Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[GreenBean]

Granted, this is strictly empirical, but all the gay people I know have heterosexual parents and all the adult kids of gay parents I know are straight...so if gay is a genetic defect according to Bean, isn't it the hets that are the carriers?

Genetic defects don't always show up in consecutive generations. If it is a genetic defect, it should be known so when one picks a mate they know the risk.

SeaBitch - I Never said GAY was Genetic, there is no Gay Gene. I agreed with YOU on another thread that there's a possibility that in some cases Gay men may have a concentration of enzymes in their brain that could be somewhat responsible for their sexual dysphoria - Homosexuality. Funny how you like to jump to both sides of the fence dependant on the topic at hand.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

That's not where any 'precedent' has been set. Some states allow first cousin marriage, some don't.

How would that be possible if a legal precedent against legal 'too closely related' marriages had been established?

And I'd be okay with some states marrying same sex couples and some not...as long as they were treated like 1st cousin or underage marriage. If a guy marries his 13 year old cousin in Alabama, it's still recognized in CA, but my legal marriage to my consenting adult same sex partner is not afforded the same privilege...thanks to what's left of DOMA.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

Wasn't there once a legal precedent that states had the right to prohibit interracial marriage?

Interracial males and females. The dynamics of the demographic group did not change.

Answer the questions in post 647 and let's see who's correct

I'm using your argument as proof

What compelling state interest is there to deny any group listed from a marriage license endorsed by the state or for the state to allow multiple licenses?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Seawytch]

Interracial males and females. The dynamics of the demographic group did not change.

Answer the questions in post 647 and let's see who's correct

I'm using your argument as proof

What compelling state interest is there to deny any group listed from a marriage license endorsed by the state or for the state to allow multiple licenses?

The dynamics certainly changed.

Incest by the sexual act alone is illegal in almost every state. Gay sex is not.

Why didn't the legalization of gay sex lead, via your slippery slope, to the legalization of incest?

The dynamic of a male to a female certainly did not change. Males interacted with females in exactly the same way, before and after.

The change was merely superficial.

Where did you find incest in my questions?

Your continued deflection indicates you are scared to answer them. Wonder why?

As evidenced by 17 states and the District of Columbia, that isn't the qualifying dynamic that equals civil marriage. Couplehood is...and it works just fine. No laws needed to change, just the words on some paperwork...that changes frequently anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

Granted, this is strictly empirical, but all the gay people I know have heterosexual parents and all the adult kids of gay parents I know are straight...so if gay is a genetic defect according to Bean, isn't it the hets that are the carriers?

Genetic defects don't always show up in consecutive generations. If it is a genetic defect, it should be known so when one picks a mate they know the risk.

SeaBitch - I Never said GAY was Genetic, there is no Gay Gene. I agreed with YOU on another thread that there's a possibility that in some cases Gay men may have a concentration of enzymes in their brain that could be somewhat responsible for their sexual dysphoria - Homosexuality. Funny how you like to jump to both sides of the fence dependant on the topic at hand.

Awww...look who gets all humor challenged when it suits him. Lighten up Francis, it was a joke...and it was funnier than any of yours because of the element of truth in it.

 

[Pop23]

The dynamics certainly changed.

Incest by the sexual act alone is illegal in almost every state. Gay sex is not.

Why didn't the legalization of gay sex lead, via your slippery slope, to the legalization of incest?

The dynamic of a male to a female certainly did not change. Males interacted with females in exactly the same way, before and after.

The change was merely superficial.

Where did you find incest in my questions?

Your continued deflection indicates you are scared to answer them. Wonder why?

As evidenced by 17 states and the District of Columbia, that isn't the qualifying dynamic that equals civil marriage. Couplehood is...and it works just fine. No laws needed to change, just the words on some paperwork...that changes frequently anyway.

Not just the words, but the partners within. Without the partners the words mean nothing.

Yet, you deflect, once you change a dynamic in one, you cannot argue that the dynamics of the others do not have equal merit.

Simply put, if the argument works for one, what are the arguments against the others?

You also argues that the words change often, so nothing stoping it from changing numbers, amount or relations.

Again, name the compelling state interest in denying any of these groups. If you can't then it is not a slippery slope, it is reality.

 

[Seawytch]

The dynamic of a male to a female certainly did not change. Males interacted with females in exactly the same way, before and after.

The change was merely superficial.

Where did you find incest in my questions?

Your continued deflection indicates you are scared to answer them. Wonder why?

As evidenced by 17 states and the District of Columbia, that isn't the qualifying dynamic that equals civil marriage. Couplehood is...and it works just fine. No laws needed to change, just the words on some paperwork...that changes frequently anyway.

Not just the words, but the partners within. Without the partners the words mean nothing.

Yet, you deflect, once you change a dynamic in one, you cannot argue that the dynamics of the others do not have equal merit.

Simply put, if the argument works for one, what are the arguments against the others?

You also argues that the words change often, so nothing stoping it from changing numbers, amount or relations.

Again, name the compelling state interest in denying any of these groups. If you can't then it is not a slippery slope, it is reality.

Gays have nothing to do with their arguments. It IS a slippery slope because they have nothing to do with each other. If you can't come up with a compelling state interest to deny them civil marriage, how is that the gays fault?

It isn't up to me to determine the merits or overriding harm of those relationships because I don't care. Whether polygamists or brothers and sisters decide they are going to challenge the legality of their relationships has no bearing on my life, my relationship or my marriage. I wish them the best of luck.

 

[Pop23]

As evidenced by 17 states and the District of Columbia, that isn't the qualifying dynamic that equals civil marriage. Couplehood is...and it works just fine. No laws needed to change, just the words on some paperwork...that changes frequently anyway.

Not just the words, but the partners within. Without the partners the words mean nothing.

Yet, you deflect, once you change a dynamic in one, you cannot argue that the dynamics of the others do not have equal merit.

Simply put, if the argument works for one, what are the arguments against the others?

You also argues that the words change often, so nothing stoping it from changing numbers, amount or relations.

Again, name the compelling state interest in denying any of these groups. If you can't then it is not a slippery slope, it is reality.

Gays have nothing to do with their arguments. It IS a slippery slope because they have nothing to do with each other. If you can't come up with a compelling state interest to deny them civil marriage, how is that the gays fault?

It isn't up to me to determine the merits or overriding harm of those relationships because I don't care. Whether polygamists or brothers and sisters decide they are going to challenge the legality of their relationships has no bearing on my life, my relationship or my marriage. I wish them the best of luck.

Yet you claim it as a slippery slope fallacy, when you seem to clearly see it as a reality.

History will not trace this back to a time when the dynamic was simply the inclusion of a superficial trait changed, maybe destroyed marriage, but one that changed the dynamic completely.

Sorry, I don't see this ending well

 

[KNB]

How does a gay marriage weaken a straight marriage?

 

[Pop23]

How does a gay marriage weaken a straight marriage?

It doesn't in and of itself, but by changing the meaning to the inclusion of everybody, which there is no compelling state reason to prohibit anyone, you destroy it. Married couples simply become everyone. I guess that's ok, I've argued that simply ending the practice as a state license makes as much sense as including everyone.

Did I answer your question.

It is, in effect, perfect equality.

 

[KNB]

How does a gay marriage weaken a straight marriage?

It doesn't in and of itself,

So you should stop right there.

but by changing the meaning to the inclusion of everybody, which there is no compelling state reason to prohibit anyone, you destroy it. Married couples simply become everyone. I guess that's ok, I've argued that simply ending the practice as a state license makes as much sense as including everyone.

Did I answer your question.

Not even close but I wasn't really expecting you to.

It is, in effect, perfect equality.

What is perfect equality? Discriminating against homosexual and lesbian couples through unconstitutional laws? No, that's not equality. That's actually the exact opposite of equality. It's discrimination against gay and lesbian couples through unconstitutional laws.

 

[Pop23]

How does a gay marriage weaken a straight marriage?

It doesn't in and of itself,

So you should stop right there.

but by changing the meaning to the inclusion of everybody, which there is no compelling state reason to prohibit anyone, you destroy it. Married couples simply become everyone. I guess that's ok, I've argued that simply ending the practice as a state license makes as much sense as including everyone.

Did I answer your question.

Not even close but I wasn't really expecting you to.

It is, in effect, perfect equality.

What is perfect equality? Discriminating against homosexual and lesbian couples through unconstitutional laws? No, that's not equality. That's actually the exact opposite of equality. It's discrimination against gay and lesbian couples through unconstitutional laws.

It's not up to me to stop anywhere. Not my call to do so.

If the courts decide there is no compelling state interest to deny same sex couples marriage license, a dramatic shift in the marriage dynamic, they would be compelled to use the same standard for poly, for multiple licenses and for individuals. Actually, it would take less of a dynamic change for poly or multiple license.

You can argue that I'm wrong as long as you like, you can't argue however that if the standard of "no compelling state interest" is true for one it must be true for all.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but it appears reality.

 

[KNB]

It's not up to me to stop anywhere. Not my call to do so.

It is our call for you to do so. We the People of the United States are asking you to stop. Gay marriage doesn't effect heterosexual marriage at all. You've admitted this. So please shut the fuck up.

If the courts decide there is no compelling state interest to deny same sex couples marriage license, a dramatic shift in the marriage dynamic, they would be compelled to use the same standard for poly, for multiple licenses and for individuals. Actually, it would take less of a dynamic change for poly or multiple license.

See? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Whatever you're trying to say is wrong. So again, please shut the fuck up. You're wrong. Just stop.

You can argue that I'm wrong as long as you like, you can't argue however that if the standard of "no compelling state interest" is true for one it must be true for all.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but it appears reality.

"No compelling state interest" to do what? To recognize gay marriages? The compelling state interest is that to do otherwise is to alienate and discriminate against an entire section of the population for absolutely no real reason. The compelling state interest is that every state which has attempted to adopt legislation which bans gay marriages from being officially recognized has had that decision reversed by the courts of the United States as unconstitutional. You said it yourself- gay marriage doesn't effect heterosexual marriages. Which of your own words do you not comprehend?

 

[Pop23]

It's not up to me to stop anywhere. Not my call to do so.

It is our call for you to do so. We the People of the United States are asking you to stop. Gay marriage doesn't effect heterosexual marriage at all. You've admitted this. So please shut the fuck up.

If the courts decide there is no compelling state interest to deny same sex couples marriage license, a dramatic shift in the marriage dynamic, they would be compelled to use the same standard for poly, for multiple licenses and for individuals. Actually, it would take less of a dynamic change for poly or multiple license.

See? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Whatever you're trying to say is wrong. So again, please shut the fuck up. You're wrong. Just stop.

You can argue that I'm wrong as long as you like, you can't argue however that if the standard of "no compelling state interest" is true for one it must be true for all.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but it appears reality.

"No compelling state interest" to do what? To recognize gay marriages? The compelling state interest is that to do otherwise is to alienate and discriminate against an entire section of the population for absolutely no real reason. The compelling state interest is that every state which has attempted to adopt legislation which bans gay marriages from being officially recognized has had that decision reversed by the courts of the United States as unconstitutional. You said it yourself- gay marriage doesn't effect heterosexual marriages. Which of your own words do you not comprehend?

Funny that you see my point completely, just can't admit it.

If one is true all must be true.

 

[Seawytch]

Not just the words, but the partners within. Without the partners the words mean nothing.

Yet, you deflect, once you change a dynamic in one, you cannot argue that the dynamics of the others do not have equal merit.

Simply put, if the argument works for one, what are the arguments against the others?

You also argues that the words change often, so nothing stoping it from changing numbers, amount or relations.

Again, name the compelling state interest in denying any of these groups. If you can't then it is not a slippery slope, it is reality.

Gays have nothing to do with their arguments. It IS a slippery slope because they have nothing to do with each other. If you can't come up with a compelling state interest to deny them civil marriage, how is that the gays fault?

It isn't up to me to determine the merits or overriding harm of those relationships because I don't care. Whether polygamists or brothers and sisters decide they are going to challenge the legality of their relationships has no bearing on my life, my relationship or my marriage. I wish them the best of luck.

Yet you claim it as a slippery slope fallacy, when you seem to clearly see it as a reality.

History will not trace this back to a time when the dynamic was simply the inclusion of a superficial trait changed, maybe destroyed marriage, but one that changed the dynamic completely.

Sorry, I don't see this ending well

It's not because one does not require the other and one does not necessarily lead to the other...this is where the slippery slope comes in. Just because I see no societal harm in consenting adult polygamy does not mean that none exists and that certainly does not mean that polygamy WILL BE legalized.

Marriage equality for gays does not mean polygamy WILL BE legalized. They have nothing to do with each other, understand?

Do you think that because we don't lock up drug offenders, they will commit murder?

 

[Pop23]

Gays have nothing to do with their arguments. It IS a slippery slope because they have nothing to do with each other. If you can't come up with a compelling state interest to deny them civil marriage, how is that the gays fault?

It isn't up to me to determine the merits or overriding harm of those relationships because I don't care. Whether polygamists or brothers and sisters decide they are going to challenge the legality of their relationships has no bearing on my life, my relationship or my marriage. I wish them the best of luck.

Yet you claim it as a slippery slope fallacy, when you seem to clearly see it as a reality.

History will not trace this back to a time when the dynamic was simply the inclusion of a superficial trait changed, maybe destroyed marriage, but one that changed the dynamic completely.

Sorry, I don't see this ending well

It's not because one does not require the other and one does not necessarily lead to the other...this is where the slippery slope comes in. Just because I see no societal harm in consenting adult polygamy does not mean that none exists and that certainly does not mean that polygamy WILL BE legalized.

Marriage equality for gays does not mean polygamy WILL BE legalized. They have nothing to do with each other, understand?

Do you think that because we don't lock up drug offenders, they will commit murder?

The arguments you make in favor of of SSM are exactly the same that any group can make.

1. You should be able to marry anyone you wish.
2. Procreation is not a requirement to marry
3. There is no compelling state interest to deny ( insert group here ) a marriage license.

Equality for all is all I seek, no matter if it makes marriage a moot point or not.

You could actually find the end of the rainbow and find the pot empty. Good job!

 

[Seawytch]

Yet you claim it as a slippery slope fallacy, when you seem to clearly see it as a reality.

History will not trace this back to a time when the dynamic was simply the inclusion of a superficial trait changed, maybe destroyed marriage, but one that changed the dynamic completely.

Sorry, I don't see this ending well

It's not because one does not require the other and one does not necessarily lead to the other...this is where the slippery slope comes in. Just because I see no societal harm in consenting adult polygamy does not mean that none exists and that certainly does not mean that polygamy WILL BE legalized.

Marriage equality for gays does not mean polygamy WILL BE legalized. They have nothing to do with each other, understand?

Do you think that because we don't lock up drug offenders, they will commit murder?

The arguments you make in favor of of SSM are exactly the same that any group can make.

1. You should be able to marry anyone you wish.
2. Procreation is not a requirement to marry
3. There is no compelling state interest to deny ( insert group here ) a marriage license.

Equality for all is all I seek, no matter if it makes marriage a moot point or not.

You could actually find the end of the rainbow and find the pot empty. Good job!

Yes, they can...but they don't need gays. Why don't you get that?

 

[mal]

It's not because one does not require the other and one does not necessarily lead to the other...this is where the slippery slope comes in. Just because I see no societal harm in consenting adult polygamy does not mean that none exists and that certainly does not mean that polygamy WILL BE legalized.

Marriage equality for gays does not mean polygamy WILL BE legalized. They have nothing to do with each other, understand?

Do you think that because we don't lock up drug offenders, they will commit murder?

The arguments you make in favor of of SSM are exactly the same that any group can make.

1. You should be able to marry anyone you wish.
2. Procreation is not a requirement to marry
3. There is no compelling state interest to deny ( insert group here ) a marriage license.

Equality for all is all I seek, no matter if it makes marriage a moot point or not.

You could actually find the end of the rainbow and find the pot empty. Good job!

Yes, they can...but they don't need gays. Why don't you get that?

You can't expand "Rights" to the exclusion of others... Gays will usher in Sibling Marriage... That's a Fact.

Siblings fall under EVERY Argument you make for Gay Marriage... That's a Fact.

Congrats for that, you are doing Society a GREAT Service with your Petulant Demands of Validation.



peace...

 

[Pop23]

It's not because one does not require the other and one does not necessarily lead to the other...this is where the slippery slope comes in. Just because I see no societal harm in consenting adult polygamy does not mean that none exists and that certainly does not mean that polygamy WILL BE legalized.

Marriage equality for gays does not mean polygamy WILL BE legalized. They have nothing to do with each other, understand?

Do you think that because we don't lock up drug offenders, they will commit murder?

The arguments you make in favor of of SSM are exactly the same that any group can make.

1. You should be able to marry anyone you wish.
2. Procreation is not a requirement to marry
3. There is no compelling state interest to deny ( insert group here ) a marriage license.

Equality for all is all I seek, no matter if it makes marriage a moot point or not.

You could actually find the end of the rainbow and find the pot empty. Good job!

Yes, they can...but they don't need gays. Why don't you get that?

You argue perception vs. reality?

Hope that works out for you. Not sure it will, but good luck

 

[KNB]

Only morons make the gigantic leap from "gay marriage" to "incest".

No one is arguing for incest, polygamy, or bestiality. That's only in your psychotic imagination; your own fear of the unknown. But it isn't going to happen because no one is arguing for it.