BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining...[W:171]

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Straw man. Nobody is arguing that same sex relationships should be legal JUST because they are consensual.

Nobody? You speak for everyone? I've heard that argument made.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

the consenting adult part is not a problem with any of those so what is the problem with them?

What is the problem with two brothers over 18 years old marrying each other in a homosexual marriage, then?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Your argument is that the ONLY reason that prostitution, polygamy, and incest are not legal is due to consent. That is not correct. There are MULTIPLE reasons why the state has an interest in criminalizing those behaviors that DO NOT apply to same-sex relationships.

In effect, your argument is a straw man that deliberately ignores the differences between same-sex relationships and other forms of sexual behavior.

What state interest is served by not legalizing other forms of consensual adult sexual behavior than homosexuality?

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

What is the problem with two brothers over 18 years old marrying each other in a homosexual marriage, then?

that's what im asking

 

[Deuce]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Nobody? You speak for everyone? I've heard that argument made.

Link a post to that effect.

 

[Deuce]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

What is the problem with two brothers over 18 years old marrying each other in a homosexual marriage, then?

I don't know, what is the problem?

 

[roguenuke]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

You are spot on. I've stated this obvious truth before, myself. If whatever sexual conduct as may occur between consenting adults must be legal, then all such conduct must be legal. If not, then laws against homosexuality can't be overthrown based on the legal argument that any sexual acts between consensual adults must be legal.

In reality, most of those should be legal or at least not criminalized. Incest between adults though could begin prior to adulthood, if the people were raised together, which indicates undue influence into the relationship. It is much more complicated than simply "they're consenting adults". So are a college student and their professor. But we do not allow those relationships. So are some high school seniors and their teachers, but we still do not allow those relationships. Undue influence in a relationship can be a serious issue. It comes into play with Stockholm Syndrome. Polygamy is only not allowed (or only should not be allowed) on a legal recognition level, and only due to the way marriage operates and how we legally view spouses. It has nothing to do with the restriction being part of the "definition" of marriage, only that allowing multiple spouses can be detrimental to the economy, which is a legitimate government interest. Prostitution should be legal but the argument is based on it encourages slave trade and increases chance of spread of STDs. How solid that argument is would depend on the type of prostitution and regulations on it. But these things still do not rely solely on the argument "they are consenting adults", nor does same sex marriage arguments or arguments relating to sexual activity that at one may have been outlawed here in the US.

 

[Respecthelect]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

the consenting adult part is not a problem with any of those so what is the problem with them?

Ask CriticalThought, he seems to have some secret argument for legalizing gay behavior, when the other five corruptions remain illegal, that he refuses to reveal.

And yes, "consent" is a large part. Gays argue "consenting adults," with "no victim," as a justification for legalizing gay behavior. If prostitution is also "consenting adults," with "no victim," then this argument holds no weight. How can one say to the gay, "OK, there's no victim, so your behavior is now deemed legal," without also saying the same to the prostitute or the polygamist or incest? If there are other valid arguments against the other three to five corruptions, please enumerate them, so they may be dismantled as well. The similarities are clear for all to see. Merely citing consent doesn't persuade society to legalize prostitution (polygamy or incest) and it therefore, can't justify gay behavior.

Prostitution is a sex act that society has deemed slightly illegal. Libertarian's often argue "consenting adults," "free country," and "no victim," but they haven't been persuasive. The similarity to gay behavior is inescapable. This one example should be plenty to convince the reader. Nevertheless, there are polygamy and incest which are also similarly consensual, "free country," and "no victim," but remain illegal. Any one of the three are more than sufficient to discredit gay claims based on this principle.

Again, if there are other principles gays would like to assert, please present them so we may dismantle them, as well.

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

seems to me other things wont become legal because we cant find a reason to make same sex marriage or homosexuality illegal

but they will become legal if we cant find reasons to make them illegal either

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Ask CriticalThought, he seems to have some secret argument for legalizing gay behavior, when the other five corruptions remain illegal, that he refuses to reveal.

And yes, "consent" is a large part. Gays argue "consenting adults," with "no victim," as a justification for legalizing gay behavior. If prostitution is also "consenting adults," with "no victim," then this argument holds no weight. How can one say to the gay, "OK, there's no victim, so your behavior is now deemed legal," without also saying the same to the prostitute or the polygamist or incest? If there are other valid arguments against the other three to five corruptions, please enumerate them, so they may be dismantled as well. The similarities are clear for all to see. Merely citing consent doesn't persuade society to legalize prostitution (polygamy or incest) and it therefore, can't justify gay behavior.

Prostitution is a sex act that society has deemed slightly illegal. Libertarian's often argue "consenting adults," "free country," and "no victim," but they haven't been persuasive. The similarity to gay behavior is inescapable. This one example should be plenty to convince the reader. Nevertheless, there are polygamy and incest which are also similarly consensual, "free country," and "no victim," but remain illegal. Any one of the three are more than sufficient to discredit gay claims based on this principle.

Again, if there are other principles gays would like to assert, please present them so we may dismantle them, as well.

er you never explained how homosexuality is wrong im for legal prostitution actually

 

[roguenuke]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

What is the problem with two brothers over 18 years old marrying each other in a homosexual marriage, then?

When did the relationship begin? How do you know? Were they raised together? In reality, such a relationship should not be common. However, such relationships mainly do exist in abusive situations. (And yes, I do realize this same claim is made by those who have been against homosexuality.) But undue influence in a relationship is a concern, especially if this encourages "grooming" of younger siblings or children to be in sexual relationships with a person once they are of age. There may not be any actual undue influence, but that would have to be determined not just assumed, especially if there is an age difference or power difference.

Ramifications of Incest | Psychiatric Times

"Many instances of sibling incest, rationalized as youthful experimentation, are profoundly exploitive. Families often accept that something has occurred between a brother and a sister, but give no credence to the sister’s protest that what occurred was forceful, and/or involved the brother’s making her available to his friends."

If they weren't raised together, then it probably should be allowed, since they aren't likely to have the issue of undue influence.

 

[Respecthelect]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Incest between adults though could begin prior to adulthood, if the people were raised together, which indicates undue influence into the relationship.

You continue to cite narrow cases that aren't dispositive. You keep saying, maybe this and maybe that? If I cite one case that's rightly illegal, the argument is over.

Take the case of two siblings separated at birth. One has no influence over the other. They are raised around the world from each other. At 25, they meet and marry. It's still illegal.

You must argue the most difficult example, not concoct situations favorable to your case. One single case of righteous illegality defeats gay arguments. This is simply the rules of logic. I didn't invent them.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

When did the relationship begin? How do you know? Were they raised together? In reality, such a relationship should not be common. However, such relationships mainly do exist in abusive situations. (And yes, I do realize this same claim is made by those who have been against homosexuality.) But undue influence in a relationship is a concern, especially if this encourages "grooming" of younger siblings or children to be in sexual relationships with a person once they are of age. There may not be any actual undue influence, but that would have to be determined not just assumed, especially if there is an age difference or power difference.

Ramifications of Incest | Psychiatric Times

"Many instances of sibling incest, rationalized as youthful experimentation, are profoundly exploitive. Families often accept that something has occurred between a brother and a sister, but give no credence to the sister’s protest that what occurred was forceful, and/or involved the brother’s making her available to his friends."

If they weren't raised together, then it probably should be allowed, since they aren't likely to have the issue of undue influence.

The only consistent position for homosexual marriage advocates would be that it must be allowed. Why they want to be married can't be more in question for incest partners of legal age than homosexual partners of legal age.

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

The only consistent position for homosexual marriage advocates would be that it must be allowed. Why they want to be married can't be more in question for incest partners of legal age than homosexual partners of legal age.

no the only consistent positron for homosexual marriage advocates is it must be aloud if its equivalent to current marriages and doesn't harm any one or step on there freedoms and or rights

being ok with incestuous couple beaning able to marry that's not in any particular danger of being involved with abuse or coercion but not ok with the couple where that was a danger is consistent

 

[Respecthelect]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

im for legal prostitution actually

When you legalize one, you legalize the other. This is why SCOTUS was wrong and Scalia was correct in his dissent. Unless the court intends to legalize all five corruptions (Pedophilia, Prostitution, Incest, gay behavior, etc.), gay behavior must remain illegal. Bigamy, bestiality and a few others would also be difficult to outlaw, if gay behavior isn't also outlawed.

Perhaps SCOTUS intends to phase in all six corruptions over time by not taking cases until the American people accept one corruption at a time? Legalization of all six is a foregone conclusion, once any one of the five is legalized, though.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

You are spot on. I've stated this obvious truth before, myself. If whatever sexual conduct as may occur between consenting adults must be legal, then all such conduct must be legal. If not, then laws against homosexuality can't be overthrown based on the legal argument that any sexual acts between consensual adults must be legal.

Not true... just because some laws aren't overturned or have made it before a judge does not mean that the argument is not sound. In addition, just because a law at some time was deemed constitutional does not mean that it can never ever be challenged, or that the losing argument was unsound.

If your view was correct.. we would still have segregation.

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

When you legalize one, you legalize the other. This is why SCOTUS was wrong and Scalia was correct in his dissent. Unless the court intends to legalize all five corruptions (Pedophilia, Prostitution, Incest, gay behavior, etc.), gay behavior must remain illegal. Bigamy, bestiality and a few others also would be difficult to outlaw, if gay behavior isn't also outlawed.

Perhaps SCOTUS intends to phase in all six corruptions over time by not taking cases until the American people accept one corruption at a time? Legalization of all six is a foregone conclusion, once any one of the five is legalized, though.

you legalize things based on their own merits

and please address this part

you never explained how homosexuality is wrong

 

[jaeger19]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

It doesn't matter what I think about that. The point was that "born that way" makes a poor argument for homosexual marriage. The fact it has never been successfully used in court arguments on the matter should be a clue about that.

The argument does place them in a class.. and that's essential for any case. Fact is.. it has been used successfully multiple times in court.. to the point where it is now assumed by almost all courts. The basis of most anti discrimination lawsuits.. which many homosexuals have won.. is based on the idea that they are being judged as a CLASS of people.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

When you legalize one, you legalize the other. This is why SCOTUS was wrong and Scalia was correct in his dissent. Unless the court intends to legalize all five corruptions (Pedophilia, Prostitution, Incest, gay behavior, etc.), gay behavior must remain illegal. Bigamy, bestiality and a few others also would be difficult to outlaw, if gay behavior isn't also outlawed.

Perhaps SCOTUS intends to phase in all six corruptions over time by not taking cases until the American people accept one corruption at a time? Legalization of all six is a foregone conclusion, once any one of the five is legalized, though.

False.. so completely false its just crazy that you even think that way.

Whats your argument? because we make it legal for folks to drive, that means we have to let blind people drive?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

When did the relationship begin? How do you know? Were they raised together? In reality, such a relationship should not be common. However, such relationships mainly do exist in abusive situations. (And yes, I do realize this same claim is made by those who have been against homosexuality.) But undue influence in a relationship is a concern, especially if this encourages "grooming" of younger siblings or children to be in sexual relationships with a person once they are of age. There may not be any actual undue influence, but that would have to be determined not just assumed, especially if there is an age difference or power difference.

Ramifications of Incest | Psychiatric Times

"Many instances of sibling incest, rationalized as youthful experimentation, are profoundly exploitive. Families often accept that something has occurred between a brother and a sister, but give no credence to the sister’s protest that what occurred was forceful, and/or involved the brother’s making her available to his friends."

If they weren't raised together, then it probably should be allowed, since they aren't likely to have the issue of undue influence.

Irrelevant when the relationship began. We don't deny people marriage today because of when their relationship began.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Not true... just because some laws aren't overturned or have made it before a judge does not mean that the argument is not sound. In addition, just because a law at some time was deemed constitutional does not mean that it can never ever be challenged, or that the losing argument was unsound.

If your view was correct.. we would still have segregation.

My view that legal precedent paves the way to all "same argument" cases is not just sound but has plentiful "precedent".

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

The argument does place them in a class.. and that's essential for any case. Fact is.. it has been used successfully multiple times in court.. to the point where it is now assumed by almost all courts. The basis of most anti discrimination lawsuits.. which many homosexuals have won.. is based on the idea that they are being judged as a CLASS of people.

It is not essential to this case. It would be a no-brainer if the "born that way" argument could be successfully plied to create a suspect class as immutable in the eyes of the law as race or gender, but this approach is not being used because it is very dangerous both to the homosexual marriage advocates and to laws against perversion, in general (mostly the former, though, as recent posts in this thread do seem to indicate that other perversions aren't a concern for advocates of homosexual marriage).

 

[Papa bull]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

False.. so completely false its just crazy that you even think that way.

Whats your argument? because we make it legal for folks to drive, that means we have to let blind people drive?

Because we make it legal for heterosexual couples to marry, that means we let homosexuals marry each other?

What do you think?

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

Irrelevant when the relationship began. We don't deny people marriage today because of when their relationship began.

though we might have state laws against incest with non blood relatives and the only logical reason I see for that is the danger of grooming and abuse

 

[blarg]

Re: BOOM! that's the game! Equal rights/gay marriage fights in every remaining state!

It is not essential to this case. It would be a no-brainer if the "born that way" argument could be successfully plied to create a suspect class as immutable in the eyes of the law as race or gender, but this approach is not being used because it is very dangerous both to the homosexual marriage advocates and to laws against perversion, in general (mostly the former, though, as recent posts in this thread do seem to indicate that other perversions aren't a concern for advocates of homosexual marriage).

you need to give a reason for why things should be a concern but people seem reluctant to do that as it undermines the slippery slope approach if you give independent reasons for why something is wrong