WE almost have the full set now. We have incest and pedophilia, now we just need bestiality and polygamy and we have the full set of gay marriage red herrings.
YAY, a game of Gin Rummy using all the idiot arguments as they surface in the thread.
Don't expect me to call it a marriage.
They have no right to overturn prop 8. This would be a giant smack to the face of democracy. the people voted and prop 8 set marriage as a man and woman in California. How dare they do this, if it is overturned this would just be a disgrace to democracy and a defeat for the rights of voters.
.....whereas homosexuality contributes nothing and obviously wants all the benefits of marriage.
I've always found it hilarious how conservative views on personal liberty and choice make a complete u-turn when it comes to things they personally disapprove of. Keep the government out of my _____!! (except marriage. they should totally be able to decide who I can and cannot marry!)
edit: I mean really, you're opposing two consenting, adult people being able to enter into a legal contract with eachother because you have some sort of moral or religious opposition to their sex life.
From a different legal perspective, what about the Contract Clause of the federal Constitution?
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"
If the government considers marriage a legal contract, then it seems the States cannot prevent the people involved from entering into it as they wish. If two people of the same sex enter into a marriage contract, then this clause seems to prevent the States from stopping it.
WE almost have the full set now. We have incest and pedophilia, now we just need bestiality and polygamy and we have the full set of gay marriage red herrings.
If the government considers marriage a legal contract, then it seems the States cannot prevent the people involved from entering into it as they wish. If two people of the same sex enter into a marriage contract, then this clause seems to prevent the States from stopping it.
They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.
They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.
Marriage is not a contract, and my response to Redress above indicates why it should not be considered as one. Marriage is a social institution that involves more than just the two spouses.
WE almost have the full set now. We have incest and pedophilia, now we just need bestiality and polygamy and we have the full set of gay marriage red herrings.
That certainly is a lot easier to say than confronting the massive hypocrcy towards only allowing gay marriage and excluding everything else you don't agree with.
Well for one, isn't that exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd is doing? Allowing straight marriage but excluding everything else they don't agree with?That certainly is a lot easier to say than confronting the massive hypocrcy towards only allowing gay marriage and excluding everything else you don't agree with.
Did you know that only 7% of the people in the world are left handed? Does that mean they choose to be?
We don't allow people who aren't adults to enter into legal contracts.
I have no issue with that personally, but it's beside the point. It actually *can* be demonstrated that children of siblings have a higher risk of genetic abnormalities. Can you demonstrate anything negative at all related to me signing a legal contract with another woman?
And they do these things with a signoff from their parents. They cannot enter such a contract on their own. Except talent shows... what the hell kind of talent show did you go to where a legal contract was signed?Bull****. Of course we do. Kids work in stores, kids sign movie contracts, talent shows, etc.
By that argument its well known that homosexual men spread aids easier so that would fit your criteria but creating law based on a personal claim of no negative consequence isn't sufficient for a justification for changing law.
My motivations and feelings on the matter have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Further, this is not a response to anything relevant in this thread as this thread is about legal issues and you are blathering on about biology.
I never made any claim in this thread concerning biology or genetics. Perhaps you would like to go back and actually ****ing read it before you start spewing your nonsense and showing everyone how deranged you become when this topic is approached?
Well thank you, Captain Obvious.
It isn't designed for anything. I mean, at least not until you speak to the Designer and ask him or her. Good luck with all that.
Except when it's gay people or masturbation or recreational sex or sex with sperm barriers...:shrug:
Again, what's ridiculous here is your assertion that I have claimed a genetic link, whatever that nebulous terminology means. Do you ever bother to read what's posted before you start sputtering and spitting your nonsense?
You're correct. No one is claiming blow jobs are genetic.
I'm glad that incites more maniacal and demented laughter from you...or whatever it is you are trying to communicate. I don't think you even know what you're trying to say.
When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that gay people have, can we discuss whatever moronic claims I want to attribute to you whether you actually made them or not?
Homosexuality may have a genetic link as well as being affected by social/environmental factors. Just because we haven't nailed it down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And they do these things with a signoff from their parents. They cannot enter such a contract on their own. Except talent shows... what the hell kind of talent show did you go to where a legal contract was signed?
Are you suggesting that marriage increases the transmission of STDs? If anything, marriage promotes monogamy which decreases transmission of STDs. Try again.
Not true. I needed no parental concent for my jobs when I was under 18.
After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn Law - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online
Read the article. Is the anti-homosexual marriage side defender on crack?
Seriously. Marriage is for making babies? Has he been living in a BOX for his whole life? If that's the best the anti-gay marriage side can do, gay marriage is coming a hell of a lot faster to this country then I initially believed.
Thsi is about legal justification for allowing gay marriage. I am addressing the false claim that the legal justification lies in the genetic argument. Try to keep up.
They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.
Marriage is not a contract, and my response to Redress above indicates why it should not be considered as one. Marriage is a social institution that involves more than just the two spouses.
Thsi is about legal justification for allowing gay marriage. I am addressing the false claim that the legal justification lies in the genetic argument. Try to keep up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?