Beyond gay marriage

[CriticalThought]

Me and Sonia already covered that.

She was quoting Scalia's argument in Lawrence.

 

[bubbabgone]

Are you actually reading my posts? Marriage is already a civil right but all civil rights can still have limitations and restrictions. Marriage is a civil right with many restrictions. Allowing same-sex marriage will remove one of those restrictions but will have no direct impact on any of the others. I don't see how much more clearly I can put that.

Anyone who wishes to have any of the other restrictions changed or removed have the same right (indeed, civil right) to campaign for that in the same way the proponents of same-sex marriage have done.

If they can garner sufficient public and political support, they might succeed. For what it's worth, I don't see incestuous marriage or polygamy getting such support in the foreseeable future

.

Time for YOU to stop and read a bit...and to think.
They don't need much public or political support once the legal precedent has been established.
All they need are Justices who recognize the precedent and feel bound to follow that precedent.
Anyone who wanted to challenge incest marriage restrictions wouldn't have to start from scratch. They would have legal precedent.
Get it now?

 

[HonestJoe]

Time for YOU to stop and read a bit...and to think.
They don't need much public or political support once the legal precedent has been established.
All they need are Justices who recognize the precedent and feel bound to follow that precedent.
Anyone who wanted to challenge incest marriage restrictions wouldn't have to start from scratch. They would have legal precedent.
Get it now?

I understand what you're suggesting, I'm trying to explain that it's logically and factually wrong.

Same-sex marriage provides no greater precedent for incestuous-marriage than mixed-race or divorcees' marriage did. Places where same-sex marriage has already been legal for some time provide no such precedent . Same-sex civil partnerships provide no precedent for incestuous civil partnerships. Were same-sex marriage legalised in the US, any proponents of incestuous-marriage would face just as much of an up-hill struggle as they would today, both socially and legally. It's an entirely different prospect that should and would be addressed separately.

The Supreme Court could give a ruling in a manner that did set such a president but that simply isn't going to happen even if they do come down in support same-sex marriage.

 

[bubbabgone]

I understand what you're suggesting, I'm trying to explain that it's logically and factually wrong.

Same-sex marriage provides no greater precedent for incestuous-marriage than mixed-race or divorcees' marriage did. Places where same-sex marriage has already been legal for some time provide no such precedent . Same-sex civil partnerships provide no precedent for incestuous civil partnerships. Were same-sex marriage legalised in the US, any proponents of incestuous-marriage would face just as much of an up-hill struggle as they would today, both socially and legally.

It's an entirely different prospect that should and would be addressed separately.

The

Supreme Court could give a ruling in a manner that did set such a president but that simply isn't going to happen even if they do come down in support same-sex marriage

.

I have a feeling we could go round and round with this, and have for days, but ...

1) I chose incest marriage as one of several currently prohibited, but if the SC buys the marriage is a civil right equal protection argument and they rule based on that, then no lower court is going rule otherwise for anything without damn good reason. And what could be the reason to prohibit father/son consentual marriage, for example? Now, you may say, who the hell is going to want to advance such a thing. I would answer, people who are interested in destroying traditions of the Country. You might even wonder if the same people are nudging along the same-sex marriage debate.

2) If the SC rules same sex marriage should be permitted because of the 14th Amendment, then the door is wide open.

 

[polgara]

I have a feeling we could go round and round with this, and have for days, but ...

1) I chose incest marriage as one of several currently prohibited, but if the SC buys the marriage is a civil right equal protection argument and they rule based on that, then no lower court is going rule otherwise for anything without damn good reason. And what could be the reason to prohibit father/son consentual marriage, for example? Now, you may say, who the hell is going to want to advance such a thing. I would answer, people who are interested in destroying traditions of the Country. You might even wonder if the same people are nudging along the same-sex marriage debate.

2) If the SC rules same sex marriage should be permitted because of the 14th Amendment, then the door is wide open.

Good morning, Bubba.

Did you see the pictures a while back that showed all the little girl children is an Islamic country...I don't recall which...that were part of a mass wedding to much older men? Is that where some hope we're headed? Gagging and trying not to throw up! Poor little things....

 

[bubbabgone]

Good morning, Bubba.

Did you see the pictures a while back that showed all the little girl children is an Islamic country...I don't recall which...that were part of a mass wedding to much older men? Is that where some hope we're headed? Gagging and trying not to throw up! Poor little things....

Hi Pol. I'm afraid I'm inclined to attribute sinister motives to a lot of what's going on over here. And folks who go right along with it so as to appear informed & enlightened is just as disturbing.

 

[HonestJoe]

I have a feeling we could go round and round with this, and have for days, but …

Then stop simply repeating the same claim over again and actually address my questions;

If legalisation of same-sex marriage on a civil rights basis opens the door to incestuous marriage, why didn't legalisation of mixed race marriage on a civil rights basis open the same door many years ago? Why hasn't legalisation of same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions opened the same door in those places?

Now, you may say, who the hell is going to want to advance such a thing. I would answer, people who are interested in destroying traditions of the Country. You might even wonder if the same people are nudging along the same-sex marriage debate.

Who is that exactly. I'm sorry to have to say this, but without any kind of detail or evidence, this just comes across as a paranoid delusion that has no place in an inteligent debate.

 

[bubbabgone]

Then stop simply repeating the same claim over again and actually address my questions;

If legalisation of same-sex marriage on a civil rights basis opens the door to incestuous marriage,

why didn't legalisation of mixed race marriage on a civil rights basis open the same door many years ago?

Why hasn't legalisation of same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions opened the same door in those places?

Who is that exactly. I'm sorry to have to say this, but without any kind of detail or evidence, this just comes across as a paranoid delusion that has no place in an inteligent debate.

1) It opened the door to same-sex marriage, didn't it?
2) It's true on it's face. If you're looking to destroy traditional marriage you're looking to destroy a tradition. It's a tautology. Maybe it's for narrow personal reasons to some but there it is.

 

[HonestJoe]

1) It opened the door to same-sex marriage, didn't it?

No. Will you now actually answer my question (or accept that you can't because your position is flawed)?

2) It's true on it's face. If you're looking to destroy traditional marriage you're looking to destroy a tradition. It's a tautology. Maybe it's for narrow personal reasons to some but there it is.

Nobody is looking to destroy traditional marriage. Nothing about any proposals for same-sex marriage involve changing existing marriages or future ones on the same basis. You've still provided zero evidence to suggest that anyone is "destroying traditions of the Country" and so nothing to convince me it's anything more than your delusion.

 

[rocket88]

We all know that homosexuality is just a gateway to something else. Soon we'll all be able to marry dogs and our moms. Possibly a polygamous arrangement with both. We'll all have giant government-sanctioned orgies if we let the Liberals have their way. In fact, they'll force everyone to be gay and black.

 

[roguenuke]

The arguments are not the same.

First of all, as I have pointed out before, the onus is on the state to defend why something is limited first, then the other side counters those arguments presented by the state.

When it comes to same sex marriage, the state's argument is that marriage is about procreation (which can be proven wrong) or that the people want it (which is not a legitimate argument). When it comes to incest/child/parent marriage, the arguments include genetic issues with children (which is okay, just not alone) and undue influence (which is good enough to have laws banning relationships between teachers/students and doctors/patients). The counters to these arguments are much stronger from the same sex marriage side than the incestuous marriage side because the state really doesn't have anything resembling a legitimate reason to deny marriage to people of the same sex but have two for incestuous marriages, at least.