And few are doing so. Many people have explained why the two arguments are different, including why there is a difference in the possible harm caused by each. You have to include in the argument what the state's interest is in any discrimination.
In the case of incest, you can bring up the point of the state not wanting to encourage breeding of children who would have an increase in genetic defects and/or encourage relationships that could be psychologically harmful to one or both of those involved in the relationship.
Those who have argued against same sex marriage have yet to provide an argument that shows how the marriage alone could be harmful in some way like those who are arguing against incest. .
Also, another thing to consider is that incest is illegal in most states. We are not just talking about not allowing incest marriages here, but also changing laws on the legality of incest itself.
and yet the state does not prohibit marriage between unrelated individuals who have a higher risk of passing on genetic disorders. I have a cousin who's youngest child has williamson syndrome. they knew she was at risk for having a child with this disorder and the govt didn't prevent her from getting married and having kids. what's the difference?
incestuous marriage in and of itself is no more harmful than gay marriage. all they need to do is use BC or have one partner sterilzed and the "tarded baby" arguement goes out the window.
FWIW....sodomy is still illegal in many states. are you going to tell gays that they can get married but they can't have sex?
There is absolutely no need to refer to gay people by the perjorative "fag". Any legit argument you may have is drowned out by your obvious intent to inflame. Also, I may have my reservations about gay marriage, but I, in no way believe that gays are wanting or trying to destroy marriage. That makes no sense when gays are wanting to be a part of the institution you claim they wish to destroy. If you have nothing of substance to add, kindly take a hike.It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.
It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.
Fags trying to destroy the family?.
How convenient for you. The right to contract is being infringed upon by the government. But you don't see the coercion. Free of these laws, homosexuals would be able to be married. But you don't see the coercion. You, you and everyone else arguing against same sex marriage is arguing for government force against the rights and liberties of homosexuals. At least be man enough to admit what you're doing.
It's willful blindness and nothing else. But in free society we seek minimization of coercion. Seeing as the individual has right to contract. That the Marriage License is a contract issued and recognized by the government. The People have the right to engage in it at their leisure. It thus takes force to prevent that, and that force is being applied right now to keep same sex couples from obtaining the contract. That's what this all comes down to. You can cry about "trampling beliefs", but none of that is happening. I'm pretty sure we aren't calling for mandated gay marriage and everyone has to gay marry. Your beliefs get to remain intact. You are still free to marry as you like. By removing this coercion against the free exercise of rights, you do not incur a greater coercion. As such, there is no logical argument one can make under the current circumstances to justly argue against same sex marriage.
The "right to contract" is regulated in a number of ways. That's not convienient, thats truth, whether or not it has anything to do with SSM.
using that logic, only about 3% of the population is gay and not all of them want to get married, so there are really very few people that gay marriage personally affects. so why the big debate over an issue that affects only a small, small # of people?
but that was not the arguement.
but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.
The number of homosexuals reported in polls has long been considered questionable based on the social stigma of publicly admitting one is gay. And on top of that, there have been multiple studies done finding anywhere between 3% total to 5 to 8% in each gender. Beyond that however, the fact that this is a national hot button issue that comes up during federal campaigns, has resulted in votes in numerous states, and is routinely polled gives the distinct impression that while a small amount of the population is gay the notion of same sex marriage affects a large amount of people in this country.
Since there is not a large call or public outcry...and no where close to a 50/50 split on the issue...regarding incest and the number of people that engage in it is at the very least on par with the number of homosexuals and potentially significantly smaller. On top of that, the vast majority of participants are participating in it in an illegal way beyond simply the illegality of incest, as its individuals participating in it with minors which is an entirely different issue.
If Incest became such a significant issue that there was a legitimate national presence towards a discussion regarding the constitutionality of it, I would be more apt to take up the banner for debating it. As it stands however, there is very little national mindshare regarding it, there is very little evidence of any kind of substantial number of individuals choosing at a legal age to get involved in such, and there's no national discussion going on about it. As such, when it comes up I'll share my views, but it is not an issue that is of great importance in the country at this time. The same can not be said for same sex marriage.
IOW...equal rights are only equal rights if a sufficiently large # of people are affected. got it
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
but the main arguement for SSM is EQUAL RIGHTS for gays. I'm just saying it is hypocritical to bleat for equal rights for gays and then argue against equal rights for another group.
IOW...equal rights are only equal rights if a sufficiently large # of people are affected. got it
No? There's no pressure on the Catholic church to accept gay priests?
There are larger issues that affect more people and are more plausable to reach a conclussion in the near future then the issue of incest. That doesn't mean that the issue isn't legitimate, or worth while, what it does mean is that there's not enough time in a day, political capital in the world, or energy in me to debate EVERY SINGLE ISSUE AT ALL TIMES 24/7 A DAY on an internet message board.
No one is calling for government force against homosexuals, either. I don't agree that it is a right, so therefore, I obviosly don't see the coercion.
What is your scthick with equal rights?
When we talk about equal rights, we are talking about the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
That means we are talking about due process of law.
Which means the levels of scrutiny and protected classes.
Now I'm sure you meet lots of uneducated, dimwits who argue a vague notion of equality that would make Karl Marx and Alfred Kinsey proud, but that is generally not what people are talking about when they are talking about equal rights on this forum. Equal rights is a Constitutional argument. Not a cultural argument that all things in our culture must be equal.
the same can be said of gay marriage, but you seem to make the time to argue for it
got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest
got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest
Okay I have a challenge for you since you argue that it is comparable. Provide a Constitutional argument as strong as the one for gay marriage, to support polygamous marriages and incest marriages. If you can't, then I expect you to be intellectually honest about it and withdraw the comparison.
As strong as the one for gay marriage?
The government is required to provide equal protection under the law. Both adults in an incestuous relationship are full reasoned adults who are perfectly capable of entering into a contract. The government has no legitiamte interest to deny them the ability to enter into a marriage the same as non-incestuous couples except based on the argument that their offspring has a higher percentage of potentially having a genetic disorder.
Considering marriage:
- Doesn't require one to have children.
- Allows people with genetic disorders to get married and to have children
- Allows older women to get married and to have children
I don't think its rational to suggest that the government needs to ban incestuous couplings nor that it has an important interest in making sure married couples are ones who have a lower chance of producing genetically defective offspring.
Considering the argument for GAY marriage only meets the bottom teir of the equal protection clause, I think the argument for allowing incestuous marriages can defintiely be made just as strongly.
That said, we're veering farther and farther off topic with this.
And by got it you mean "look, i'm oscar and I refuse to read anything people say and continue to build strawmans".
When you want to act like an adult and actually debate and have a conversation, look me up.
My thoughts with regards to polygamists are in this thread. Got a problem with it, start another thread instead of attempting to thread jack this one.
My stance on Incest, which is that it should be legal, is also in this thread. My stance on why I don't talk about it as much as same sex marriage is in here as well. Got an issue with it, start your own thread and stop trying to thread jack this one.
Enough of your pathetic little games built on refusing to actually read what people say and purposefully taking singular sentences out of context to attempt and derail the conversation.
. Furthermore, there are other benefits to allowing people to marry outside of their family, such as increasing the sexual diversity of the population and bringing unrelated families together. Those benefits alone can serve as a state interest to deny incestuous marriages.
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?