Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

[Nosmo King]

But what if they are in love and want to have sex together and be married that way? Like what I saw just today..

Marriage is a legal contract. LEGAL CONTRACT!

Love, sex, incest, what have you is not germane to the discussion of contract law. You can 'but what if...' all day, so long as it concerns the state licensed institution provided in the legal contract.

In California, the state licensing forbids marriage between other than a man and a woman because that's what the constitution there still says to this very minute is only legal. So strictly, contractually speaking in the driest interpretation of law, gay marriage is illegal in California. Only sedition of rogue officials and emotions are saying it's "legal" there..

And since the emotions saying "gay marriage is legal" in places where it patently is not, what stops the emotion of other adults in love who don't fit the one man one woman not related laws? Answer: nothing. Because the yardstick used for this sedition is "do not deny consenting adults in love the "right" of marriage". And that yardstick doesn't arbitrarily stop at just people in the church of LGBT...

If laws were not intended to be changed, amended or abandoned, there would not be the means to do so incorporated in our system of jurisprudence. Should Alabama or Mississippi abandon Jim Crow due to 'emotional' pressure, or was it the right thing to do? Right to respect the rights of all their citizens, right to respect the rights of all Americans?

What possible legal justification is there to continue to repress tax paying citizens who are not committing any crime simply by being different from others?

 

[Silhouette]

If laws were not intended to be changed, amended or abandoned, there would not be the means to do so incorporated in our system of jurisprudence. Should Alabama or Mississippi abandon Jim Crow due to 'emotional' pressure, or was it the right thing to do? Right to respect the rights of all their citizens, right to respect the rights of all Americans?

What possible legal justification is there to continue to repress tax paying citizens who are not committing any crime simply by being different from others?

The US Supreme Court just ruled, the final say I might add until and if they change their mind, that gay marriage is up to each individual sovereign state to determine for itself via a consensus, retroactive to the founding of the country.

Changing the law outside that proclamation is sedition. Case closed. No lower entity may overrule the US Supreme Court's finding in Windsor as such last Summer except the US Supreme Court itself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If laws were not intended to be changed, amended or abandoned, there would not be the means to do so incorporated in our system of jurisprudence. Should Alabama or Mississippi abandon Jim Crow due to 'emotional' pressure, or was it the right thing to do? Right to respect the rights of all their citizens, right to respect the rights of all Americans?

What possible legal justification is there to continue to repress tax paying citizens who are not committing any crime simply by being different from others?

The US Supreme Court just ruled, the final say I might add until and if they change their mind, that gay marriage is up to each individual sovereign state to determine for itself via a consensus, retroactive to the founding of the country.

Changing the law outside that proclamation is sedition. Case closed. No lower entity may overrule the US Supreme Court's finding in Windsor as such last Summer except the US Supreme Court itself.

What do they call the land you live in, Milkwood?

 

[Londoner]

Congratulations. This is the dumbest fucking thread I have ever read.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Congratulations. This is the dumbest fucking thread I have ever read.

It's a dumb nation so no shock there. Try the Dancing with the Stars thread. People love that.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, discussing potential and real legal precedents on the eve of possibly shoving through the unexamined ramifications of "gay marriage" is really "dumb". So much for our legal system..

 

[JakeStarkey]

But you can marry your child when he or she is of age right? I mean, they can consent after all...

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

That is excluded by the 14th, as is marriage between blood kin.

Step along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I noticed the OP's link is "Right-Wing Watch", I didn't even waste the time to click the link. No objectivity there, that's for sure, just another hactivist idealogue site.

It is most interesting communist zealots like hazlnut and Jake "The Fake" Starkey are so panicked about Bevin, they are going with attacks on Bevin in hopes it can persuade people to vote for that big government commie, Mitch McConjob. I know exactly what is going on here, commies like Jake and hazlnut are hoping McConjob wins because it gives the Democrat candidate a better chance of winning. Oh, here is a little something to back what I believe on this matter:

Democrats, for once, are rooting for McConnell in Senate primary | TheHill

As I close this out, is it just me, or does Mitch McConjob look and sound like the result of a genetic mutation experiment that went drastically wrong?

Matt Bevin suffers cognitive dysfunctionalism.

The issue is consent of adults. Children can't consent.

You suffer from pathological lying syndrome, as evidenced by your multitude of posts in which you lie about being a Republican. I would also diagnose you as having a severe inferiority complex, anyone who has to lie like you do in a political forum for blatant deception clearly has a long list of issues with words that have a lot of letters in them and are difficult to pronounce.

I have a suggestion for you Jake, how about start now by ending your lying, that way if you have any decency about you; you will hopefully make a New Year's resolution to quit lying about being a Republican and will be able to follow through with it.

Says the pathetic, pathological liar, lockejaw, who not know a commie if she came up and bit him on the dick.

We in the mainstream GOP will not permit that type of slime to ruin our chances in elections anymore.

The Texas primaries were a start where the TeaP candidates got their asses handed to them.

That will happen all season long.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you believe consenting adults should be allowed to marry, than it has to include parents being allowed to marry adult children. Otherwise, consent is no longer the standard, the justification for advocating same sex couples having the ability to attain marriage licenses.

The standard becomes arbitrary, based on what you feel is "icky" or "immoral". So in reality you would be imposing your morality through law, it is just a different moral code than that of a Christian who opposes same sex marriage.

Stop the demagoguery, tintype.

Your objection was examined, competently rebutted, and denied.

So, you don't get "just once more."

 

[JakeStarkey]

"So strictly, contractually speaking in the driest interpretation of law, gay marriage is illegal in California. Only sedition of rogue officials and emotions are saying it's "legal" there."

Already examined and competently rebutted.

So you don't get "just once more."

 

[Steinlight]

Marriage, for the purposes of this discussion is contract law. The state issues licenses to two individuals to enter the contract through which a new entity is established. That new entity is the legal conjoining of the two individuals. Because it is a legal contract, the state also provides a legal manner to break the contract. That's called divorce court.

Contact law requires al parties involved be consenting to the provisions of the contract, that they beof age of majority, and they have no previous blood relationship because marriage establishes such a relationship.

What possible reason would the state have to exclude sober, responsible adults from accessing contracts? So long as the provisions of age, consent and no prior blood relationship are maintained, excluding citizens from the legal protections provided through the state under legal contracts.

I don't think they are necessary, like you said that marrying your adult children isn't necessary.

Also, what if the adult child isn't your blood, is your adopted child, is that type of marriage necessary?

Adoption, by definition, establishes a blood relationship.

As to the necessity of same sex marriage, consider the rights of the homosexuals desiring to enter into the marriage contract. Why would you think that denying tax paying, sober, responsible, consenting adult American citizens should not have access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract? Because you disapprove of their lifestyle? Is that reason enough to repress and exclude citizens from contracts?

Social Conservatives rail against same sex marriage, but aside from their personal hang ups over someone else's lives, they have yet to proffer a legitimate reason why same sex marriage should be excluded through law.

Ok, so you can't marry your adopted adult children. So your standard isn't consent between adults. Your standard is your moral code. You find incest morally impermissible in that you don't think such relationships should be codified into law through civil marriage licenses.

This is how I feel about homosexuality as well. I think sodomy and homosexual relations should be permitted. However I do find it morally abhorrent and do not believe homosexual relations should be codified into law.

I also think they are counterintuitive in that they promote the opposite of what a nation's government should promote, that is survival through continued procreation.

A state should promote procreation amongst it's citizens, the most stable environment for a child to grow up in is a two parent heterosexual household. Since only men and women can procreate, only men and women can form nuclear families. The state ought to act in promoting the continuation and survival of the nuclear family.

 

[Steinlight]

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

That is excluded by the 14th, as is marriage between blood kin.

Step along.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexuality or incest.

The issue here is your hypocrisy. You claim that men should be able to marry men, and women marry women, because they are consenting adults. However, when we take this to the next step, allowing adult children to marry their parents, the standard of consent no longer applies. And you are engaging in moralizing against incestuous couples, the kind moralizing you condemn amongst homosexual couples.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe the consensus of conservative thinking around here, all that a man and daughter would have to do is claim that such a marriage between them is part of their religious beliefs,

and therefore protected by the Constitution.

Isn't that exactly what the those who support gay marriage do?

I'm not aware of gay marriage advocates claiming it's a 1st amendment right of religious exercise.

In other words marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and woman. Therefore marriage so defined can not be restricted in in interracial marriage that would be a civil rights violation as defined by law.

No it hasn't. If that claim is vital to your argument, your argument just died.

 

[Nosmo King]

If laws were not intended to be changed, amended or abandoned, there would not be the means to do so incorporated in our system of jurisprudence. Should Alabama or Mississippi abandon Jim Crow due to 'emotional' pressure, or was it the right thing to do? Right to respect the rights of all their citizens, right to respect the rights of all Americans?

What possible legal justification is there to continue to repress tax paying citizens who are not committing any crime simply by being different from others?

The US Supreme Court just ruled, the final say I might add until and if they change their mind, that gay marriage is up to each individual sovereign state to determine for itself via a consensus, retroactive to the founding of the country.

Changing the law outside that proclamation is sedition. Case closed. No lower entity may overrule the US Supreme Court's finding in Windsor as such last Summer except the US Supreme Court itself.

What do they call the land you live in, Milkwood?

The land I live I is the United States of America. The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. And land that was founded on the experiment of liberty and the concept of equal justice under law and then matured into the greatest nation on the planet, the beacon of freedom in a repressive world.

I'm a straight and happy man in all senses of the words. And I am an American who believes in equal rights for all.

If homosexuality is not in itself a criminal offense; if the homosexuals aren't plotting the violent overthrow of the government, yet volunteering to serve our country in times of war and peace, if they pay their taxes, I honestly can't understand why homosexuals should be excluded from anything every other American takes for granted.

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexuality or incest.

The issue here is your hypocrisy. You claim that men should be able to marry men, and women marry women, because they are consenting adults. However, when we take this to the next step, allowing adult children to marry their parents, the standard of consent no longer applies. And you are engaging in moralizing against incestuous couples, the kind moralizing you condemn amongst homosexual couples.

BINGO!

 

[hazlnut]

Homophobia is the mental disorder.

Homosexual is the naturally occurring sexual orientation present in many species including man.

 

[1751_Texan]

I hope not...On the other hand if you're adult = you should have the right to marry other adults!

Right now, brothers and sisters cannot marry. Fathers and daughters cannot.

But incest is the new gay.

In the 60's, the move was for acceptance of homosexual. In the 90's, the move was for normalization of homosexuals. Now, the open promotion of homosexuality is everywhere.

Incest is following the same pastern - we currently are in the acceptance stage, with Hollywood showing nice portrayals of healthy incest for us all, so that we can learn that incest is just another choice.

Just as SSM if you don't wish to marry your opposite sex does not mean you have to. Just as with incest, if you dont want to screw your adult child, don't.

Do adults engaged in incest now effect your marriage? If so how?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Incest is the new gay"?

40 years off.

What a stupid notion to posit!

Incest at this moment is treated by Hollywood EXACTLY as homosexuality was 40 years ago. We are in the acceptance conditioning phase.

Incest does not mean consensual sex. It is not sex between adults.

????

Of course it is.

Incest is responsible for emotional damage that lasts a lifetime. None of those despicable qualities are applicable to homosexuality.

Remember, the key words are "consensual" "adult" and "emotional damage".

Again, just as with homosexuality, incest is being normalized. It won't be glorified for a couple of decades, but already Hollywood is featuring incest in shows like Dexter, The Bourgas, Boardwalk Empire, the L.A. Complex, etc.

In all these cases, the participants are "consenting adults." Just as with homosexuality, child sex is not featured or promoted, though in both incest and homosexuality, it is fairly common.

Brother sister sex is what Hollywood is promoting.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Homophobia is the mental disorder.

Homosexual is the naturally occurring sexual orientation present in many species including man.

LOL, so this is the next iteration. So if it's natural have you done it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ignorant nonsense and rightist demagoguery.

Oh good, I was hoping a personal injury attorney would weigh in....

Marriage law is written to accommodate only two equal partners, same- or opposite sex couples. Consequently no one is seeking to ‘change’ or ‘redefine’ marriage law – the marriage contract law same-sex couples access is identical to the marriage contract law opposite-sex couples access.

Marriage law has already been discarded and replaced with federal law accommodating homosexuality.

It took about 40 years to accomplish. Incest is several decades off, but will absolutely be normalized and celebrated.

Allowing same-sex couples to access the marriage law they’re already eligible to participate in will have no effect on current prohibitions with regard to marriage and incest, or ‘plural marriage,’ or any other lawful, appropriate restrictions.

That's pretty fucking stupid to claim, Saul.

Two or more consenting adults. Oh and Saul, polygamy has already been legalized. Maybe you should make friends with a lawyer who can keep you apprised of the law....