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.
Why do we want to be such a denerate people?
Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen this is not true.
But even so my post did not posit that anyone said that. However it is the logical conclusion of the gay marriage debate. If marriage can be defined any way some special interest group wants it defined then it loses all definition and becomes meaningless.
Sort of like your post.
NO. When marriage becomes 'meaningless' is when you select out one variety of marriage and bestow government benefits upon it to the exclusion of all other legitimate forms of marriage.
How is that meaningless? That defines marriage. No one selected one man one woman as the definition. That has been the accepted definition in Western Culture for 2,000 years.
You're a dunce-face.
Yes.
Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,
and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?
Yes. We discriminate against murders too.
Genetic statistical probabilities are the legitimate reason for banning incestuous marriage?
Yes.
Prove it.
Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,
and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?
Yes. We discriminate against murders too.
Fail of a response.
I think the term for that is "lame". In Britain the technical term is "flaccid."
when gay marriage becomes legal, then there is not way that SCOTUS will deny equal rights to bigamists and polygamists.
the legal system will have a field day with this, lawyers will get rich, and our culture will go down the drain.
two men or two women are not a marriage. but , if they decide to enter into a mutual support contract then they should have the same rights as a married couple.
Now, having said that, how do you on the left intend to stop polygamists and bigamists from demanding those same benefits?
Yes. We discriminate against murders too.
Fail of a response.
I think the term for that is "lame". In Britain the technical term is "flaccid."
Point?
Then why aren't genetic risks not associated with incest also banned from marrying,
and since they aren't, isn't that a simple, irrefutable argument that bans on incestuous marriage are discriminatory?
Yes. We discriminate against murders too.
Laws against murder are not unconstitutional, therefore murderers who are held accountable to the law are not being discriminated against.
when gay marriage becomes legal, then there is not way that SCOTUS will deny equal rights to bigamists and polygamists.
the legal system will have a field day with this, lawyers will get rich, and our culture will go down the drain.
two men or two women are not a marriage. but , if they decide to enter into a mutual support contract then they should have the same rights as a married couple.
Now, having said that, how do you on the left intend to stop polygamists and bigamists from demanding those same benefits?
when gay marriage becomes legal, then there is not way that SCOTUS will deny equal rights to bigamists and polygamists.
the legal system will have a field day with this, lawyers will get rich, and our culture will go down the drain.
two men or two women are not a marriage. but , if they decide to enter into a mutual support contract then they should have the same rights as a married couple.
Now, having said that, how do you on the left intend to stop polygamists and bigamists from demanding those same benefits?
Don't forget the pedophiles. They have the perfect format to follow now since the homos have opened all the doors for them.
My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedys opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMAs injection of inequality into the United States Code violated the liberty protected by the Constitution. The inequality part is equal protection language; the liberty wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudicesimply thinking something is ickydoesnt count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define ones own family, whats the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texass anti-sodomy law, the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life, why cant people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If its wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, dont quote me on that. The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?
The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest
For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.
Kent Greenfield - Boston College
Yes. We discriminate against murders too.
Laws against murder are not unconstitutional, therefore murderers who are held accountable to the law are not being discriminated against.
Please show where the question had anything to do with the constitutionality of said discrimination.
Laws against murder are not unconstitutional, therefore murderers who are held accountable to the law are not being discriminated against.
Please show where the question had anything to do with the constitutionality of said discrimination.
Are the bans on incestuous marriages constitutional or not. In your personal opinion.
Fail of a response.
I think the term for that is "lame". In Britain the technical term is "flaccid."
Point?
That you're an ill informed moron trying to run with the big dogs.
Please show where the question had anything to do with the constitutionality of said discrimination.
Are the bans on incestuous marriages constitutional or not. In your personal opinion.
I'll start a thread, with a poll.
Laws against murder are not unconstitutional, therefore murderers who are held accountable to the law are not being discriminated against.
Please show where the question had anything to do with the constitutionality of said discrimination.
Are the bans on incestuous marriages constitutional or not. In your personal opinion.
The posts in this topic are classic bigotry using the typical pathetic illogic of bigots. Attempts to equate being gay with being a pedophile.
Since you jackholes can't prove being gay is bad relative to being straight, you have to try to connect it to something which is. To argue that legalizing gay marriages means we have to legalize incest marriages is to argue they are morally the same. I see what you did there.
Morons.
