What next - Incestual Marriages ?

[VolFootball]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

[Late2TheParty]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ?

Yes, in gay marriage, you marry a member of the same sex.

In an incestual marriage, you marry a member of your family.

Any more questions?

[Jagergeist]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

Religious minded people who suggest God kills people due to their sexual orientation disgust me.

[Chuangtzu]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

If the "highest percentage" vote and decide that Vishnu be worshiped in public by all citizens and pigeons be forcefully fed to all people between the ages of twelve and thirty-six, will you assent to that as well?

[ksdb]

If the "highest percentage" vote and decide that Vishnu be worshiped in public by all citizens and pigeons be forcefully fed to all people between the ages of twelve and thirty-six, will you assent to that as well?

Is Vishnu codespeak for Obama?? This already happens.

[VolFootball]

Yes, in gay marriage, you marry a member of the same sex.

In an incestual marriage, you marry a member of your family.

Any more questions?

/// Exactly - So how is one accaptable and the other not ? I believe the Bible clearly defines both as oour society does, and deals with both in the very same ways.
Point being, How can someone condon Same Sex Marriage, and not Hetersexual within ones family ? Theyre both wrong arent they ? If not, why ? What source/constitutional/religeous/etc justifys either ?

[Chuangtzu]

Is Vishnu codespeak for Obama?? This already happens.

Unlike some people, I don't treat with known deities as "code" words, nor do I find in John Stewart's half hour of comedy a plot to overthrow all that is decent and good...

[Chuangtzu]

/// Exactly - So how is one accaptable and the other not ? I believe the Bible clearly defines both as oour society does, and deals with both in the very same ways.
Point being, How can someone condon Same Sex Marriage, and not Hetersexual within ones family ? Theyre both wrong arent they ? If not, why ? What source/constitutional/religeous/etc justifys either ?

So what, about the Bible? It also disallows shell fish. It forbids people with eye defects from approaching God, and condemns skin disorders such as eczema as signs of moral lack. Of course, it states clearly that Christians must obey all earthly authorities, and it justifies the hell out of slavery, so...

[ksdb]

Unlike some people, I don't treat with known deities as "code" words, nor do I find in John Stewart's half hour of comedy a plot to overthrow all that is decent and good...

Funny, no one said anything about John Stewart in this thread. Are you still smarting over that??

link to Obama - Lord Vishnu (http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/002171.html)

[VolFootball]

If the "highest percentage" vote and decide that Vishnu be worshiped in public by all citizens and pigeons be forcefully fed to all people between the ages of twelve and thirty-six, will you assent to that as well?

// You tell me. Did you vote for Obama ? Bingo. Why is he the president ? What if Mccaiin had been announced the winner with less votes, just for spite and without the publics opinion being enforced ? Its a Democratic Society...just how it works here. Right ?

[Late2TheParty]

How can someone condon Same Sex Marriage, and not Hetersexual within ones family ?

Perhaps because, in homosexual marriages, there is little chance for the children resulting of that marriage to have congenital birth defects.

[Chuangtzu]

// You tell me. Why? I don't subscribe to plebiscite democracy. So, why would I tell you about it.

Did you vote for Obama ? No. Barr.

Bingo.

Bingo what?

Why is he the president ? Because the States assign Electoral college members according to popular vote totals in a general election, and per the Constitution he had the most Electoral Votes.

What if Mccaiin had been announced the winner with less votes, just for spite and without the publics opinion being enforced ?He would not be President if he did not have the requisite Electoral Votes.

Its a Democratic Society...just how it works here. Right ?We live in a commercial society, governed as a Republic, with some democratically conceived institutions, and some not.

[VolFootball]

So what, about the Bible? It also disallows shell fish. It forbids people with eye defects from approaching God, and condemns skin disorders such as eczema as signs of moral lack. Of course, it states clearly that Christians must obey all earthly authorities, and it justifies the hell out of slavery, so...

// The point about the Bible is that the issue is 90% a religous one and the current demographics of the US, clearly - Regardless of Religon - Do Not support Gay Marriage. Period. Just as they DID support Obama. Do you have an issue with putting this decision to a vote by the people and letting them decide ? IF there is a confidence, then of course yyou would, IF there wasnt any confidence in the vote, YOU wouldnt. Right ?

[Chuangtzu]

Funny, no one said anything about John Stewart in this thread. Are you still smarting over that??

Smarting? No. Noting your tendency to see silly conspiracies in everything your opponents, real and imagined, do or don't do? Yes.

link to Obama - Lord Vishnu (http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/002171.html)

So, because there's a piece of digital folk art, Obama is in fact Vishnu? I've seen examples of grammatical sympathetic magic, but this takes the proverbial cake...

[Chuangtzu]

// The point about the Bible is that the issue is 90% a religous one and the current demographics of the US, clearly - Regardless of Religon - Do Not support Gay Marriage. Period. Just as they DID support Obama. Do you have an issue with putting this decision to a vote by the people and letting them decide ? IF there is a confidence, then of course yyou would, IF there wasnt any confidence in the vote, YOU wouldnt. Right ?

I'm not sure how to translate your Rambling Rantglish into the vernacular, but on the off chance that I've read this correctly...

...I do not support plebiscites, and I don't confuse the general election outcomes with the result of plebiscites.

[Late2TheParty]

The point about the Bible is that the issue is 90% a religous one

If marriage were a solely religious function, I could agree with that that it should be left up to the places of worship that people go to.

But there are tax consequences, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. that have nothing to do with religion. If they just had the government back out, call it a civil union that any 2 people of age could apply for, this wouldn't be a subject.

[VolFootball]

Why? I don't subscribe to plebiscite democracy. So, why would I tell you about it.

No. Barr.



Bingo what?

Because the States assign Electoral college members according to popular vote totals in a general election, and per the Constitution he had the most Electoral Votes.

He would not be President if he did not have the requisite Electoral Votes.

We live in a commercial society, governed as a Republic, with some democratically conceived institutions, and some not.

// OK. Your right on all points. Shouldnt the American people have the right to decide these important issues, inc Abortion, so we can finally put them to rest ? Its a Personal View, very personal. Most people are sick and tired of it being thrown in their faces and just want it to end. What is a more fair way to decide it ? Shouldnt the People, Not Washington, make that decision ? If not, then why in the heck do the pro gay groups Continually put the Issue on State Ballots in an attempt to legalize ? Why ? THEY get their wish, get voted down, YET continue to spray and pray in our faces ? Dont understand ?

[ksdb]

Smarting? No. Noting your tendency to see silly conspiracies in everything your opponents, real and imagined, do or don't do? Yes.
Umm, conspiracy is your word not mine. Try arguing against what I actually say ... then you will at least have some self-respect and much less bitterness. You still feel compelled to defend John Stewart's honor. It's cute, but quite pointless.

[URL="http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/002171.html"]

So, because there's a piece of digital folk art, Obama is in fact Vishnu?
Well, yes. Perception is reality, so they say. Your earlier point turns out to be an unintended truism.

I've seen examples of grammatical sympathetic magic, but this takes the proverbial cake...
Rice cake.

[Chuangtzu]

If marriage were a solely religious function, I could agree with that that it should be left up to the places of worship that people go to.

But there are tax consequences, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. that have nothing to do with religion. If they just had the government back out, call it a civil union that any 2 people of age could apply for, this wouldn't be a subject.

And the very simple, existing fact that marriage licenses are not currently issued by any religious organization in the US. The marriage contract is already a secular, institutional one. In entering into said contract, one agrees that the proper venue for the settling of differences upon its official division be done in the proper court of law.

As it now stands, some people are denied that contract, solely on the basis of their gender. It's a silly distinction, on which to discriminate.

Whether or not someone's Holy Writ inspires tizzies of outrage over the possibility of same gendered contractual bonding has no bearing on the existing, quotidian fact of marriage: it is a contract agreed to before a secular authority, not a religious one.

[ksdb]

And the very simple, existing fact that marriage licenses are not currently issued by any religious organization in the US. The marriage contract is already a secular, institutional one. In entering into said contract, one agrees that the proper venue for the settling of differences upon its official division be done in the proper court of law.

As it now stands, some people are denied that contract, solely on the basis of their gender. It's a silly distinction, on which to discriminate.

Whether or not someone's Holy Writ inspires tizzies of outrage over the possibility of same gendered contractual bonding has no bearing on the existing, quotidian fact of marriage: it is a contract agreed to before a secular authority, not a religious one.

This is wrong. The contract is NOT denied solely on the basis of anyone's gender.

[sgdp]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

It ends when you insert your beliefs in another's life. MYOB.

[VolFootball]

If marriage were a solely religious function, I could agree with that that it should be left up to the places of worship that people go to.

But there are tax consequences, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. that have nothing to do with religion. If they just had the government back out, call it a civil union that any 2 people of age could apply for, this wouldn't be a subject.

/// Oh your right on. They want the Legal Marriage for the freaking benefits - THATS so clear. Can you imagine a company having to honor a Gay mans lover as a Dependent under their Insuarnce ? What the rates would balloon to ? OR would they argue Prior or Existing conditions as grounds to NOT cover them ? The stats DONT LIE. The profile is clear. They want someone else to pay for their internal, self inflicted, predictable medical issues...Period.

[Chuangtzu]

// OK. Your right on all points. Shouldnt the American people have the right to decide these important issues, inc Abortion, so we can finally put them to rest ? Its a Personal View, very personal. Most people are sick and tired of it being thrown in their faces and just want it to end. What is a more fair way to decide it ? Shouldnt the People, Not Washington, make that decision ? If not, then why in the heck do the pro gay groups Continually put the Issue on State Ballots in an attempt to legalize ? Why ? THEY get their wish, get voted down, YET continue to spray and pray in our faces ? Dont understand ?

In a word: no.

One person's disagreement with another person's voluntary, consenting conduct is no cause to deprive the second person of his or her rights.

That you disapprove, does not mean that another ought be deprived the right of contract.

By the same token, that I think religion to be a silly waste of time, does not mean you should be deprived your right of conscience.

See the beauty of secularity? It preserves rights of conscience. You don't have to approve of gay marriage. You never have to enter into one, if you don't want to. But you don't get to tell others they can't, just because it makes you unhappy.

[Chuangtzu]

This is wrong. The contract is NOT denied solely on the basis of anyone's gender.

Of course it is. The only bar to participation is the gender of the participants.

That is why bans will be struck down, especially since gender discrimination by government officials has been prohibited since 1964.

[VolFootball]

It ends when you insert your beliefs in another's life. MYOB.


BINGO ! You certianly dont see Anti Gay Marriage demonstrations and protests do you ? So, I assume your for allowing the majority to keep it as is, based on a vote that supports that right ? No more vocal, in my community, rallies for or against...a simple vote. Then you can do what you please....under the law.

[Mr. M]

Perhaps because, in homosexual marriages, there is little chance for the children resulting of that marriage to have congenital birth defects.

A. Inbreeding does not, in and of itself, increase the odds of birth defects unless the increased homozygotes have congenital defects.


B. Are we now conflating marriage will child production?


C. Incestous relationships could be same sex. And over the age of consent.

[Chuangtzu]

BINGO ! You certianly dont see Anti Gay Marriage demonstrations and protests do you ? So, I assume your for allowing the majority to keep it as is, based on a vote that supports that right ? No more vocal, in my community, rallies for or against...a simple vote. Then you can do what you please....under the law.

Mobocracy results in the sort of outcomes mobs desire.

Ever seen a mob make things better?

[sgdp]

BINGO ! You certianly dont see Anti Gay Marriage demonstrations and protests do you ? So, I assume your for allowing the majority to keep it as is, based on a vote that supports that right ? No more vocal, in my community, rallies for or against...a simple vote. Then you can do what you please....under the law.

Yup. So the question is who is pushing beliefs on whom?

Are gays pushing beliefs on you, or are you pushing your beliefs on them?

:think:

[ksdb]

Of course it is. The only bar to participation is the gender of the participants.
No, the bar is on the basis of failing to meet the required gender diversity that constitutes a marriage. Either participant is still able to get a marriage contract with a suitable partner. Besides, there is no law that prevents one gender from having access to a marriage contract.

That is why bans will be struck down, especially since gender discrimination by government officials has been prohibited since 1964.
What bans??

[Mr. M]

Mobocracy results in the sort of outcomes mobs desire.

Ever seen a mob make things better?

lol...


"A riot is an ugly thing. And I think it's about time we had one!"

[VolFootball]

In a word: no.

One person's disagreement with another person's voluntary, consenting conduct is no cause to deprive the second person of his or her rights.

That you disapprove, does not mean that another ought be deprived the right of contract.

By the same token, that I think religion to be a silly waste of time, does not mean you should be deprived your right of conscience.

See the beauty of secularity? It preserves rights of conscience. You don't have to approve of gay marriage. You never have to enter into one, if you don't want to. But you don't get to tell others they can't, just because it makes you unhappy.

// I totally agree with you ! 99% of people that are anti Gay Marriage, could give a rats booty what a person elects to do with their lives withiin their own relationships. BUT, to change existing laws, for the benefit of ANY groups wants or needs, without the support of the Ameican people, is wrong.
And that Still Doesnt explain why these groups agressively pursue Ballot Elections, as their means to Legalize ? IF they truly believe this will prove their support and citizens views, then why not accept the results ? It cant be both ways ? Please explain why they seek public forums and voting, IF they dont believe and trust the results ?

[Chuangtzu]

Yup. So the question is who is pushing beliefs on whom?

Are gays pushing beliefs on you, or are you pushing your beliefs on them?

:think:

A. Foes of gay marriage want to deny the contract, which many of them enjoy, to others.

B. Proponents of gay marriage are not trying to force non-gays into entering into gay marriage.

I echo your:

:think:

[VolFootball]

Yup. So the question is who is pushing beliefs on whom?

Are gays pushing beliefs on you, or are you pushing your beliefs on them?

:think:

/// Isnt that obvious ? Just look at the protests, demonstrations and media backed efforts of the Gay movement. There ARE NO Anti Gay self organized ones, only replies by some much smaller groups of Anti Gay as a response to the former. Right ?

[Matthewobamahater]

If we are going to allow gay marriage then why the heck not. If we are going to make that legal why should a "liberal" be against any kind of marriages as long as it don't effect you. Personally my self I would rather keep it between a man and woman, but if we are going to go down this street then how could they be opposed to it. It's just about sex to the left and who's to say "by there own words" what you can do behind your door. .

[Chuangtzu]

// I totally agree with you ! 99% of people that are anti Gay Marriage, could give a rats booty what a person elects to do with their lives withiin their own relationships. BUT, to change existing laws, for the benefit of ANY groups wants or needs, without the support of the Ameican people, is wrong.
And that Still Doesnt explain why these groups agressively pursue Ballot Elections, as their means to Legalize ? IF they truly believe this will prove their support and citizens views, then why not accept the results ? It cant be both ways ? Please explain why they seek public forums and voting, IF they dont believe and trust the results ?

Again, your rants are hard to translate, so I may be misunderstanding you, but:

The "will of the majority," if it trumps the rights of even one person, trumps the rights of all, including those in the majority, because it establishes and sanctions the idea that rights are disposable by a plurality of one. That is the mechanism you suggest.

Often, newly understood rights are first cemented and protected by some sort of institutional decision, and in our society by the authority of elections, especially for those who actually fashion laws and protections.

But, the establishment of a new right is not the same as the denial of an old one, or the denial based on distinctions which are no longer accepted or acceptable.

What some gays, and their allies, request is not a new right, even. It's the recognition that an existing right (and marriage is a right, so established by the SCOTUS) apply to them, and not be denied to them on the basis of their gender.

Again - if the majority decrees that you must worship Vishnu, should you accept the results?

[Chuangtzu]

/// Isnt that obvious ? Just look at the protests, demonstrations and media backed efforts of the Gay movement. There ARE NO Anti Gay self organized ones, only replies by some much smaller groups of Anti Gay as a response to the former. Right ?

A risible assertion, in light of the organized resistance to gay marriage, by national religious and political organizations.

[VolFootball]

A. Foes of gay marriage want to deny the contract, which many of them enjoy, to others.

B. Proponents of gay marriage are not trying to force non-gays into entering into gay marriage.

I echo your:

:think:

/// How do the foes approach it and enforce the current laaw ? Peacefully, Internally and Quietly....thus in a very Non Forceful manner. Channels of Govt, Votes and Majority View.
Proponants ? Well I think their approach is not only More Forceful and Voicesterious, BUT also attacks in a Public Domain of all walks of life, everyone ELSES views. Isnt that true ? The overwhelming, ballot proven, majority view at this time is NO.

[sgdp]

/// Isnt that obvious ? Just look at the protests, demonstrations and media backed efforts of the Gay movement. There ARE NO Anti Gay self organized ones, only replies by some much smaller groups of Anti Gay as a response to the former. Right ?

The physical protests are rather irrelevant, I think.

The question remains who is infringing up on whose rights? Whose rights trumps the other?

Or, let me direct it towards you more. How would gay marriage infringe upon your rights? In other words, what makes your rights more valuable than theirs?

It's clear we have conflicting claims of rights, and by definition, no right may infringe upon another's rights.

Rights. Rights Rights. (Just thought I'd say it a few more times to confuse myself. :) )

[Chuangtzu]

/// How do the foes approach it and enforce the current laaw ? Peacefully, Internally and Quietly....thus in a very Non Forceful manner. Channels of Govt, Votes and Majority View.
Proponants ? Well I think their approach is not only More Forceful and Voicesterious, BUT also attacks in a Public Domain of all walks of life, everyone ELSES views. Isnt that true ? The overwhelming, ballot proven, majority view at this time is NO.

Or so you interpret. What you appear to ignore, though, is the underlying principle of each: Opponents of gay marriage want to deny to others what they enjoy for themselves. Proponents of gay marriage do not want to force others to enter into contracts they ask be extended to themselves. A monumental difference.

[sgdp]

/// How do the foes approach it and enforce the current laaw ? Peacefully, Internally and Quietly....thus in a very Non Forceful manner. Channels of Govt, Votes and Majority View.
Proponants ? Well I think their approach is not only More Forceful and Voicesterious, BUT also attacks in a Public Domain of all walks of life, everyone ELSES views. Isnt that true ? The overwhelming, ballot proven, majority view at this time is NO.

More forceful? So? America wasn't founded by a bunch of pansies afraid to speak their minds.

You make it sound as if gay rights activists are out looting and raping.

[Chuangtzu]

More forceful? So? America wasn't founded by a bunch of pansies afraid to speak their minds.

You make it sound as if gay rights activists are out looting and raping.

I wonder if the forcefulness of MLK, Jr's demands, and the forcing of contest and conflict -deliberately planned, at that - by his marches and seeking of arrest, offend the poster as well...

[ksdb]

Or so you interpret. What you appear to ignore, though, is the underlying principle of each: Opponents of gay marriage want to deny to others what they enjoy for themselves. Proponents of gay marriage do not want to force others to enter into contracts they ask be extended to themselves. A monumental difference.
No, most opponents don't consider gay marriage to be marriage. It's not about denying a right, but expecting a reality check. If a gay person wants to be married, that person CAN get married to a suitable partner as marriage is defined. Evidently many DO get married. Anything else is a redefinition of the institution.

[Chuangtzu]

No, most opponents don't consider gay marriage to be marriage. It's not about denying a right, but expecting a reality check. If a gay person wants to be married, that person CAN get married to a suitable partner as marriage is defined. Evidently many DO get married. Anything else is a redefinition of the institution.

Marriage is a right. Loving v. so establishes. Since it is a recognized right, denying it on the basis of the gender of participants is discriminatory, which discrimination is expressly forbidden to public officials.

Opponents of gay marriage can offer any legion of rationalizations, arguments, religious teachings or appeals to tradition they want: they won't alter the fundamental truth of this debate, that marriage is a recognized right, and a condition brought about by past state enactments of discriminatory bias.

[sgdp]

No, most opponents don't consider gay marriage to be marriage. It's not about denying a right, but expecting a reality check. If a gay person wants to be married, that person CAN get married to a suitable partner as marriage is defined. Evidently many DO get married. Anything else is a redefinition of the institution.

What makes you say gays can and do get married? :confused:

[Chuangtzu]

What makes you say gays can and do get married? :confused:

The fall back argument - that they can get married to people of the opposite gender, and learn to live with it.

[Matthewobamahater]

Where should we draw the line if we are going to allow gays to have marriage??? The point is should we allow incestual or even beastity to occur. That is what I believe the OP's thinking was directed. Where is the limit???

[Chuangtzu]

Where should we draw the line if we are going to allow gays to have marriage??? The point is should be allow incestual or even beastity to occur. That is what I believe the OP's thinking was directed. Where is the limit???

Consent by competent adults. Children, inanimate objects and wordless beasts are not competent to give consent.

[sgdp]

Consent by competent adults. Children, inanimate objects and wordless beasts are not competent to give consent.

Humans at that!

[Chuangtzu]

Humans at that!

Tells much, that we even have to qualify that we're discussing human persons, no?

Imaginary gods and non-existent fates, I'm tired of ill-conceived slippery slope arguments.

[ksdb]

Marriage is a right. Loving v. so establishes.
Technically, no. Certainly the ruling described it as a basic right, but courts cannot actually establish rights.

Since it is a recognized right, denying it on the basis of the gender of participants is discriminatory, which discrimination is expressly forbidden to public officials.
Again, there is NO discrimination based on gender. No law prevents men or women from getting married, but there are other laws that regulate marriage and who can participate.

Opponents of gay marriage can offer any legion of rationalizations, arguments, religious teachings or appeals to tradition they want: they won't alter the fundamental truth of this debate, that marriage is a recognized right, and condition brought about by past state enactments of discriminatory bias.
Sorry, but this is pure nonsense. A marriage is what it is. It joins two adults of opposite genders. Neither gender is barred from participating simply on the basis on one person's gender. No right is therefore denied. What you're asking for ... or perhaps demanding ... is that the institution be totally redefined. It's like demanding that two pieces of bread without the filling equals a sandwich.

[VolFootball]

Or, let me direct it towards you more. How would gay marriage infringe upon your rights? In other words, what makes your rights more valuable than theirs?

// Its NOT about me. The impact will be through the Gay supporters true goal here and that is to be able to access the same Benefits and Tax structures of the current lawful marriage. That overnight,, throws into the Corporate and Government sponsored Insurance programs into a tailspin. The impact to the costs of Company Sponsorred Health Care programs would be enormous ! NO Insurance provider wants to touch anyone that clearly has set themselves up for what is the expected and statistically proven exposure to Aids or any other traditional associated ailments from Gay Unions. Thats common sense. Like throwing out health insurance to a chain smoker or alchaholic, WHICH by the way are either Uninsurable or have very litttle access to coverage BASED on their own personal choices. I certianly dont want to share in those costs NOR want my coosts to go up or loose my coverage do to this act. Common Sense. That not mean, slefish, racist or anything else - ITS FACT.

[ISYairio]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.
Read Time Enough for Love: The Lives of Lazarus Long by Heinlein. That'll creep you out.

[Chuangtzu]

Technically, no. Certainly the ruling described it as a basic right, but courts cannot actually establish rights.

Of course they can. And did: since marriage is a right.

Again, there is NO discrimination based on gender. No law prevents men or women from getting married, but there are other laws that regulate marriage and who can participate. If woman A and woman B are denied a legal contractual relationship available to woman A or woman B and any man X then the discriminatory element is the gender of the participants.

Sorry, but this is pure nonsense. A marriage is what it is. It joins two adults of opposite genders. Neither gender is barred from participating simply on the basis on one person's gender. No right is therefore denied. What you're asking for ... or perhaps demanding ... is that the institution be totally redefined. It's like demanding that two pieces of bread without the filling equals a sandwich.An offhand appeal to tradition, and vaguely murmured at that, is not actually the construction of an actual argument.

[ksdb]

What makes you say gays can and do get married? :confused:

To adults of the opposite sex ... as marriage is defined. This happens frequently.

[Chuangtzu]

Read Time Enough for Love: The Lives of Lazarus Long by Heinlein. That'll creep you out.
Only if you miss Heinlein's point, entire...

[Plasmaball]

/// Exactly - So how is one accaptable and the other not ? I believe the Bible clearly defines both as oour society does, and deals with both in the very same ways.
Point being, How can someone condon Same Sex Marriage, and not Hetersexual within ones family ? Theyre both wrong arent they ? If not, why ? What source/constitutional/religeous/etc justifys either ?

bible not law. Bible a book..book not used to make laws in this nation. Nor shall it ever happen. I would suggest learning this.
You want to live your life by the bible, Well the ME is full of people who enjoy that type of thinking. See how well thats working for them?

[sgdp]

<snip> No law prevents men or women from getting married, but there are other laws that regulate marriage and who can participate.


<snip>

The first thing this made me think of was a speed limit.

A speed limit doesn't prevent you from driving 100 m.p.h.; it simply regulates how fast you can go.

:confused:

[ISYairio]

Only if you miss Heinlein's point, entire...
Still think it is creepy. Doesn't mean I hate or even just dislike the book. I definitely was not expecting all that.

[Antrel]

I sure hope so. Along with polygamy as well.

[Chuangtzu]

The first thing this made me think of was a speed limit.

A speed limit doesn't prevent you from driving 100 m.p.h.; it simply regulates how fast you can go.

:confused:

Well done.

[ksdb]

Of course they can. And did: since marriage is a right.
As in a natural right. The court didn't establish that. And it's a right that has limitations.



If woman A and woman B are denied a legal contractual relationship available to woman A or woman B and any man X then the discriminatory element is the gender of the participants.
No, because both participants still have the ability to participate in a legal marriage as it is defined. Gender does NOT prevent this from occurring.





An offhand appeal to tradition, and vaguely murmured at that, is not actually the construction of an actual argument.
Vaguely murmured??? Hogwash. Marriage has a concrete definition that is universal. Do you need some real examples to prove it??

[Chuangtzu]

Still think it is creepy. Doesn't mean I hate the book. I definitely was not expecting all that.

I never found it creepy, perhaps because Heinlein was rather obviously sticking his proverbial finger in the eyes of all the Grundy types he so despised. He did the same with JOB: A Comedy of Justice. At a time when the religious right was ascendant in American politics, he writes perhaps one of his tightest, most plot driven novels: with the Devil as the good guy. And not just any old good guy. The very best possible good guy, the guy who saves the human race and all of space and time.

[Mobulis]

Technically, no. Certainly the ruling described it as a basic right, but courts cannot actually establish rights.


Again, there is NO discrimination based on gender. No law prevents men or women from getting married, but there are other laws that regulate marriage and who can participate.


Sorry, but this is pure nonsense. A marriage is what it is. It joins two adults of opposite genders. Neither gender is barred from participating simply on the basis on one person's gender. No right is therefore denied. What you're asking for ... or perhaps demanding ... is that the institution be totally redefined. It's like demanding that two pieces of bread without the filling equals a sandwich.

No what your saying is that a sandwich is ONLY a sandwich if its peanut butter and jelly, but if someone wants peanut butter and banana they can't call it a sandwich because thats reserved ONLY for peanut butter and jelly.

[Plasmaball]

Vaguely murmured??? Hogwash. Marriage has a concrete definition that is universal. Do you need some real examples to prove it??

hahahhahaah no...

[Chuangtzu]

No what your saying is that a sandwich is ONLY a sandwich if its peanut butter and jelly, but if someone wants peanut butter and banana they can't call it a sandwich because thats reserved ONLY for peanut butter and jelly.

I was about to reply to ksdb's last post along similar, if more formal, lines. I don't need to, though. Home run post, Mob. Well done.

[ISYairio]

I never found it creepy, perhaps because Heinlein was rather obviously sticking his proverbial finger in the eyes of all the Grundy types he so despised. He did the same with JOB: A Comedy of Justice. At a time when the religious right was ascendant in American politics, he writes perhaps one of his tightest, most plot driven novels: with the Devil as the good guy. And not just any old good guy. The very best possible good guy, the guy who saves the human race and all of space and time.

Hmm. Haven't read that yet, but you just made me think of Childhood's End by Clarke.

[ISYairio]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.
Indeed, the highest percentage. 100%. Not the business of the government. TETO; to each their own. Divorce government from marriage.

[Mr. M]

Indeed, the highest percentage. 100%. Not the business of the government. TETO; to each their own. Divorce government from marriage.

Don't think that's possible, ISY.


Right now family and estate law make up the largest percentage of the nation's circuit court proceedings.

And society certainly has a vested interest in a well-defined system of child support and orderly probate.



Given that, I don't see how you:


A. Remove government from the legal proceedings, and;


B. Given their judicial involvement, remove the issue from legislative participation.



Still, there certainly is room for discussing the margins.

[sgdp]

Don't think that's possible, ISY.


Right now family and estate law make up the largest percentage of the nation's circuit court proceedings.

And society certainly has a vested interest in a well-defined system of child support and orderly probate.



Given that, I don't see how you:


A. Remove government from the legal proceedings, and;


B. Given their judicial involvement, remove the issue from legislative participation.



Still, there certainly is room for discussing the margins.

Couldn't there be a grandfather clause?

[Mobulis]

I was about to reply to ksdb's last post along similar, if more formal, lines. I don't need to, though. Home run post, Mob. Well done.


Thank you.:clap:

[Mr. M]

Couldn't there be a grandfather clause?

lol...


I'm sure there's some sort of progenitor jape in there, S. Sorry for not digging in to find it.


But, in a more serious vein, no, I don't see how you "grandfather" estate law, or divorce proceedings (in particular issues of child custody and support) for some, while setting some arbitrary date for...what? Abolishing a body of law generations in the making and comprised of thousands of statutes and millions of precedents doesn't seem even remotely possible.

How would courts settle disputes without historical guidelines? Would we preclude an evolving society from pressing for legislative relief to inequities in probate or family matters? Would we eliminate the body of laws wholesale in favor of corporate or contract law?


An orderly society needs to have a stable body of laws that deal with, to use an entirely bloodless term, property disposition. Whether that "property" is genetic, real, or personal, eliminating predictability in the settlement of them will cause increased friction, litigation and uncertainty.

[bayoubill]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.


IMO, any two people who have reached the age of consent

should be able to enter into a legal domestic partnership.


But, by the same token,

the fellow citizens of any such two people

should be allowed to express their disapproval for any such arrangement

(via shunning, stern vocalizations, and other such public displays)

without fear of being brought before the courts on charges of "fomenting hate crimes"

or other such modern abominations against the freedom of expression.


It remains a societal imperative to disuade potentially distructive behavior (such as incestuous relationships).


However, such societal imperatives shouldn't necessarily involve the imposition of governmental action.


The power of the collective approval/disapproval of one's fellow citizens should not be taken lightly,

nor should it be discouraged by pencil-necked busybodies

or squelched by governmental action.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

This is wrong. The contract is NOT denied solely on the basis of anyone's gender.

You need to learn to read.

I'm not surprised, however.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

BINGO ! You certianly dont see Anti Gay Marriage demonstrations and protests do you ? So, I assume your for allowing the majority to keep it as is, based on a vote that supports that right ? No more vocal, in my community, rallies for or against...a simple vote. Then you can do what you please....under the law.

You believe our rights should be decided by majority vote?

Be careful what you wish for.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Or, let me direct it towards you more. How would gay marriage infringe upon your rights? In other words, what makes your rights more valuable than theirs?

// Its NOT about me. The impact will be through the Gay supporters true goal here and that is to be able to access the same Benefits and Tax structures of the current lawful marriage. That overnight,, throws into the Corporate and Government sponsored Insurance programs into a tailspin. The impact to the costs of Company Sponsorred Health Care programs would be enormous ! NO Insurance provider wants to touch anyone that clearly has set themselves up for what is the expected and statistically proven exposure to Aids or any other traditional associated ailments from Gay Unions. Thats common sense. Like throwing out health insurance to a chain smoker or alchaholic, WHICH by the way are either Uninsurable or have very litttle access to coverage BASED on their own personal choices. I certianly dont want to share in those costs NOR want my coosts to go up or loose my coverage do to this act. Common Sense. That not mean, slefish, racist or anything else - ITS FACT.You claim it's not about you, and then...

If you are covered by health insurance rather than paying out of pocket in full for all healthcare expenses, please drop your plan as others are paying for your healthcare. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, now would you? (credit to ken ;) )

[ksdb]

You need to learn to read.

I'm not surprised, however.
Sorry but do you have an actual rebuttal instead of lame attempts to insult?? My post was correct. Yours is worthless.

[ksdb]

No what your saying is that a sandwich is ONLY a sandwich if its peanut butter and jelly, but if someone wants peanut butter and banana they can't call it a sandwich because thats reserved ONLY for peanut butter and jelly.

Wrong. The diversity of a topping with bread is what makes it a sandwich. Putting two pieces of bread together or slabbing peanut butter on a plate does not a sandwich make.

[ksdb]

The first thing this made me think of was a speed limit.

A speed limit doesn't prevent you from driving 100 m.p.h.; it simply regulates how fast you can go.

:confused:
Sorry, but this analogy is self-defeating. The speed limit defines what is legal. Going beyond that limit is illegal. In this case, gay couples think that going 100 mph is the same thing as driving at the speed limit. It's not. Thanks for helping me out.

[Guvnah]

Yup. So the question is who is pushing beliefs on whom?

Are gays pushing beliefs on you, or are you pushing your beliefs on them?

:think:

This is a key question.

The efforts to oppose gay marriage recognition are in direct response to the efforts to change laws so that they recognize gay marriages, and efforts to redefine what marriage is.

[Guvnah]

Marriage is a right. Loving v. so establishes. ...

What was the definition of marriage that the court used when making that ruling?

(I'm not looking for your OPINION of what definition they used. Legal rulings are very specific. What SPECIFIC definition was being used?)

[badkarma]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.
If gay people marry what is to stop people from marrying children after they get incest allowed? After that it will be sheep then polygamy! All of you sickos are really advocating to allow a 4 year old to be married to his 50 year old uncle, his uncles dog and the litter of pups it just had, and his little sister! You damn perverts won't be happy until pedolygincestality is the norm!

Woe is me, this is a slippery slope down which we travel Brother, a slippery slope indeed!

[Guvnah]

What makes you say gays can and do get married? :confused:

Go to any Unitarian church for example, in ANY state of this nation (including California, even after Prop-8), and you will be able to marry your same sex partner.

Gays can.

Gays do.

Laws that "ban" gay marriage actually just restrict what the state can do in response to what gays can do (and do do.) States can't recognize those marriages. Prevention of state recognition does not change the fact that gays can and do get married.

[Mohawk5]

They redefine history they will eventually force a redefinition of the term marriage.

[ThrowCop]

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p20/ThrowCop/GCS%20PhotoShops/StupidThreadsMakeJesusAngry.jpg

[ShinGouki]

The government should get out of marriage. Period.

[ksdb]

The government should get out of marriage. Period.

The government benefits from the institution, so that's not very realistic.

[Guvnah]

The first thing this made me think of was a speed limit.

A speed limit doesn't prevent you from driving 100 m.p.h.; it simply regulates how fast you can go.

:confused:

This is an interesting point.

Anyone can break any law. And if they don't get caught, there are no legal repurcussions.

There is no law against two gays getting married. As I pointed out earlier, they do it all the time. In every state. Openly. Celebratedly. Nobody get jailed for it. Nobody gets fined for it. That's because there is no law against doing it.

Earlier someone mentioned the Loving vs Virginia case. They WERE jailed for their interracial marriage. THAT is what would be the risk to gays if there were actual laws outlawing gay marriage.

[Guvnah]

For those who want to discount the notion of the slippery slope, consider this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588

"Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage
Lawyers: Canada's step to legalize same-sex unions will help in trial"

[ShinGouki]

The government benefits from the institution, so that's not very realistic.

Ah yes, more children to send to the slaughter in the eventual third world war.

The point is that the government shouldn't be involved. It shouldn't be offering benefits to married people. Let the people and the religious institution they attend make the decision to get married. Keep the government out of it.

[ksdb]

Ah yes, more children to send to the slaughter in the eventual third world war.
No, more taxpayers. Sending kids off to war is an expense.

The point is that the government shouldn't be involved. It shouldn't be offering benefits to married people. Let the people and the religious institution they attend make the decision to get married. Keep the government out of it.
Good luck.

[ShinGouki]

You believe our rights should be decided by majority vote?

Be careful what you wish for.

If we went with VolFootballs method blacks would would still be living in segregation and me and my girlfriend would be dead. :neutral:

[ThrowCop]

For those who want to discount the notion of the slippery slope, consider this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588

"Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage
Lawyers: Canada's step to legalize same-sex unions will help in trial"That is not a slippery slope.

Polygamy should be as legal as any other contract involving consenting adults.

[ksdb]

If we went with VolFootballs method blacks would would still be living in segregation and me and my girlfriend would be dead. :neutral:

So the civil rights acts never happened and weren't made possible through a democratic process??

[ShinGouki]

So the civil rights acts never happened and weren't made possible through a democratic process??

Through a representative process. Not a democratic process.

Do you honestly think 1960s Mississippi, if done through popular vote, would have ended segregation?

[badkarma]

For those who want to discount the notion of the slippery slope, consider this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588

"Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage
Lawyers: Canada's step to legalize same-sex unions will help in trial"
So wait, you mean of people think consenting adults should be allowed to marry, they may actually think that OTHER consenting adults should have the same rights? Oh, the horror!

I have a solution for this entire problem. one that has been suggested by many people. Remove the word marriage from the law. Replace it with civil unions, which give the exact same benefits that marriage currently does but has no restrictions on what sex you are in order to receive them. Give priests and pastors the legal ability to perform civil unions, just like they have the ability to perform legal marriage now.

Problem solved. Marriage is still intact as a ceremony (which eliminates the semantics argument most used by those against gay marriage), and everyone can get the same legal benefits and rights through a civil union.

[ksdb]

Through a representative process. Not a democratic process.
No, our representative government is a type of democratic process. VolFootball talked about having the 'gay marriage' issue voted on by the 'constituents of the society,' which would be representatives. This is how the civil rights acts were passed.

Do you honestly think 1960s Mississippi, if done through popular vote, would have ended segregation?
No nor did I suggest such a thing.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

As I always say...practicing incest is illegal. Practicing homosexuality is not.

Step one in legalizing incestual marriage would be to legalize incest...and hey, if you want to lead that fight in some misguided attempt to prove a point about gay marriage, all the best to you.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

So wait, you mean of people think consenting adults should be allowed to marry, they may actually think that OTHER consenting adults should have the same rights? Oh, the horror!

I have a solution for this entire problem. one that has been suggested by many people. Remove the word marriage from the law. Replace it with civil unions, which give the exact same benefits that marriage currently does but has no restrictions on what sex you are in order to receive them. Give priests and pastors the legal ability to perform civil unions, just like they have the ability to perform legal marriage now.

Problem solved. Marriage is still intact as a ceremony (which eliminates the semantics argument most used by those against gay marriage), and everyone can get the same legal benefits and rights through a civil union.

See...you make too much sense to be a Pittsburgh fan. Somewhere along the line you were broken...;)

[Guvnah]

That is not a slippery slope.

Polygamy should be as legal as any other contract involving consenting adults.

Well I'm with you on that. And I feel the same way about the legality of adult incest.

I still separate "legal" (as in allowable) from "recognized" though. (And all that goes with recognition.) Society can let people do something, but society shouldn't have to encourage it, embrace it, grant benefits to it, or endorse it.

[mtdim]

Why shouldn't incest be legal? This stance has always puzzled me. I mean, I see being disgusted by it, but making it illegal? I don't get it.

[jmb6]

Perhaps because, in homosexual marriages, there is little chance for the children resulting of that marriage to have congenital birth defects.

What if they adopted and didn't have children "together"?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Why shouldn't incest be legal? This stance has always puzzled me. I mean, I see being disgusted by it, but making it illegal? I don't get it.

I don't personally care. But if people REALLY want to equate incestual marriage with gay marriage, they'll have to step up and get the act of incest legalized first.

[ChaosControl]

Why not? Why should the state determine who you can "marry". I don't care if you want to marry your cousin or sister, your life to live. I'd think you're a bit weird, just as I think gays are, but I wouldn't really care what you decided to do with your life.

[bloods vs crips]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

incestual marriages should be allowed as well. You don't have the right to stop them, and in case you didn't know, it was the norm for thousands of years.

[harumph]

incestual marriages should be allowed as well. You don't have the right to stop them, and in case you didn't know, it was the norm for thousands of years.

Heck, I know some people that absolutely love their dogs. 'Course you may have to teach them how to hold a pen. I'm sure there'd be paperwork involved.

[bloods vs crips]

Or so you interpret. What you appear to ignore, though, is the underlying principle of each: Opponents of gay marriage want to deny to others what they enjoy for themselves. Proponents of gay marriage do not want to force others to enter into contracts they ask be extended to themselves. A monumental difference.

and a freakin' obvious one as well.

[Gengar]

So, do you Libs approve of family members marrying?

[bloods vs crips]

Where should we draw the line if we are going to allow gays to have marriage??? The point is should we allow incestual or even beastity to occur. That is what I believe the OP's thinking was directed. Where is the limit???

there is, nor should there be any limit for consenting adults to enter into contracts. That you could possibly even desire this is unAmerican and purely unConstituitonal. Animals cannot enter into contracts, use logic please.

[bloods vs crips]

Heck, I know some people that absolutely love their dogs. 'Course you'd may have to teach them how to hold a pen. I'm sure there'd be paperwork involved.

another animal argument, seriously?

[ChazBedlam]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?

Yes. You are absolutely right, the only thing keeping people from marrying their sister is your government's rule of law. :rolleyes:

Even if someone does marry their sister, how does that affect YOU? Granted, it's disgusting, but are these incestuous couples going to consumate their union in your living room? No? Then who gives a crap?


Where does it end with this subject ?


It ends when you realize that government cannot be allowed to legislate morality. Morality is subjective to the individual. What you call "immoral" others call an entertaining Saturday evening.


Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....


Well, since we have freedom of religion in this country, I just invented a religion that worships Tom Arnold as God, and condones all types of sexual deviancy. What are you going to do, take away my Constitutional rights?

Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

Yes, incest is wrong, FOR YOU. Homosexuality is wrong, FOR YOU. It should NOT be "voted on by society and may the most votes win", because this isn't a democracy, it's a freaking republic, and is governed by the rule of law and the Constitution, NOT mob rule.

[bloods vs crips]

If gay people marry what is to stop people from marrying children after they get incest allowed? After that it will be sheep then polygamy! All of you sickos are really advocating to allow a 4 year old to be married to his 50 year old uncle, his uncles dog and the litter of pups it just had, and his little sister! You damn perverts won't be happy until pedolygincestality is the norm!

Woe is me, this is a slippery slope down which we travel Brother, a slippery slope indeed!

it's not a slippery slope! Animals and children are ridiculous arguments and aren't even relevant. Polygamy should also be allowed. There is NO right to stop people from entering into contracts.

[harumph]

another animal argument, seriously?

The animal argument is no more ridiculous than the sibling argument.

BTW, mine was clearly a joke. Yours was simply a joke.

[jmb6]

You believe our rights should be decided by majority vote?

Be careful what you wish for.

No, just my rights to property. I enjoy paying more taxes than 75% of americans.

[badkarma]

Heck, I know some people that absolutely love their dogs. 'Course you'd may have to teach them how to hold a pen. I'm sure there'd be paperwork involved.
Pedolygincestiality!

[ChazBedlam]

So, do you Libs approve of family members marrying?

No. I find homosexuality (unless it's 2 chicks) disgusting. I find incestuous relationships to be revolting. I'm just a fan of humans using common sense to manage their values and morality instead of a moral majority telling everyone what to do with laws on behavior.

We can be a moral and virtuous society WITHOUT government intervention.

[ChazBedlam]

I've had just about enough of the "bestiality, incest, pederasty, slippery slope" argument.

It simply shows how weak your side of the argument is. You don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on, AND YOU KNOW IT.

How about you apply some logic and reason to your side, instead of relying on paper thin appeals to emotion.

[thegreyrider]

/// Exactly - So how is one accaptable and the other not ? I believe the Bible clearly defines both as oour society does, and deals with both in the very same ways.
Point being, How can someone condon Same Sex Marriage, and not Hetersexual within ones family ? Theyre both wrong arent they ? If not, why ? What source/constitutional/religeous/etc justifys either ?

There are biological reasons for banning marriage between first order relatives. Now, banning of cousin marriages may be problematic because there are no biological reasons for it, and it is practiced in many cultures which still transfer wealth generationally through the female line.

[bloods vs crips]

The animal argument is no more ridiculous than the sibling argument.

BTW, mine was clearly a joke. Yours was simply a joke.

animals CANNOT enter into legal contracts, get real.

[bloods vs crips]

There are biological reasons for banning marriage between first order relatives. Now, banning of cousin marriages may be problematic because there are no biological reasons for it, and it is practiced in many cultures which still transfer wealth generationally through the female line.

even biological arguments for siblings aren't good. Some states still dissallow marriage between cousins as well.

[harumph]

How about you apply some logic and reason to your side, instead of relying on paper thin appeals to emotion.

:)):)):))

Ok. Have at it. And good luck with it.

At some point, you must realize when we do not value your opinion. Now is one of those times.

[ChazBedlam]

"I'm a conservative, and I support small government and individual liberty."

"I support massive international liberal interventionism and global policing that costs the taxpayer trillions of dollars, and I'm against equal rights for gays." :think:


What a bunch of hypocrites.

[prochoicer mom]

Marriage as a GOVERNMENTAL institution has no justification to not allow homosexuals to marry, related individuals to marry, or multiple people to marry each other. On the latter, they may have some legal difficulties in certain marital rights going to whom, but can be delegated out with a specific will or legal document that binds the will of the parties involved. Incestuous relationships have only a 5% increased chance of creating deformed or mentally challenged offspring between a brother and sister and less than that for cousins, and further. Before you argue about children or animals then being allowed to marry you must understand this. Marriage, like sex, is a contract in which two things must be present. One....both parties must be capable of giving consent, which obviously leave both out. And two....that both DO give consent. A child under the age of 16 (14 in some states) cannot legally consent to any contract, especially one such as sex or marriage. An animal cannot consent to ANY contract regardless of age, species, looks, human attitude. So your "fears" are not well founded and can do with a little more intelligent thought process. As to the churches argument. The church doesn't have to accept ANY marriage, let alone homosexuals, cousins, or polygomy. Hell, they do not accept my parents marriage as valid, and all of my mother's children are considered bastards in the eyes of the Catholic church. Ask me if I give a damn or if that has in any way influenced my life, my values, or my beliefs? For believers of Christ. He came and died for our sins. ALL OF THEM. We know that pornography is a sin.....how many are willing to outlaw porn. We know that indulgence in alcohol is a sin, why not outlaw it to avoid temptation? We know that sex outside of marriage is a sin....where is the crowds that are demanding that we throw teenagers and "sluts" into prison for daring to break god's commandment? They are no where. Your job to is take care of your own sins and allow others to fight the sins that tempt them, not to control them through legislation that follow your commandments. Wait until I fight to control you through legislation that follows MY commandments and my religion.

[ISYairio]

Don't think that's possible, ISY.


Right now family and estate law make up the largest percentage of the nation's circuit court proceedings.

And society certainly has a vested interest in a well-defined system of child support and orderly probate.



Given that, I don't see how you:


A. Remove government from the legal proceedings, and;


B. Given their judicial involvement, remove the issue from legislative participation.



Still, there certainly is room for discussing the margins.
Privatize illegitimacy along with it? If a female takes the risk of getting pregnant w/o a formal private marriage contract, she takes the risk of the guy not agreeing to support financially or personally his kid since she has no right through the state to his support. Same on the flip for the guys. And the kid too, I guess, to a certain extent. If they have a contract, the government will enforce it. If they don't and can't reach an agreement, not the business of the gov't.

[prochoicer mom]

For the record, these are the same arguments used by bigots a hundred years ago to justify the banning of marriage between different races.

[ChazBedlam]

For the record, these are the same arguments used by bigots a hundred years ago to justify the banning of marriage between different races.

Don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of fascists on this board who would be disgusted if they saw me with my Mexican wife. That fight isn't over, either.

[ChaosControl]

You may only marry people within 1 year of your age who were born in the same town as you and have the same race, eye color, and hair color as you.

Anything else is immoral and redefining marriage!

[harumph]

Family reunions would be interesting.

What gets me is that there are people actually arguing for this. They need to get out more.

How this thread grew legs, I'll never know.

[ChazBedlam]

You may only marry people within 1 year of your age who were born in the same town as you and have the same race, eye color, and hair color as you.

Anything else is immoral and redefining marriage!

Gee whiz, could that insipid slippery slope argument be turned the opposite direction?

A legal marriage: A man and woman, within 1 year of age, of the same race, with no evidence of heriditary disease or deformity (wouldn't want to pass those to their children), minimum 1000 SAT score, high school diploma, minumum 15000 dollars in savings, 1 year at present employer, minumum credit score of 700.

[bloods vs crips]

For the record, these are the same arguments used by bigots a hundred years ago to justify the banning of marriage between different races.

a hundred? Hell that is still a touchy subject in some places, and it wasn't even legal during the Civil Rights movement in certain states.

[ChazBedlam]

Family reunions would be interesting.

What gets me is that there are people actually arguing for this. They need to get out more.

How this thread grew legs, I'll never know.

Again, scooter, I don't see anyone endorsing incest. I see people saying that our government has no Constitutional authority to prevent it. Of course, so called "conservatives" only defend the Constitution when it's convenient to their own agenda. Heaven forbid they become responsible citizens and defend even the rights of people who aren't exactly like them.

[bloods vs crips]

You may only marry people within 1 year of your age who were born in the same town as you and have the same race, eye color, and hair color as you.

Anything else is immoral and redefining marriage!

I prefer the traditional marriage, where you don't have a choice, the person shares your race and your social status. We really started slippery slope by allowing people to choose their marriages and ruining it's sanctity.

[MadCow]

If marriage were a solely religious function, I could agree with that that it should be left up to the places of worship that people go to.

But there are tax consequences, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. that have nothing to do with religion. If they just had the government back out, call it a civil union that any 2 people of age could apply for, this wouldn't be a subject.

Which all could be taken care of with a legal insturment known as a Power of Attorney.

[bloods vs crips]

Which all could be taken care of with a legal insturment known as a Power of Attorney.

Power of Attorney does not give you access to SS income for example.

I agree, essentially all the government should recognize is a PoA, or something similar. The real problem is that there are benefits to begin with.

[ChazBedlam]

Which all could be taken care of with a legal insturment known as a Power of Attorney.

But, but you can't inject Jesus Christ into a Power of Attorney agreement!

[harumph]

Again, scooter, I don't see anyone endorsing incest. I see people saying that our government has no Constitutional authority to prevent it. Of course, so called "conservatives" only defend the Constitution when it's convenient to their own agenda. Heaven forbid they become responsible citizens and defend even the rights of people who aren't exactly like them.

Just looking at the OP title, scooter. I have no authority to prevent anyone from piercing or tatooing their whole body, but that doesn't change the fact that there is very little forward thinking involved in either. (My opinion, scooter.)

People can do whatever they choose to do with themselves. It matters not to me. Just don't make me pay for it.

[ChazBedlam]

Just looking at the OP title, scooter. I have no authority to prevent anyone from piercing or tatooing their whole body, but that doesn't change the fact that there is very little forward thinking involved in either. (My opinion, scooter.)

People can do whatever they choose to do with themselves. It matters not to me. Just don't make me pay for it.

And you're going to be financially responsible for unconventional marriages? I don't remember billing the taxpayer when I went down and got my marriage liscense.......

Is there a program where I can get a gubmint subsidy for body modifcations? Where do I sign up?

[Gengar]

Don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of fascists on this board who would be disgusted if they saw me with my Mexican wife. That fight isn't over, either.

A Mexican wife... or a straight married couple... either way... :rolleyes:

[toreyj01]

Gotta love these pointless threads, props to the OP for just sticking to incest instead of pulling out the sheep and polygamy.

A regular man about town...

Mind your own business, end of story. "The party of personal responsibility" has become nothing more than an empty catchphrase with this type of interference.

Regards,

[harumph]

Is there a program where I can get a gubmint subsidy for body modifcations? Where do I sign up?

I bet you would. FYI, the last "stimulus" package had a tattoo removal bill in it (although I think they removed it do to the fact that it was just plain stupid).

[ChazBedlam]

I bet you would. FYI, the last "stimulus" package had a tattoo removal bill in it (although I think they removed it do to the fact that it was just plain stupid).

I bet I wouldn't. I don't believe in government subsidy of ANYTHING.

[ksdb]

I prefer the traditional marriage, where you don't have a choice, the person shares your race and your social status. We really started slippery slope by allowing people to choose their marriages and ruining it's sanctity.

Great point. Societies that stick to traditional models of marriage with less personal choice and more homogeniety tend to have lower divorce rates.

[LibertyinAtl]

Gotta love these pointless threads, props to the OP for just sticking to incest instead of pulling out the sheep and polygamy.

A regular man about town...

Mind your own business, end of story. "The party of personal responsibility" has become nothing more than an empty catchphrase with this type of interference.

Regards,
Please....
I think this is a valid thread...
I think it all points to the government needs to get out of the marriage business...

[harumph]

I bet I wouldn't. I don't believe in government subsidy of ANYTHING.

Did you ever go to public school?

Listen, I'm with you. I think the government has its hands in too many things, too. But this discussion is more about common sense and the lack thereof (IMHO).

[mtdim]

There are biological reasons for banning marriage between first order relatives. Now, banning of cousin marriages may be problematic because there are no biological reasons for it, and it is practiced in many cultures which still transfer wealth generationally through the female line.

That's a dangerous argument. There are lots of combinations of genes that could be dangerous to offspring that have nothing to do with incest. If we say it is OK to ban sexual relations or marriage on these grounds, such a decision would affect more than just incestuous relationships. Hell, it might become illegal for people with Huntington's to have sex at all if we are going to use that rationale.

[Guvnah]

And you're going to be financially responsible for unconventional marriages? I don't remember billing the taxpayer when I went down and got my marriage liscense.......

Is there a program where I can get a gubmint subsidy for body modifcations? Where do I sign up?

Actually, yes.

As was pointed out just a few post prior to yours, it's more than just POA, etc. There are financial benefits too. Social Security benefits and Tax benefits to name the two big ones.

The budget is bursting at the seams already. Why are we adding more to it? What do we (society) get for it in return?

[BillyM 2007]

Religious minded people who suggest God kills people due to their sexual orientation disgust me.
We die because of our sins... homosexuality is but one of many.

[thegreyrider]

That's a dangerous argument. There are lots of combinations of genes that could be dangerous to offspring that have nothing to do with incest. If we say it is OK to ban sexual relations or marriage on these grounds, such a decision would affect more than just incestuous relationships. Hell, it might become illegal for people with Huntington's to have sex at all if we are going to use that rationale.
Good point.

[thegreyrider]

We die because of our sins...
We die because our metabolisms cease to function properly. As for my sins, well, that is all that makes life worth living. Numerous sexual partners, swearing, drinking, making fun of fundamentalist Christians.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

We die because of our sins... homosexuality is but one of many.

Thank you, Reverend Phelps.

[gianni]

That reminds me of a gay rights rally I attended. Some guy at the rally was holding a sign in protest which read, in big bold letters, THANK GOD FOR AIDS! This was not a popular guy at the rally.

[gianni]

And why stop at dyadic marriages? How about marriages between multiple partners? You know, the whole group marriage thing? Sounds cool, eh?

[bigtwnvin]

Wait until the freaks start lobbying to legalize marriage to animals.

[BillyM 2007]

We die because our metabolisms cease to function properly. As for my sins, well, that is all that makes life worth living. Numerous sexual partners, swearing, drinking, making fun of fundamentalist Christians.
This won't be so funny during judgement should you die in this condition.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

And why stop at dyadic marriages? How about marriages between multiple partners? You know, the whole group marriage thing? Sounds cool, eh?

We've been over this.

Polygamy can't really happen with government sanction, because all parties to a contract have to be mentally stable when signing...any man willing to marry two women cannot be considered mentally stable.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Wait until the freaks start lobbying to legalize marriage to animals.

When Sparky can sign his ****ing name to a contract and state his intentions to the judge/pastor, I'll agree to a person being allowed to marry the dog.

Until then, legal consent is still required, and an ANIMAL CAN'T GIVE LEGAL CONSENT!!!

[Dr. Funkenstein]

That reminds me of a gay rights rally I attended. Some guy at the rally was holding a sign in protest which read, in big bold letters, THANK GOD FOR AIDS! This was not a popular guy at the rally.

I can imagine he wasn't.

I wonder what that person thought of Ryan White.

[jwil59]

Any difference in Gay Marriage and Incestual Marriage ? If Gays should be allowed to Marry, shouldnt another union, another forbidden and moral example of an unacceptaable union, be considered ok as well?
Where does it end with this subject ?
Show me ONE religon that not only Condons the practice of Gay Unions, but one that ALSO clearly describes the penalties of such as death. Why is that ? Why is it that Aids and other social diseases are not only highly prevelant in these groups, BUT scientifically and statistically proven as the number one cause of death for them ? God works in misterious ways.....
Its wrong, should be voted on by the Constituants of our Society and may the highest percentage win. PERIOD.

:rolleyes:

This must be the same type of flawed logic you guys used to fire Fulmer

[LibertyinAtl]

When Sparky can sign his ****ing name to a contract and state his intentions to the judge/pastor, I'll agree to a person being allowed to marry the dog.

Until then, legal consent is still required, and an ANIMAL CAN'T GIVE LEGAL CONSENT!!!
It could be implied consent...
Their is an implied contract between humans and animals...
Here is a book that covers that contract.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Contract-Sharing-Planet/dp/0863696287

[LibertyinAtl]

We've been over this.

Polygamy can't really happen with government sanction, because all parties to a contract have to be mentally stable when signing...any man willing to marry two women cannot be considered mentally stable.
Calling them crazy is an understatement

[Dr. Funkenstein]

It could be implied consent...
Their is an implied contract between humans and animals...
Here is a book that covers that contract.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Contract-Sharing-Planet/dp/0863696287

Last time I checked, more than implied consent was needed for a contract to be legally binding.

I mean, sure...it was IMPLIED that my wife and I would be having sex once we got married...

[Miss America]

Probably what's next...is that any two or more living things residing under the same roof...will be recognized as "married"...once you change the meaning of the word..it no longer has the same value.

[LibertyinAtl]

Last time I checked, more than implied consent was needed for a contract to be legally binding.

I mean, sure...it was IMPLIED that my wife and I would be having sex once we got married...
I just fell out of my chair...Thanks for that...:D

[gianni]

Hey, since gays are arguing that sexual satisfaction is enough to be the basis of marriage--you know, having an intimate sexual relation with someone of the same sex--then by golly we also ought to be able to marry inanimate objects that get us off as well. C'mon, let's go for it! I guess a lot of people will now start marrying shoes, vibrators, stockings, and whatever else gets them off. Oh, the wedding vows will be so lovely, won't they?

[LibertyinAtl]

Hey, since gays are arguing that sexual satisfaction is enough to be the basis of marriage--you know, having an intimate sexual relation with someone of the same sex--then by golly we also ought to be able to marry inanimate objects that get us off as well. C'mon, let's go for it! I guess a lot of people will now start marrying shoes, vibrators, stockings, and whatever else gets them off. Oh, the wedding vows will be so lovely, won't they?
If I could get my left hand a separate job , I would marry it...

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I just fell out of my chair...Thanks for that...:D

Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.

Try the veal, and tip your waitresses.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Hey, since gays are arguing that sexual satisfaction is enough to be the basis of marriage--you know, having an intimate sexual relation with someone of the same sex--then by golly we also ought to be able to marry inanimate objects that get us off as well. C'mon, let's go for it! I guess a lot of people will now start marrying shoes, vibrators, stockings, and whatever else gets them off. Oh, the wedding vows will be so lovely, won't they?

You're awesome. Have I told you that?

Just the best.

[gianni]

Thanks.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

If I could get my left hand a separate job , I would marry it...

:))

Now we're even.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Thanks.

No problem.

Have you considered seeking a leadership position in the Republican Party? I figure with your brand of thinking and what would have to be amazing leadership skills (based on your writing style, of course), you could get the GOP back on top in 10, 20 decades, easy.

[gianni]

I am a Democrat, but the scourge of Obama has driven me out of the party, and I won't be back until Obama is gone. He is an abomination, and I'm glad I got out when the getting was good.

[sgdp]

When Sparky can sign his ****ing name to a contract and state his intentions to the judge/pastor, I'll agree to a person being allowed to marry the dog.

Until then, legal consent is still required, and an ANIMAL CAN'T GIVE LEGAL CONSENT!!!

What about a parrot? :think: They can..erm...parrot the consent. Name them squiggly line and there you go! A new mate!

[harumph]

Gianni.

Shoes?

[supreme_war_Pig]

Last time I checked, more than implied consent was needed for a contract to be legally binding.

I mean, sure...it was IMPLIED that my wife and I would be having sex once we got married...

Dude....awesome! :))

[supreme_war_Pig]

If I could get my left hand a separate job , I would marry it...

Based on this comment alone, I would say your left hand is already working.... :razz:

[margaretms]

Hey, since gays are arguing that sexual satisfaction is enough to be the basis of marriage--you know, having an intimate sexual relation with someone of the same sex--then by golly we also ought to be able to marry inanimate objects that get us off as well. C'mon, let's go for it! I guess a lot of people will now start marrying shoes, vibrators, stockings, and whatever else gets them off. Oh, the wedding vows will be so lovely, won't they?

Don't forget tractors. I first read this report (and a couple of others like it) years ago, in Harper's:

A forty-two-year-old Asian man was found hanging by the neck, suspended by a rope attached to the raised shovel of a John Deere model JD 410 diesel-powered backhoe tractor. He was last seen alive by his parents the previous evening at 10:30, when he walked out of their shared rural home.

Shortly thereafter they heard the tractor engine start, as they had on prior occasions, but they did not investigate further. The following morning the father noticed that his son's bed had not been slept in, and he heard the tractor engine idling. When he went out to the yard, he found his son dead, stiff, and cold.

The decedent was suspended in a semi-sitting position by a cloth safety-harness strap wrapped around his neck and clipped to a rope that was hooked on the raised shovel of the backhoe tractor. The victim had used the ligature to achieve partial autoerotic asphyxiation, and it was hypothesized that he lost consciousness and accidentally hanged.

Two years before his death, the decedent had bought the backhoe tractor as a Christmas gift to himself and named it "Stone." He used the backhoe on occasional ditch-digging jobs. He wrote about it in a Christmas newsletter to friends, in which he enclosed Stone's picture. He also wrote about his tractor in a long poem, which alluded to flying high in the sky with his friend, Stone.

[ksdb]

Don't forget tractors. I first read this report (and a couple of others like it) years ago, in Harper's:

Someone spent too much time taking Kenny Chesney literally.

[thegreyrider]

Probably what's next...is that any two or more living things residing under the same roof...will be recognized as "married"...once you change the meaning of the word..it no longer has the same value.
I'm sort of the persuasion that marriage as a legal institution is a violation of the separation of church and state, and is unconstitutional, regardless of sexual orientation. Civil unions for all, leave the marriages to the churches. It is really only a semantic debate - What is the definition of marriage? So change the word already...

[Wndrtch]

I think we should keep "marriage" a religous ceremony, and call ALL commited relationships "Civil Unions", gay or hetero.

Let's not mix religion and civics.

[mdk190]

What is next? Another stupid thread comparing apples to footballs.

[mdk190]

What about a parrot? :think: They can..erm...parrot the consent. Name them squiggly line and there you go! A new mate!

The moment you get your parrot to legally consent either verbally or by singed document then you will have my blessing for your union. Until then...whatever floats your boat.

[ISYairio]

If I could get my left hand a separate job , I would marry it...

Just don't get divorced, that'd be awkward! :doh:

[Mr. M]

Just don't get divorced, that'd be awkward! :doh:

lol...


One thing would be for sure.



Somebody is going to lose a glove.

[sgdp]

The moment you get your parrot to legally consent either verbally or by singed document then you will have my blessing for your union. Until then...whatever floats your boat.

Does this count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXo3NFqkaRM&feature=related

"I Loooooooove youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu"

[ThinkingMan]

Of course. Give it time. When marriage is being redfined as anything an aggrieved group wants it to be, they will be next in line. Or in line, anyway. They will complain that they should have the same rights, which makes it a civil rights issue, then call anyone a bigot for opposing it, and that shuts down debate.

Then liberals jump in squawking like a plucked parrot about their new found love of state's rights.

You gotta give the left credit - they know their game.

[BobM]

Gay marriage, Incestual marriage, Group marriage...I personally don't like the idea....but, I ascribe to the Goldwater view that the Government doesn't belong in the bedroom.

Aside from being different, (and in my personal, biased, view...bizarre), I'm not sure how any of those things is a threat to America. The threat is the leftists who back these issues, and they back them only because they see it as a means to drive a wedge between Conservatives and those particular Americans. They, the leftists, do NOT back them because they actually give a fig about those issues.

That's my cynical .02