Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[g5000]

BUT you should not be allowed to marry your sibling right? Even if both of you are adults and it is consensual? And since multiple marriage is illegal when do you plan to protest THAT violation ( according to your theory) of their Civil Rights?

Incest is not legal because of specific genetic risks. What is the specific risk to society of homosexual marriage?

Personally, I don't give a shit about polygamy if it is between consenting adults.

The incest claim is horse shit. There are people in the gene pool that carry defects that have a 50 percent chance to occur if they breed, and a 100 percent chance if they breed with someone with the same defect. Once again the incident of defect in a first generation incest relationship are nearly zero. And the chance that the offspring of an incestuous couple would grow up and marry each other is, according to you guys and your theory that what the parents do as a couple has no bearing, almost no chance of occurring.

You are the one who brought up incest. If that is not a slippery slope fallacy, then answer the question and stop being such a pussy: Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

 

[bodecea]

The libertarian embraces the Bill of Rights and more specifically the Tenth Amendment.

Meanwhile....the Libertarian ignores the 14th amendment

Meanwhile 10 is before 14...

Amendments XI-XXVII are redundant..

Wait.....are you saying that the ORDER in which amendments appear give some more importance than others?

 

[Mr.Nick]

In that case, Marriage has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with having children. It is a legal contract between two consenting adults

So, why shouldn't it apply to adults of the same sex?

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

perhaps you should go live in a theocracy then. i wasn't aware government is supposed to legislate against sin.

In what universe is the answer my belief???

I'm a libertarian...

 

[Political Junky]

Since marriage is a religious institution shouldn't it be up to the various religions to define marriage for themselves? Government, state or federal, should have no say in the matter either way. It seems to me that if Mormons wanted to define marriage one way, and Catholics wanted to define it another way then who is anybody else to get involved and stop them?

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal one. One must obtain a marriage license, then can be wed at a court house or anywhere.

 

[g5000]

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

Yes we did. Are you saying that if a group is a minority, they just have to suck it up if the majority votes away their civil rights?

OK, I've got no horse in this race, but I am interested in how marriage qualifies as a civil right?

Equal treatment under the law qualifies as a civil right. It's right there in the Constitution.

This apparently needs to be pounded into some heads.

 

[jillian]

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

perhaps you should go live in a theocracy then. i wasn't aware government is supposed to legislate against sin.

In what universe is the answer my belief???

I'm a libertarian...

your answer didn't imply that.

and iirc, you're anti-choice, which means you aren't a libertarian.

 

[g5000]

Since marriage is a religious institution shouldn't it be up to the various religions to define marriage for themselves? Government, state or federal, should have no say in the matter either way. It seems to me that if Mormons wanted to define marriage one way, and Catholics wanted to define it another way then who is anybody else to get involved and stop them?

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal one. One must obtain a marriage license, then can be wed at a court house or anywhere.

Just to clarify: one must obtain a marriage license if one wants to collect the government's cash and prizes for being married. That's the law. And since this is about equal protection under the law, gays should have equal protection under the marriage laws.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incest is not legal because of specific genetic risks. What is the specific risk to society of homosexual marriage?

Personally, I don't give a shit about polygamy if it is between consenting adults.

The incest claim is horse shit. There are people in the gene pool that carry defects that have a 50 percent chance to occur if they breed, and a 100 percent chance if they breed with someone with the same defect. Once again the incident of defect in a first generation incest relationship are nearly zero. And the chance that the offspring of an incestuous couple would grow up and marry each other is, according to you guys and your theory that what the parents do as a couple has no bearing, almost no chance of occurring.

You are the one who brought up incest. If that is not a slippery slope fallacy, then answer the question and stop being such a pussy: Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

You are the one that argues that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is not the business of the Government, YES? You further argue that same sex marriages are a civil right because the Government has no right to legislate sexual conduct between 2 consenting adults. YES?

Are these fair assessment of your position?

 

[rightwinger]

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

Hey Libertarian......read your Constitution

I keep one in my back pocket...

Very good...

Now, look for the amendment that starts......... Congress shall pass no laws...

 

[bodecea]

Polygamy invariably means one man, more than one woman. It never means one woman, several men.

And so women end up subordinated to men. So that is harm #1.

Through the basics of math, available women for marriage become more and more scarce, which inevitably leads to female children being forced into marriage. It is also very common for incestous marriages to occur for the same reasons. So that is harm #2 and harm #3.

The slippery slope argument fails.

Really... polygamy invariably means one man and many women?

actually, yes. iirc, polygyny is one woman, multiple men.

Nope, it has another name.

 

[jillian]

Since marriage is a religious institution shouldn't it be up to the various religions to define marriage for themselves? Government, state or federal, should have no say in the matter either way. It seems to me that if Mormons wanted to define marriage one way, and Catholics wanted to define it another way then who is anybody else to get involved and stop them?

hi kevin. marriage ISN'T a religious institution. it was always one belonging to the state to determine property rights. there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that come with the status of being maried.

religious institutions only have those rights to perform marriages as are vested in them by the state.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes we did. Are you saying that if a group is a minority, they just have to suck it up if the majority votes away their civil rights?

OK, I've got no horse in this race, but I am interested in how marriage qualifies as a civil right?

Equal treatment under the law qualifies as a civil right. It's right there in the Constitution.

This apparently needs to be pounded into some heads.

You say this and then say that two consenting adults that happen to be related CAN be discriminated against. Which is it?

 

[bodecea]

meanwhile 10 is before 14...

Amendments xi-xxvii are redundant..

you can't much more stupid than this..

in what universe was gay marriage/civil unions illegal in the first place?

This Universe.

In what universe were woman forbidden to vote in the first place.

This Universe.

In what universe was slavery legal in the first place???

This Universe.

So why the fuck would someone write an amendment that protects individuals that were already protected???

Redundancy....

So...what Universe are YOU from?

 

[jillian]

Really... polygamy invariably means one man and many women?

actually, yes. iirc, polygyny is one woman, multiple men.

Nope, it has another name.

you are correct, ma'am. i just double checked. it's Polyandry

 

[g5000]

IF as you claim, Gays have a Civil Right to marry, then I see no other possible outcome. IT either is or is not a Civil Right. Same with multiple marriages.

You and all that argue the 2 consenting adults part have seen to it. Exactly WHY can government prevent 3 consenting adults from doing what 2 are allowed? I mean you insist it is a Civil Right. RIGHT?

We'll put the slippery slope fallacy aside and continue: Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

IS IT A CIVIL RIGHT OR NOT? I have no need to answer your question other then to say if as you claim it is a civil right you MUST also agree to incest relationships between consenting adults.

And IF that is the ruling, then the absolute right thing to do LEGALLY and according to the Constitution, would be to make them legal.

It is illogical to claim one must make a harmful practice legal because a harmless one has been made legal. That would be the slippery slope fallacy.

Thus the corner you have painted yourself into. Since you insist incest must be made legal if gay marriage is made legal, and you don't want to be illogical, they must either both be harmless or both be harmful for your argument to be logically consistent.

So which is it?

Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

 

[Mr.Nick]

perhaps you should go live in a theocracy then. i wasn't aware government is supposed to legislate against sin.

In what universe is the answer my belief???

I'm a libertarian...

your answer didn't imply that.

and iirc, you're anti-choice, which means you aren't a libertarian.

Because I don't support murder?

Oh I am a fucking libertarian - the child has rights as well.

A fetus is NOT a body part - the child is an individual..

You don't have the right to murder an individual, or impede an individual of the right to live.

I am a libertarian...

 

[bodecea]

There is no doubt that we will follow Europe and Scandanavia into a wholly depraved sexually licentious culture. If islam lets us live that long.

1. Scandanavia is IN Europe.

2. What's wrong with Europe?

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage has nothing to do with love...

Legal documents can't love one another....

That is some of the dumbest shit ever...

Marriage is a legal document and idea - in the US at least.

In that case, Marriage has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with having children. It is a legal contract between two consenting adults

So, why shouldn't it apply to adults of the same sex?

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

How very Taliban if you...

 

[bodecea]

Geez, some people will feign incredible levels of stupidty and ignorance to defend their logical fallacies.

Inbreeding is the reproduction from the mating of two genetically related parents. Inbreeding results in increased homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population, which is called inbreeding depression.

Livestock breeders often practice controlled breeding to eliminate undesirable characteristics within a population, which is also coupled with culling of what is considered unfit offspring, especially when trying to establish a new and desirable trait in the stock.

Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality
Slower growth rate
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function

Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty of scientific publication cites at the bottom of the link.

And if you are worried about the health of a society why would you allow gays to marry? They can NOT BREED at all.

Once again as a society and as a Government we do not test for nor prevent people with KNOWN defects from marrying or breeding, why suddenly is a little in family breeding a problem? I mean after all what would the percentage of siblings marrying be? And what are the chances their offspring would marry and breed with each other?

You have no argument.

Let me go tell our daughter she doesn't exist. Let me go tell all the children of gay couples they don't exist.

You have spoken.

 

[g5000]

OK, I've got no horse in this race, but I am interested in how marriage qualifies as a civil right?

Equal treatment under the law qualifies as a civil right. It's right there in the Constitution.

This apparently needs to be pounded into some heads.

You say this and then say that two consenting adults that happen to be related CAN be discriminated against. Which is it?

So you are saying incest is as harmless as gay marriage?

Otherwise, you are being logically inconsistent. You cannot justify legalizing a harmful practice just because a harmless one is legal.

I am very curious why you brought up incest. Do you believe it to be harmless?