Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

So then you agree that there is a compelling reason to prohibit sibling marriage but none to prohibit unrelated same sex marriage? Good!

Not what I said or implied. I said that was the only "substantive" reason presented, I did not state that I agreed with it. My position on marriage remains unchanged... I think it should not be something defined by government or the courts but rather the individual. Parameters regarding a legal domestic partnership should be allowed at the state level through ballot initiatives if some distinction need be made between couples and individuals. Personal matters of property rights, estates, survivors, pensions, insurance, etc. can all be handled through probate of contract, as has been customary throughout our history... there is no need to redefine marriage. These are merely legal parameters we can change to accommodate any two people who want such a contract... but it would also be open to a brother and sister or mother and son, if they chose to have such a contract of partnership.

 

[Skylar]

So then you agree that there is a compelling reason to prohibit sibling marriage but none to prohibit unrelated same sex marriage? Good!

Not what I said or implied. I said that was the only "substantive" reason presented, I did not state that I agreed with it. My position on marriage remains unchanged... I think it should not be something defined by government or the courts but rather the individual. Parameters regarding a legal domestic partnership should be allowed at the state level through ballot initiatives if some distinction need be made between couples and individuals. Personal matters of property rights, estates, survivors, pensions, insurance, etc. can all be handled through probate of contract, as has been customary throughout our history... there is no need to redefine marriage. These are merely legal parameters we can change to accommodate any two people who want such a contract... but it would also be open to a brother and sister or mother and son, if they chose to have such a contract of partnership.

You realize that SB377 requires that participants be legally authorized by the State of Alabama in order to enter into marriage.....right?

How is the state not 'authorizing' marriage when the State sets the rules by which marriage is legally authorized?

And of course, how does any of it 'kill homosexual marriage'? You've abandoned the very premise of your thread, its very name. Along with your every claim regarding SB377.

Do you ever wonder why I so easily run you off of your every argument?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...same sex marriage?

Marriage is: the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

homosexual marriage'

Marriage is: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good grief conservatives get over it. Welcome to the 21st century.

so you shouldn`t celebrate Thanksgiving day

You make no sense.

 

[Pop23]

It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.

The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!

I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.



On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14


So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.


Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry


They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.


Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.


So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!


Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm

Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf


In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.


Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.

I get it, same sex sibling marriage is different than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be legal, but same sex marriage is different then opposite sex marriage so it should......

(Scratches head)

Obviously you missed the entire point, that being-since I have to spell it out -is NOT about them simply being different-but about the implications for society and thus the reasons why government may legitimately deny sibling marriage. Is it possible that you really don't get that or are you just playing stupid

Ohhhhh, implications for society which would be so much worse with same sex siblings marrying for purely financial reasons then any other same sex couples marrying for financial reasons.

Got it.

Same argument made by Virginia to deny the Lovings the right to marry.

And just exactly how do you claim to be a progressive?

Go ahead, keep playing your bizarre mind fuck games. If marriage is purely financial for you, you must be very sad and lonely.

You wrote one helluva long post, but it was pure nonsense since you fail to understand what the marriage contract is.

The couple defines what the marriage is, NOT THE STATE DUMMY.

The licence does not require:

Love

Faithfulness

Dignity

Sex

Or anything else except:

1. Consenting adults

2. A signed document

3. Payment of a fee

Your snide comment simply shows what a traditionalist, right wing moralist you are.

Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.

We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.

 

[Skylar]

homosexual marriage'

Marriage is: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

 

[Pop23]

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

Why bother answering you when you will continue to ignore any answer that doesn't include sex?

The State's interest for denying marriage all siblings is the same- regardless of sex.

Which is demonstrated by Wisconsin's marriage law.

But you know- and ignore that.

Then name the reasons.

You made the statement, now back it up.

Remember those reasons must meet simple legal standards.

1. Do not deny the affected - their due process.

2. There is a stated Compelling State interest in denial of a constitutional right to the individual.

3. The reason does not violate equal protection.

Ok........

Go

 

[TheOldSchool]

Good grief conservatives get over it. Welcome to the 21st century.

so you shouldn`t celebrate Thanksgiving day

Maybe you should:

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.

We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.

Progressivism... OKA: Left-think, rests entirely in Relativism. Which rejects the objectivity that is essential to justice, and the truth intrinsic to that and justice. Which is why no Leftist, and no Leftist policy, has ever served justice, or equality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL- IF science does find a way to identify 'gay' fetuses, Conservative Christians will be lining up for abortions.

There's no such thing as a 'sexually deviant fetus'.

Sexual deviancy is learned behavior.

 

[Skylar]

Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.

We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.

Progressivism... OKA: Left-think, rests entirely in Relativism. Which rejects the objectivity that is essential to justice, and the truth intrinsic to that and justice. Which is why no Leftist, and no Leftist policy, has ever served justice, or equality.

But you don't use objectivity. You merely assume that any subjective opinion you possess must be objective truth.

Subjective is not objective. Simply obliterating your entire basis of argument.

Next fallacy please.

 

[Skylar]

LOL- IF science does find a way to identify 'gay' fetuses, Conservative Christians will be lining up for abortions.

There's no such thing as a 'sexually deviant fetus'.

Sexual deviancy is learned behavior.

Says who? Let me guess.....you pretending your personal opinion defines all sexuality objectively?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

 

[Pop23]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

 

[Pop23]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

 

[Skylar]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

 

[Skylar]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

Show me the law saying as much.

 

[Pop23]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?