- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If its done through law I have no problem with it. When activist judges write new law without legal backing I do have a problem with it.
That is the problem with claiming equal protection covers marriage. It doesn't and never has.
And if it did you could not exclude any sexual orientation from wanting the same thing based on the same finding. That is why we have laws and ammendments.
If and when horses are allowed to enter into legal contracts, you will have a point. Ditto for children. If people would like to change that, those would be the first steps: Allowing animals and blowup dolls to enter into legally binding contracts. Then the whole marriage thing can go from there.Same thing, just a different definition. Why is it ok to discriminate based on species or based on living objects? If sexuality is irrelevant to the legality of marriage, than why can't other sexualities have their unions imposed upon the definition of marriage?
Let me try to propose a hypothetical as to why someone might want to treat orientation as a risk factor. If the incidence of disease among those who share my orientation is high w/r to the general population - the cards are already stacked against me.A person's sexual orientation alone does not increase the likelihood of them contracting HIV.
For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
Let me try to propose a hypothetical as to why someone might want to treat orientation as a risk factor. If the incidence of disease among those who share my orientation is high w/r to the general population - the cards are already stacked against me.
It is theoretically true that if I practice 100% safe sex that I can eliminate the risk, but we live in the real world here. I could do everything "right" - practice safe sex, eventually devote myself to a monogamous relationship, etc. Only to find out my partner has been cheating on me and has "given me the aids." Maybe my partner was a habitual cheater. Maybe it was a one time thing, but the risk was so much higher given the incidence of AIDS in my community. These are just examples of how one's sexual orientation could place you at higher risk.
There are lots of other hypothetical correlates I can come up with that would contribute to increased risk - maybe people in community A are more "desirious" of each other, making self control more difficult, etc. As things get complicated, it becomes exceedingly difficult to map out all of the mediating variables.
Did I mention pedophilia? And why can't an animal consent? Why can't a child consent? There is no magical maturation that goes on between 17 and 18. Animals can consent, just not the same way humans can.
My point isn't the legality of it, it's the logic behind imposing homosexual unions upon everyone because sexuality is protected under the equal protection clause.
If a man wants to marry a blow up doll, why can't he? It's non living. The ability to consent is a moral stance. It's a moral belief that you can't marry a dog, or doll, because they "can't" consent. When pansexuals and zoophiles would all tell you that they can and that you have no right to impose your morality on them.
For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
You are confusing correlation and causation again and still don't understand what a risk factor is.You argument is flawed and I will show you why. If you practice 100% safe sex, devote yourself to a monogamous relationship, and do everything "right" you could not contract HIV even if your partner was cheating. If you did all those things, his cheating would be irrelevant, since you protected yourself and did everything "right". You would have had to made an error in behavior to contract HIV. See? Orientation has nothing to do with it. Behavior does.
I wasn't the one who brought up morality. I was responding to the comment that bestiality is not recognized as marriage because it is deviant. And my morality is allowed to play into my vote. Others have no right to impose their morality that homosexuality is moral and their unions are "marriage" onto everyone living in a state.Just a quick comment on this. Your morals are irrelevant to the discussion. If you are morally opposed to homosexuality, don't engage in it. If you are morally opposed to others engaging in homosexuality, tough ****. You have no right to NOT have your moral sensabilities offended.
Oh... homosexuality has been determined to NOT be a deviance in a clinical sense. When bestiality or pedophilia receive the same determination, your argument would make sense. Since they have not, your argument does not.
My point is why aren't those unions equally protected? Why can't a guy marry a horse if all sexualities are equal and deserving of having their unions recognized as marriage? It's logically inconsistent to uphold homosexuality and denounce others based on the idea that homosexuality is protected under the equal protection clause. And that the clause calls for the imposition of homosexuality into all legal definitions of marriage. With this ruling, it is logically inconsistent to claim homosexuality cannot be banned from marriage because it's protected by the equal protection clause, yet banning others because they are "immoral" and not deserving of the same protection.If and when horses are allowed to enter into legal contracts, you will have a point. Ditto for children. If people would like to change that, those would be the first steps: Allowing animals and blowup dolls to enter into legally binding contracts. Then the whole marriage thing can go from there.
Does consent matter? Is that not a moral position? What if some believe that blow up dolls and animals can consent? It's a moral stance that states "I believe these things cannot consent, thus they cannot marry." Regardless, the ruling states homosexuality cannot be banned from marriage recognition because it's protected under the equal protection clause. Logically, shouldn't all sexualities be protected too? And under the same logic, would it not also be illegal to ban other sexual unions from marriage if sexualities are equal?So, your first step to marrying your blow up doll, digsbe, is to petition your legislatures to recognize blowup dolls as people who can consent to enter legally binding contracts. Ditto for your dog.
When the govt does that, THEN we can discuss their ability to enter into marriage contracts.
Let me try to propose a hypothetical as to why someone might want to treat orientation as a risk factor. If the incidence of disease among those who share my orientation is high w/r to the general population - the cards are already stacked against me.
It is theoretically true that if I practice 100% safe sex that I can eliminate the risk, but we live in the real world here. I could do everything "right" - practice safe sex, eventually devote myself to a monogamous relationship, etc. Only to find out my partner has been cheating on me and has "given me the aids." Maybe my partner was a habitual cheater. Maybe it was a one time thing, but the risk was so much higher given the incidence of AIDS in my community. These are just examples of how one's sexual orientation could place you at higher risk.
There are lots of other hypothetical correlates I can come up with that would contribute to increased risk - maybe people in community A are more "desirious" of each other, making self control more difficult, etc. As things get complicated, it becomes exceedingly difficult to map out all of the mediating variables.
Has nothing to do with sexuality. Has to do with horses not being persons allowed to enter into contracts.My point is why aren't those unions equally protected? Why can't a guy marry a horse if all sexualities are equal and deserving of having their unions recognized as marriage?
I believe that if you can prove that horses and blow up dolls are capable of understanding legal contracts, and capable of understanding the implications of them, then that would be a HUGE step towards the government granting them adult personhood rights to enter into contracts.Does consent matter? Is that not a moral position? What if some believe that blow up dolls and animals can consent? It's a moral stance that states "I believe these things cannot consent, thus they cannot marry." Regardless, the ruling states homosexuality cannot be banned from marriage recognition because it's protected under the equal protection clause. Logically, shouldn't all sexualities be protected too? And under the same logic, would it not also be illegal to ban other sexual unions from marriage if sexualities are equal?
Well, no we've been through this... (See Marduc's post)Actually, it was the partner cheating that got you infected with AIDs,
I don't need to do any of that for my argument to relevant, I'm describing a risk factor.can you provide evidence that gay men cheat on their partners because they themselves are gay? If not, then your argument is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
I went out my way to propose the example as a hypothetical - never once used the term "gay" or "homosexual" and did not argue or imply that any of the above was true.You are trying to argue the fact that gay men make up a smaller population pool that has several times the rate of HIV than the general population pool has to do with sexual orientation. This is false. Gay men as a population are several times more likely to have HIV because they are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. The question is still about risky sexual behaviors, not about sexual orientation.
Why are they more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors?Gay men as a population are several times more likely to have HIV because they are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors.
Well, no we've been through this... (See Marduc's post)
I don't need to do any of that for my argument to relevant, I'm describing a risk factor.
I went out my way to propose the example as a hypothetical - never once used the term "gay" or "homosexual" and did not argue or imply that any of the above was true.
For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about other sexual orientations such as pansexuals, bestiality, bisexuals, or any other sexuality that someone could claim to have. Why is that sexuality unequal to homosexuality? And if the logic is that homosexual unions fall under the equal protection clause, why can't others as well?
You are confusing correlation and causation again and still don't understand what a risk factor is.
Why are they more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors?
Well, no we've been through this... (See Marduc's post)
I'm tired of all this causation/correlation crap myself. I only bring it up because people have been going on and on about it in this thread with respect to sexual orientation.
I wasn't the one who brought up morality. I was responding to the comment that bestiality is not recognized as marriage because it is deviant. And my morality is allowed to play into my vote.
Others have no right to impose their morality that homosexuality is moral and their unions are "marriage" onto everyone living in a state.
So now you are bringing up morality? There have also been clinical studies that would suggest homosexuality develops due to sexual abuse, physical abuse, and emotional instability. Bias clinical studies mean nothing to me.
Tell that to PETA and many atheists who believe all life is equal with human life. Again, that is a moral stance. Many believe that animals can consent. And many believe there is no difference or worth between human and animal life. It has to do with the fact that zoophilia is considered immoral by most.Has nothing to do with sexuality. Has to do with horses not being persons allowed to enter into contracts.
So, should the mentally ill be banned from marriage? Should everyone be forced to read the marriage contract and take a comprehension test on it? My point is that if sexuality is protected by the equal protection clause, than why not other sexualities? I think your argument is logically consistent though, and I agree about consent. My point is why can't animals even enter into a civil union with someone? Why can't a man legally leave his belongings to his pet dog under some form of contract? Why is it ok to discriminate on other sexualities but homosexuality gets a pass?I believe that if you can prove that horses and blow up dolls are capable of understanding legal contracts, and capable of understanding the implications of them, then that would be a HUGE step towards the government granting them adult personhood rights to enter into contracts.
I stated before, if it's about consent I agree with you. However, is it wrong to discriminate against other sexualities and not give them some form of union that is on par with that sexualities union? I concede that you are right in the consent issue. And it's foolish of me to argue otherwiseIt's not a moral stance or belief so much as a scientific one. Prove that blowup dolls are capable of understanding contracts and their legal implications and there ya go! You'll have your new bride. Morality has nothing to do with it.
So, once more... this is about GENDER, not sexual orientation. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you? No one asks you your sexual orientation when you get a marriage license.
Fair enough, sorry for a false accusationYour morality can certainly influence your vote. I never said it couldn't.
Yes they are, the state is taking a moral stance that homosexual unions are just as much a marriage as a traditional heterosexual one. The state would be acting upon a moral issue and taking a moral stance against the will and morals of the majority. I have said this before, there would be no legal recourse or complaint if the majority voted for a marriage definition hat included same sex relationships. The state would be imposing one moral stance as superior to the other. That is absolutely imposing morals upon an entire society.No one is imposing morality on YOU. YOU are not required to marry a homosexual. If your morality is offended by others marrying homosexuals, tough ****. You have no right to NOT be offended.
Here is an essay that was written and is backed up by numerous scientific sources that states that homosexuality may develop due to sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. http://www.home60515.com/3.htmlIf biased clinical studies mean nothing to you, than everything you just stated is irrelevant. Prove your assertions with those studies and we'll see just how valid they are.
You keep trying to make this about morality. It has nothing to do with morality. We live in a Consitutional Republic. That means the law of the land and the ulimate will of the people is the Federal Constitution. A state is perfectly entitled to legistlate morality. However, a state cannot legistlate morality in a way that violates the Federal Consitution. The judge found that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the Federal Consitution. Therefore he overturned Prop 8.
Here is an essay that was written and is backed up by numerous scientific sources that states that homosexuality may develop due to sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?
Then you have to let everyone in under that general finding. Every alternative lifestyle dealing with people. Nothing could be exempt.
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?