality, and parents will be able to have doctors scan their kids DNA before birth, then remove any potential problems from the inherited genes.

Not necessarily. As I've noted before there are other factors that can raise a given non-incestuous couple's risk to above that of an incestuous couple's. This could be due to age, genetic history (non-incestuous), post-birth genetic damage (e.g. from radiation or other causes) and many more. Yet we don't regulate them. Why not?
 
Not necessarily. As I've noted before there are other factors that can raise a given non-incestuous couple's risk to above that of an incestuous couple's. This could be due to age, genetic history (non-incestuous), post-birth genetic damage (e.g. from radiation or other causes) and many more. Yet we don't regulate them. Why not?
Require a DNA scan/comparison looking for possible issue before you're allowed to have a kid?

Umm...Because this is America, and that would never fly? I hope....
 
And what if the child is born with no defects? Should the parents be punished for that even if they are related by blood?
If a drunk driver doesn't hit anyone, should they still go to jail?

The threat of risky behavior is harm, even when it's not realized. My idea of a fine is more of a compromise, to discourage the possibility of harm, but not punish mistakes that didn't realize that harm in a draconian fashion. Incest, just like DWI, is harmful, even when you "get away with it".
 
Last edited:
Require a DNA scan/comparison looking for possible issue before you're allowed to have a kid?

Umm...Because this is America, and that would never fly? I hope....

So if we are not looking for birth defect risks above a certain level why does this fly for blood related couples only?
 
So if we are not looking for birth defect risks above a certain level why does this fly for blood related couples only?
Because we aren't

As I understand it, the laws regarding incest are in place because there is a much higher chance of birth defects and the like in such cases.

That has been a known fact since looooooooooong before DNA tests.
 
You really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being a shill. The resulting irony could literally rip a hole in the space time continuum.

You really shouldn't be accusing anybody of anything either. Especially when you have no clue what you're talking about (which is always).
 
It's an odd analogy but makes sense from the fact that homosexuality is as abnormal as incest

If children weren't taught that incest was wrong, they wouldn't know it. It's only through generations of seeing the results that people finally started to catch on and made it taboo. Children aren't born knowing to never have sex with anyone closer than a second cousin.

don't give a **** what the rational counter argument is because you view it as a partisan political statement rather than a rational argument.

But you're not making a rational argument.

Gay marriage discriminates against cousins who want incestrial marriage

That's legal here in Virginia, and in several other states.

marriage to pets or inanimate objects etc.

That's just a stupid argument. Nothing more. Humans aren't the same as lower animals and inanimate objects. Making the comparison is nothing less than ridiculous.

The best part is that you actually have the ****ing audacity to believe that those opposed to homosexuality have NO RIGHTS

No one said that at all. You have the same rights that everyone else does, but no more. You don't have the right to deny Constitutional equal protection to homosexuals. You can sit there and hate them to the depths of your black little heart, but you can't make it law.
MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT NOR A CIVIL LIBERTY - is that too difficult to understand?

I know you wish it was but legally it's NOT...

Marriage is NOT a legal right... Not even heterosexual marriage - that is a status quo...

It is. That was determined in Loving. Marriage is a right. You might want to read more and listen to Rush less.


My personal opinion on gay marriage is moot - I'm telling yall what the constitution says and the constitution say absolutely nothing about marriage between a woman and woman man and man or man and woman.

Marriage was determined to be a right, and the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, so yes, it does.

I like who I like and I go with the woman I like regardless of race.... If that was against the law that would be a violation of both my girl and my civil liberties - more specifically the Fist Amendment...

Then are you saying that people opposed to interracial marriage have no rights? That's what you claim legal gay marriage means.

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...

No, it doesn't.


I'm an individual that hates your society

That's painfully clear.
 
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....

Of course you're a conservative. Your denial is irrelevant.
 
I suppose your information comes from the "Daily Shoe"

1) I don't watch TV, ever, so I've never seen the Daily Show... though I have heard of it.
2) I get my information about what you are from your posts. Like I said, your denial is irrelevant.
 
Are you kidding? Try making a joke about liberals and the refrains of "that's not true" and accusations of being a hack and a troll are inevitible. I don't think I've ever seen one liberal think a joke about liberals was funny and harmless. On the other hand, I've posted jokes about right wingers so put that in your juice box and suck on it. :2razz:

You missed the point of my post. I've noticed you're in one of those "moods" as of late.
 
Because we aren't

As I understand it, the laws regarding incest are in place because there is a much higher chance of birth defects and the like in such cases.

That has been a known fact since looooooooooong before DNA tests.

I think you are missing my point here. If we are so worried about the risk of defects out of incestuous couplings that we are willing to ban those couplings, why are we not worried about banning non-incestuous couplings where the risk of defects are equal or higher to that of the incestuous couplings? If we are not willing to ban the higher birth defects risk couplings as well, then there is no real truth behind the idea that incest is banned due to birth defect risk.

If children weren't taught that incest was wrong, they wouldn't know it. It's only through generations of seeing the results that people finally started to catch on and made it taboo. Children aren't born knowing to never have sex with anyone closer than a second cousin.

Partly true. You are correct that children are not born with any type of incest aversion to any given individual. The aversion develops as one is growing up, but it is not taught. In India where they still have arranged marriages, it is not uncommon for the parents of the bride to send her to live with the parents of the groom until the kids are of legal age to marry. But they are running into a problem in that many of the couples are refusing to consummate the marriage. Because they grew up together, the incest aversion develop between them, even as they were raised to be a couple. Siblings who never grew up together have found themselves attracted to each other even after they have discovered their relationship. No doubt that they have been taught that incest is wrong, yet the attraction continues. Now what they do about it varies, from honouring the taboo, to "violating" it. But both these examples show that the incest taboo is not taught but naturally developed.
 
For medical reasons - not moral reasons. Children born out of cousin marriages have a high incidence of developmental problems.
Because we aren't

As I understand it, the laws regarding incest are in place because there is a much higher chance of birth defects and the like in such cases.

That has been a known fact since looooooooooong before DNA tests.

Except incest laws apply to homosexual relationships too, of which there is not only a zero chance of birth defects, but births.
 
Except incest laws apply to homosexual relationships too, of which there is not only a zero chance of birth defects, but births.

However, there is still a psychological aversion to such relationships that does develop in most households where the siblings are raised together.
 
However, there is still a psychological aversion to such relationships that does develop in most households where the siblings are raised together.

Are you referring to an "eww" factor?
 
Back
Top Bottom