SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[Inevitable]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

You folks seem to think we have any obligation to make your arguments for you.

I think a same gender couple should have the same right to marry as my wife and I enjoyed. You want to argue for incestuous marriage, you can go for it- but its your strawman- and its not an issue that the courts are deciding, nor do I have to make your argument for- or against incest.

My thoughts exactly. If people want marriages between siblings to be legal, it's time for them to start working on it.

I don't have any clowns in that circus.

 

[Seawytch]

Because marriage contract law is not written to accommodate siblings marrying, or more than two persons, for that matter.

What most opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples fail to understand is that allowing same sex couples to marry in no way 'changes' marriage, nothing 'new' is being 'added' to marriage – it's simply a matter of allowing those already eligible to marry to indeed do so.

They were already eligible to marry.

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Because marriage contract law is not written to accommodate siblings marrying, or more than two persons, for that matter.

What most opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples fail to understand is that allowing same sex couples to marry in no way 'changes' marriage, nothing 'new' is being 'added' to marriage – it's simply a matter of allowing those already eligible to marry to indeed do so.

They were already eligible to marry.

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't know if we'll ever be seeing siblings being able to legally wed, but once the SCOTUS has settled gay marriage once and for all, I do believe in time we will be seeing polygamy legalized.
Once the legal definition of marriage is changed, I do not see how you could then deny those seeking to legally enter into a marriage with more than one partner. There is no health concerns, so it should be allowed. The question will be is there enough of a demand from Americans to do so.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

Because the definition of marriage isn't being 'changed,' no 'door' is being 'opened.'

Marriage remains a commitment of two equal, unrelated, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts; marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case with two brothers wishing to marry, where no marriage law is written to accommodate siblings.

Consequently, your 'argument' fails as a slippery slope fallacy, it's nothing more than unfounded, inane demagoguery.

The definition of marriage certainly is being changed. Marriage is one man/one woman. Same-sex marriage is not.

Wanna bet a door isn't being opened? Give it time.

How does two brothers marrying each other harm anyone? Why shouldn't they be able to?

 

[Seawytch]

Because marriage contract law is not written to accommodate siblings marrying, or more than two persons, for that matter.

What most opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples fail to understand is that allowing same sex couples to marry in no way 'changes' marriage, nothing 'new' is being 'added' to marriage – it's simply a matter of allowing those already eligible to marry to indeed do so.

They were already eligible to marry.

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

 

[bodecea]

So your argument boils down to just treating other people like dogshit. Lovely.

My arguement boils down to the fact that 99% of all human beings don't deserve to still be breathing, nevermind have Rights or Freedoms. They have not earned those things through proper thought, word, and deed.

And who gets to determine whether they've "earned" those things or not?

 

[bodecea]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Once a culture starts down the road to depravity it doesn't stop. It ends.

Good riddance to it though...I am actually surprised ANYONE seriously thought the gang of 9 tyrants was seriously NOT going to legalize sodomites "marrying"....Shit even the most ardent marriage supporter knew that was going to happen...

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know if we'll ever be seeing siblings being able to legally wed, but once the SCOTUS has settled gay marriage once and for all, I do believe in time we will be seeing polygamy legalized.

I don't think so. We don't have the laws for polygamy.

For example, if we three people get married and then one wants a divorce, does that mean that none of them are married, or two still are? Can they get divorced to only one partner in a polygamous relationship, but not another? When they divorce is a three way split, or is it based on how long each of them has been in the relationship? In child custody cases, do only biological parents have standing, or does any adult in the polygamous relationship? How about child support? What about medical decisions......if you a three way marriage, one person gets ill and two are left to made decisions.......what if they disagree? What's the maximum number in a poly marriage?

Our laws have nothing to cover any of this. And each additional person adds orders of magnitude more complication, confusion and complexity.

Where with gay marriage, the answer is simple: exactly as you would a straight couple.

Done.

 

[Skylar]

So your argument boils down to just treating other people like dogshit. Lovely.

My arguement boils down to the fact that 99% of all human beings don't deserve to still be breathing, nevermind have Rights or Freedoms. They have not earned those things through proper thought, word, and deed.

And who gets to determine whether they've "earned" those things or not?

That's a rabbit hole with no bottom. The conversation will eventually devolve into talk of camps, mass executions, the slaughter of billions.

To paraphrase Alfred, some men just want to watch the world burn.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were already eligible to marry.

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

 

[Skylar]

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If ssm does not redefine marriage, why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in 1920?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't know if we'll ever be seeing siblings being able to legally wed, but once the SCOTUS has settled gay marriage once and for all, I do believe in time we will be seeing polygamy legalized.
Once the legal definition of marriage is changed, I do not see how you could then deny those seeking to legally enter into a marriage with more than one partner. There is no health concerns, so it should be allowed. The question will be is there enough of a demand from Americans to do so.

Two members of the same-sex does not change any structure of existing secular marriage laws which already function for two people, the sex of those people is irrelevant.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue. (Although actually polygamy has more justification from a historical perspective since it's been in existance for thousand of years and still is in other parts of the world).

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

If ssm does not redefine marriage, why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in 1920?

Probably because the states didn't recognize ssm as valid in 1920. And homosexuality was a crime in many states.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it.

Prior to the gay marriage push, when asked, the public overwhelmingly said it is between one man/one woman. Judges said f-you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

Wait a minute...


Aren't we continually told that marriage is one man and one woman PERIOD.

Well a brother is a man and a sister is a woman (assuming they are both over the age of majority) - that meets that definition doesn't it?


>>>>

 

[Zoom-boing]

If ssm does not redefine marriage, why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in 1920?

Probably because the states didn't recognize ssm as valid in 1920. And homosexuality was a crime in many states.

Well why not?

It hasn't been a crime for a long time. So why was (is) it invalid if it's the same are one man/one woman?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Prior to the gay marriage push, when asked, the public overwhelmingly said it is between one man/one woman. Judges said f-you.

You realize that a number of States passed Same-sex Civil Marriage legislatively and at the ballot box - right?


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

If ssm does not redefine marriage, why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in 1920?

Probably because the states didn't recognize ssm as valid in 1920. And homosexuality was a crime in many states.

Well why not?

It hasn't been a crime for a long time. So why was (is) it invalid if it's the same are one man/one woman?

Sodomy was decriminalized by the SCOTUS in 2003.