Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so.
Actually, bubba Oxford changed it some time before the SCOTUS ruling...I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so.
Yep, the SCOTUS thinking it can redefine what marriage is is almost as lunatic as the Indiana legislature trying to define Pi by law to be 3.2.
Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are no gay Christians.
Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?" What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise! What kind of drugs are you smoking these days? ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here. It's what I do!
What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support.
Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples. Gay Marriage, here to stay, right? Not so fast....
There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it.
So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.
Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS. Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War! So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.
So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships? Well, contracts! That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality!
Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home? Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you? A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.
Actually, bubba Oxford changed it some time before the SCOTUS ruling...I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so.
Yep, the SCOTUS thinking it can redefine what marriage is is almost as lunatic as the Indiana legislature trying to define Pi by law to be 3.2.
Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oxford Dictionary to Change Definition of Marriage to Include Gays
Read more at Oxford Dictionary to Change Definition of Marriage to Include Gays
There are no gay Christians.
I think there ARE gay Christians. It's an important thing to note here, gay doesn't mean active homosexual behavior. If you are engaging in any promiscuous sex act it goes against the teachings of Christianity. Homosexuality is certainly promiscuous sex, there is no escaping that because there is no formal reason for it. You can't procreate that way. It is purely a "pleasure of the flesh" and can be nothing more. We've made it "okay to be gay" and that is fine but it comes with a cost.
People are born differently and have different sexual attractions or proclivities. Some of these are psychological and developed through unique experiences and influences, some are genetic and hereditary in nature. Most sexuality is a combination of things but there always remains the invisible barrier between what we practice and what we fantasize. This self-control aspect is one of the things that makes us different from apes and chimps.
When the "gay revolution" came along, society was forced to accept it... the "coming out of the closet" for so many people... but what did that mean? What is meant by "Gay" in terms of the person? Does it mean they fantasize about sex with their same gender? Does it mean they speak with a lisp? Are they flamboyant? Does it mean they have promiscuous homosexual activity with another person? Does it mean none of those or all of those? We really don't know this.
Is there a difference between... say... two women who are not "sexual" with each other but share an emotional or 'sensual' bond they call love together... different than two actively homosexual males? Both can be classified as gay, but what does that mean?
So we have accepted this term "GAY" without much of a qualification. In other words, there is no "invisible barrier" between practice and fantasy. It all becomes one in the same within the lexicon of thought.
There are no gay Christians.
I think there ARE gay Christians. It's an important thing to note here, gay doesn't mean active homosexual behavior. If you are engaging in any promiscuous sex act it goes against the teachings of Christianity. Homosexuality is certainly promiscuous sex, there is no escaping that because there is no formal reason for it. You can't procreate that way. It is purely a "pleasure of the flesh" and can be nothing more. We've made it "okay to be gay" and that is fine but it comes with a cost.
People are born differently and have different sexual attractions or proclivities. Some of these are psychological and developed through unique experiences and influences, some are genetic and hereditary in nature. Most sexuality is a combination of things but there always remains the invisible barrier between what we practice and what we fantasize. This self-control aspect is one of the things that makes us different from apes and chimps.
When the "gay revolution" came along, society was forced to accept it... the "coming out of the closet" for so many people... but what did that mean? What is meant by "Gay" in terms of the person? Does it mean they fantasize about sex with their same gender? Does it mean they speak with a lisp? Are they flamboyant? Does it mean they have promiscuous homosexual activity with another person? Does it mean none of those or all of those? We really don't know this.
Is there a difference between... say... two women who are not "sexual" with each other but share an emotional or 'sensual' bond they call love together... different than two actively homosexual males? Both can be classified as gay, but what does that mean?
So we have accepted this term "GAY" without much of a qualification. In other words, there is no "invisible barrier" between practice and fantasy. It all becomes one in the same within the lexicon of thought.
Sexuality is a natural and healthy part of life. All people have the right to the information, skills, and services they need to make responsible sexual decisions.
The theocratic right considers the Puritans to be the decisive illustration of a Christian society. The Puritans are remembered for their repressive attitudes toward sexuality. What may be forgotten today, however, is the Puritan rejection of democracy in favor of rule by biblical law. "The Puritans," according to Thomas Ice, fused "church and state into a theocratic government." (Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse, H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, 1988, p. 95)
The Puritans' effort to build a Christian society ... is being imitated today by a small and increasingly influential group of persons who believe that only through establishment of Old Testament civil law can America -- and the world -- be saved from destruction. (Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse, p. 15)
America's Providential History, a popular textbook in Christian schools and the Christian homeschool movement explains:
The primary strength of the Puritans was their "spirit of dominion." They recognized the scriptural mandate requiring Godly rule, and zealously set out to establish that in all aspects of society. (p. 84)
The Puritan ideology of repressed sexuality dates back to fifth Century theologian Saint Augustine whose concept of Original Sin became dogma: sexual desire is sinful; infants are infected from the moment of conception with the disease of original sin; and Adam and Eve's sin corrupted the whole of nature itself.
At the core of the theocratic right's political and cultural goals is an effort to delegitimize and censor all forms of human sexuality that don't fit into a narrow mold: sex between a man and woman who are married. Other expressions of sexuality are sinful and must be repressed or even punished.
To that end the theocratic right seeks to criminalize homosexuality, promote abstinence-only sex education, and advocate censorship. This page is a compendium of articles on what New York Times columnist Frank Rich calls "The Indecency Police." Human Sexuality
Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?
What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.
Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?
I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.
No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...
Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.
My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........
Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.
Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.
Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.
The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible..
Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.
No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...
Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.
My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........
'the originators of marriage'? LOL.
Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.
The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either.
Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.
Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.
You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.
Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.
Or are you denying this is a civil right?
Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.
Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.
The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.
Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story
I've never tired of discussing civil rights.
This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.
Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.
And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.
If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.
Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.
Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.
Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.
Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.
As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.
So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.
Thanks
Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...
Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.
My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........
'the originators of marriage'? LOL.
Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.
The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either.
Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.
Can you link to the law that made this a transfer of ownership? I would appreciate seeing this.
Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.
Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.
Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.
The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible..
That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming.
But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.
Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.
So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...
Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.
My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........
'the originators of marriage'? LOL.
Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.
The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either.
Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.
Can you link to the law that made this a transfer of ownership? I would appreciate seeing this.
Look up the history of marriage. In many parts of the world even today the potential husband has to pay the father a bride fee.
Until about 100 years ago here in the U.S. women were largely the property of men. In most states they could not own property in their own right, children 'belonged' to the father upon divorce, women could not initiate law suits without ther husbands permission.
But maybe that is the kind of traditional marriage you really want to return to?
Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.
Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.
Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.
The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible..
That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming.
But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.
Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.
Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong.
Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related.
The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest.
It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?
You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.
Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.
Or are you denying this is a civil right?
Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.
Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.
The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.
Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story
I've never tired of discussing civil rights.
This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.
Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.
And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.
If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.
Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.
Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.
Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.
Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.
As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.
So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.
Thanks
You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened.
Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.
Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.
Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.
The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible..
That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming.
But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.
Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.
Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong.
Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related.
The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest.
It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?
Can you site evidence that sexual contact is the only reason immediate relation marriages are banned?
Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.
Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.
The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible..
That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming.
But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.
Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.
Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong.
Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related.
The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest.
It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?
Can you site evidence that sexual contact is the only reason immediate relation marriages are banned?
Not now I can't since marriage is not only between a man and woman.
Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.
The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible..
That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming.
But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.
Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.
Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong.
Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related.
The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest.
It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?
Can you site evidence that sexual contact is the only reason immediate relation marriages are banned?
Not now I can't since marriage is not only between a man and woman.
*sigh*
Let me rephrase then. Can you site evidence that sexual contact was the only reason immediate relation marriages were banned?
