If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Silhouette]

And Syriusly won't answer. But she'll spam pages away until you forget you asked her.

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

 

[Pop23]

And she won't answer. But she'll spam pages away until you forget you asked her.

That's why I put it in my signature.

 

[Syriusly]

And Syriusly won't answer. But she'll spam pages away until you forget you asked her.

Oh hey look- its Silly.

Didn't you forget something- like telling everyone how the gays forced the Pope to resign or how Roof killed all those black church goers because he was gay?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

Oh, I agree.

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

Now they do.

And, the same reasoning applies. And, I am glad the Court did extend marriage to same-sex couples.

My only complaint is their politically-motivated, statist reach-around method of getting there, when “marriage is a contract” would have taken care of ALL that shit and left government out of the fucking loop.

YEP. But they want a fairy tale that simply does not exist and they are too damn vain to admit it.

We are not going to talk about Christians at the moment.

 

[Pop23]

It eliminated any pretense to marriage and procreation. So, yes it did.

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

Playing Coy now? Ain't you cute.

Supply the answers to the questions asked first, then we can work backwards if you want. And quit your damn running, it's cowardly.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Pop23]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

Oh, I agree.

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

Now they do.

And, the same reasoning applies. And, I am glad the Court did extend marriage to same-sex couples.

My only complaint is their politically-motivated, statist reach-around method of getting there, when “marriage is a contract” would have taken care of ALL that shit and left government out of the fucking loop.

YEP. But they want a fairy tale that simply does not exist and they are too damn vain to admit it.

We are not going to talk about Christians at the moment.

Sure

"neither of those Christians or non Christians can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Better

 

[Pop23]

Guess I was right all along. Obergfell did open the door to Plural and Incestuous Marriage,

If not, these would be easy to answer:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[buttercup]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, fuck everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There were two other cases- one was about state regulations that denied inmates marriage and another that denied marriage to people who owed child support.

Marrying an inmate in prison isn't exactly 'traditional marriage' either.

Those are both different situations all together, and neither had anything to do with extending marriage rights.

Inmates have lost many of their liberties. That's what prison is. Loss of liberty. So, yes, a state does have a compelling interest in denying marriage to inmates.

States have a VERY compelling interest in securing support for a child. Thus, denying or revoking state-issued licenses to people who owe child support is a proper measure to compel payment. They do it all the time, including driver's licenses, law licenses, fishing, engineering licenses, etc.

Despite my objection to needing a license to marry, it is a license issued by the state, and a state has a compelling interest in using that license to compel support for a child.

One could argue that sister-banging COULD result in genetically defective offspring, but wait? Marriage is NOT NECESSARILY about procreation (Obergefell) and people can still sister-bang without marriage, so there goes that compelling state interest.

There is, exactly ZERO compelling state interest in denying polygamy. NONE.

But, once again, WHY THE FUCK DOES THE STATE get to decide ANY of this shit?

"Marriage is a contract."

 

[Syriusly]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied..

Mostly I refuse to get into this "well if we let two men marry then we have to let two sisters marry' for the same reason I would refuse to get into "well if we let a black man marry a white woman' then we have to let a man marry three women" arguments.

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

No, this is what happens when people use government to control others.

Marriage ONLY became a government function when a black person wanted to marry a white person and racist motherfuckers wanted to stop it, SO THEY USED GOVERNMENT FORCE to do so.

EVERY MOTHERFUCKING TIME. we end up in this bullshit because people are selfish twats.

Government is AGAIN the problem.

 

[buttercup]

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

No, this is what happens when people use government to control others.

Marriage ONLY became a government function when a black person wanted to marry a white person and racist motherfuckers wanted to stop it, SO THEY USED GOVERNMENT FORCE to do so.

EVERY MOTHERFUCKING TIME. we end up in this bullshit because people are selfish twats.

Government is AGAIN the problem.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that… I'm just looking at this whole thing from a different angle. You guys have been focused solely on the legal side of it. To me what is more interesting and important is not the legal side of it, but the actual truth of it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Uh huh. "There are differences between the sexes, but they don't actually affect anything."

Brilliant.

Well, they don't affect child development, according to some research.

Again, research that sets the conclusion it wants and then looks for evidence to support it.

There has been a deluge of research lately that has shown how essential fathers/male role models are. Not just "a parent figure": a MALE parent figure. If sex differences are so irrelevant to child rearing, why is it that MEN are necessary?

Weird that in this "deluge" of research, you've provided none of it.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents."

Indeed, there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents, according to the study. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.

However, like two heterosexual parents, new parenthood among lesbians increased stress and conflict, exacerbated by general lack of legal recognition of commitment. Also, lesbian biological mothers typically assumed greater caregiving responsibility than their partners, reflecting inequities among heterosexual couples.

"The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.
​

Do children need both a mother and a father?

How sick and silly. Yes, I know that left-wing social scientists and other lefties have recently been producing "studies" to try to counteract the hundreds of studies that show that children do best when raised by a mom and a dad.

Anyone not drinking liberal kool-aid knows from their own life experience that there is certain nurturing that only a dad can give and certain nurturing that only a mom can give. One reason for that is that male and female brains are designed differently.

 

[Syriusly]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, fuck everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Oh Buttercup. You disappoint me.

There is no law which prevents pedophiles from marrying- there are laws which prevent adults from marrying children(though who is a child is something that has changed back and forth over time).

What marriage is defined as has changed both inside the United States and outside.

Polygamous marriage was legal in the United States for a short time- and polygamous marriage through human history was quite common.

In the United States though we changed the definition of marriage to make it only one man and one woman.

And that woman? She was chattel- she became property of her husband.

And in some cases it was illegal to marry someone of a different race.

Much about marriage has changed in the last two hundred years- and there is nothing about recognizing the equal rights of homosexual couples that means that we need to allow child molesters to marry kids.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

No, this is what happens when people use government to control others.

Marriage ONLY became a government function when a black person wanted to marry a white person and racist motherfuckers wanted to stop it, SO THEY USED GOVERNMENT FORCE to do so.

EVERY MOTHERFUCKING TIME. we end up in this bullshit because people are selfish twats.

Government is AGAIN the problem.

I agree. Statist craphats should stop trying to force people to submit to government oversight of their sexual unions.

It isn't the government that makes a marriage, a marriage. A marriage is a contract between two people and God..and their community, if they so desire.

It requires no license, no oversight, no permission from anybody.

And whatever weird thing that fags are doing with government licenses...that's something different. Not marriage. Just licensing. Like we do dogs.

 

[Syriusly]

There were two other cases- one was about state regulations that denied inmates marriage and another that denied marriage to people who owed child support.

Marrying an inmate in prison isn't exactly 'traditional marriage' either.

Those are both different situations all together, and neither had anything to do with extending marriage rights.

Inmates have lost many of their liberties. That's what prison is. Loss of liberty. So, yes, a state does have a compelling interest in denying marriage to inmates.

States have a VERY compelling interest in securing support for a child. Thus, denying or revoking state-issued licenses to people who owe child support is a proper measure to compel payment. They do it all the time, including driver's licenses, law licenses, fishing, engineering licenses, etc.

LOL- the states lost both of those cases- and neither of those cases were about 'extending' rights - but recognizing constitutional rights.

No- the state could not come up with a compelling reason to deny an inmate marriage- they can deny the inmate mail- they can deny him conjugal visits- but not marriage.

Same with the issue of child support.

Americans have a right to marry- the states can only deny those rights if the state has a compelling reason.

 

[Syriusly]

Uh huh. "There are differences between the sexes, but they don't actually affect anything."

Brilliant.

Well, they don't affect child development, according to some research.

Again, research that sets the conclusion it wants and then looks for evidence to support it.

There has been a deluge of research lately that has shown how essential fathers/male role models are. Not just "a parent figure": a MALE parent figure. If sex differences are so irrelevant to child rearing, why is it that MEN are necessary?

Weird that in this "deluge" of research, you've provided none of it.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents."

Indeed, there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents, according to the study. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.

However, like two heterosexual parents, new parenthood among lesbians increased stress and conflict, exacerbated by general lack of legal recognition of commitment. Also, lesbian biological mothers typically assumed greater caregiving responsibility than their partners, reflecting inequities among heterosexual couples.

"The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.
​

Do children need both a mother and a father?

How sick and silly. Yes, I know that left-wing social scientists and other lefties have recently been producing "studies" to try to counteract the hundreds of studies that show that children do best when raised by a mom and a dad.

'hundreds of studies' that Mikey has never read or seen.....lol

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

 

[buttercup]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, fuck everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Oh Buttercup. You disappoint me.

There is no law which prevents pedophiles from marrying- there are laws which prevent adults from marrying children(though who is a child is something that has changed back and forth over time).

What marriage is defined as has changed both inside the United States and outside.

Polygamous marriage was legal in the United States for a short time- and polygamous marriage through human history was quite common.

In the United States though we changed the definition of marriage to make it only one man and one woman.

And that woman? She was chattel- she became property of her husband.

And in some cases it was illegal to marry someone of a different race.

Much about marriage has changed in the last two hundred years- and there is nothing about recognizing the equal rights of homosexual couples that means that we need to allow child molesters to marry kids.

I think you completely missed my point. I'm not sure what you thought I was saying, but my view is that marriage has an actual definition… an objectively true definition that is timeless, it doesn't change. I do understand how some people can't wrap their minds around that, especially if you're an atheist.