SSM. Seeking middle ground

[Pop23]

Pop is discussing it, everyone else's eyes are rolling up in their heads.

So far you discuss what?

Nothing

Seinfeld Shows got nothing on you!

 

[Pop23]

"Then we need to address..........."


^ that's not how the law works...



Pop23 any individuals in that position are certainly free to petition their state for equal treatment.

the state will THEN provide a rationale to deny them, or not...

Backward thinking Val. Once the USSC rules on the case, it may change everything, and according to your side, chance is good, Right?

Forward ho!

 

[Valerie]

That's why we are discussing it, isn't it?

not really... i don't see those folks lining up feeling oppressed, do you?

 

[Pop23]

That's why we are discussing it, isn't it?

not really... i don't see those folks lining up feeling oppressed, do you?

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

 

[Pop23]

You should read my post again. There is no compelling reason. I said it should be legal for two heterosexuals to marry. That isn't incest.

The USSC will decide that issue, which will allow heterosexual same sex marriage as well. It must. That far we agree.

The same argument used to allow same sex heterosexual marriage, will be used so that same sex heterosexual sibling marriage. It appears you agree with me on that also.

I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your view. So far all the above will be legal at some time (if challenged in court of course).

Same sex marriage, gay or straight

Same sex sibling heterosexual marriage.

The above would be legal?

It should be.

Then we need to address homosexual same sex siblings. I guess there is the issue that they may have sex, but honestly, they probably would seek a marriage benefit for the same reason as the heterosexual siblings would, that being the financial benefits that come with marriage. And let's face it, if they had sex, they're not going to produce a defective child.

In both this and straight siblings, they can reap the benefits of marriage, and nothing stops them from dating others until they find someone who they actually want to spend the rest of their lives with.

I don't see a compelling state interest in denying these couples the benefits of marriage, you?

So, are we in agreement that homosexual same sex marriage is just as likely to be allowed as straight same sex sibling marriage?

Sure....and it still isn't incest. Jebus.

Next, an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate want to marry. They want to marry for a variety of financial reasons, same as above. They also, like the gay siblings don't necessarily want to have sex, but even if they do, they can't produce defective children.

There really is no compelling state interest to stop them fro marrying?

Bumping Ravi

Where'd ya go?

 

[Ravi]

The USSC will decide that issue, which will allow heterosexual same sex marriage as well. It must. That far we agree.

The same argument used to allow same sex heterosexual marriage, will be used so that same sex heterosexual sibling marriage. It appears you agree with me on that also.

I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your view. So far all the above will be legal at some time (if challenged in court of course).

Same sex marriage, gay or straight

Same sex sibling heterosexual marriage.

The above would be legal?

It should be.

Then we need to address homosexual same sex siblings. I guess there is the issue that they may have sex, but honestly, they probably would seek a marriage benefit for the same reason as the heterosexual siblings would, that being the financial benefits that come with marriage. And let's face it, if they had sex, they're not going to produce a defective child.

In both this and straight siblings, they can reap the benefits of marriage, and nothing stops them from dating others until they find someone who they actually want to spend the rest of their lives with.

I don't see a compelling state interest in denying these couples the benefits of marriage, you?

So, are we in agreement that homosexual same sex marriage is just as likely to be allowed as straight same sex sibling marriage?

Sure....and it still isn't incest. Jebus.

Next, an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate want to marry. They want to marry for a variety of financial reasons, same as above. They also, like the gay siblings don't necessarily want to have sex, but even if they do, they can't produce defective children.

There really is no compelling state interest to stop them fro marrying?

Bumping Ravi

Where'd ya go?

No offense. I just think you are stupid. Incest isn't going to be made legal any more than man/dog/pig relationships.

 

[Pop23]

It should be.

Then we need to address homosexual same sex siblings. I guess there is the issue that they may have sex, but honestly, they probably would seek a marriage benefit for the same reason as the heterosexual siblings would, that being the financial benefits that come with marriage. And let's face it, if they had sex, they're not going to produce a defective child.

In both this and straight siblings, they can reap the benefits of marriage, and nothing stops them from dating others until they find someone who they actually want to spend the rest of their lives with.

I don't see a compelling state interest in denying these couples the benefits of marriage, you?

So, are we in agreement that homosexual same sex marriage is just as likely to be allowed as straight same sex sibling marriage?

Sure....and it still isn't incest. Jebus.

Next, an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate want to marry. They want to marry for a variety of financial reasons, same as above. They also, like the gay siblings don't necessarily want to have sex, but even if they do, they can't produce defective children.

There really is no compelling state interest to stop them fro marrying?

Bumping Ravi

Where'd ya go?

No offense. I just think you are stupid. Incest isn't going to be made legal any more than man/dog/pig relationships.

Let's see if you can back that up?

Answer the next step. It's just above

Knowing what we know so far, is the next step incest, and is the a compelling state interest in denying that couple the benefits of marriage?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no such next step except in your head, Pop.

 

[Ravi]

Then we need to address homosexual same sex siblings. I guess there is the issue that they may have sex, but honestly, they probably would seek a marriage benefit for the same reason as the heterosexual siblings would, that being the financial benefits that come with marriage. And let's face it, if they had sex, they're not going to produce a defective child.

In both this and straight siblings, they can reap the benefits of marriage, and nothing stops them from dating others until they find someone who they actually want to spend the rest of their lives with.

I don't see a compelling state interest in denying these couples the benefits of marriage, you?

So, are we in agreement that homosexual same sex marriage is just as likely to be allowed as straight same sex sibling marriage?

Sure....and it still isn't incest. Jebus.

Next, an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate want to marry. They want to marry for a variety of financial reasons, same as above. They also, like the gay siblings don't necessarily want to have sex, but even if they do, they can't produce defective children.

There really is no compelling state interest to stop them fro marrying?

Bumping Ravi

Where'd ya go?

No offense. I just think you are stupid. Incest isn't going to be made legal any more than man/dog/pig relationships.

Let's see if you can back that up?

Answer the next step. It's just above

Knowing what we know so far, is the next step incest, and is the a compelling state interest in denying that couple the benefits of marriage?

Yes. Harmful to children. Which gay marriage is not.

 

[Pop23]

There is no such next step except in your head, Pop.

Unless you come up with the magical, mystical compelling state interest, there sure is!

That's progress right?

 

[Pop23]

Sure....and it still isn't incest. Jebus.

Next, an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate want to marry. They want to marry for a variety of financial reasons, same as above. They also, like the gay siblings don't necessarily want to have sex, but even if they do, they can't produce defective children.

There really is no compelling state interest to stop them fro marrying?

Bumping Ravi

Where'd ya go?

No offense. I just think you are stupid. Incest isn't going to be made legal any more than man/dog/pig relationships.

Let's see if you can back that up?

Answer the next step. It's just above

Knowing what we know so far, is the next step incest, and is the a compelling state interest in denying that couple the benefits of marriage?

Yes. Harmful to children. Which gay marriage is not.

Sorry, how does an oppositesex sibling couple, unable to procreate, have children? Don't they procreate in the same manner a same sex couple does? Which is.........they can't (at least not together)

Not a very compelling state reason to deny one when you allow the other is it?

 

[Valerie]

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

 

[Valerie]

Ok, so two same sex heterosexual siblings might wish to enter a marriage contract simply for the tax breaks, married couple insurance and such.

What would you deny them that benefit since they are heterosexual? They engage in sex with those of the opposite sex (and there is nothing in marriage law to stop them from dating)

The traditional meaning of incest is sexual in nature. These are straight siblings. They don't.


There's really no reason to deny them and the state would have to prove a compelling reason.

What would that be?

we already have contract laws for those kinds of non sexual partnerships...

 

[Pop23]

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

 

[Pop23]

Ok, so two same sex heterosexual siblings might wish to enter a marriage contract simply for the tax breaks, married couple insurance and such.

What would you deny them that benefit since they are heterosexual? They engage in sex with those of the opposite sex (and there is nothing in marriage law to stop them from dating)

The traditional meaning of incest is sexual in nature. These are straight siblings. They don't.


There's really no reason to deny them and the state would have to prove a compelling reason.

What would that be?

we already have contract laws for those kinds of non sexual partnerships...

Ohhhhhh, so marriage isn't needed!

The cost of obtaining those contracts are far more expensive then a license.

That's the argument homosexuals use all the time FOR INCLUSSION.

It's a paradox

 

[Valerie]

no, not a paradox at all. a different relationship with a different statute.

and i answered your question, so maybe you should read my post again.



if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

 

[Pop23]

no, not a paradox at all. a different relationship with a different statute.

and i answered your question, so maybe you should read my post again.



if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

You answered, but the answer makes no sense asthe couples I've detailed CAN'T PRODUCE OFFSPRING.

Your answer is therefor nonsense as it relies on a traditional definition of incest that's really no longer applicable

 

[Valerie]

and by ''the couples you detailed'' you mean the imaginary couples you created in order to pretend you have a valid argument against homosexual marriage...

 

[Pop23]

and by ''the couples you detailed'' you mean the imaginary couples you created in order to pretend you have a valid argument against homosexual marriage...

Pretend or not at this point is irellevent isn't it?

Every argument you've made that would exclude are exactly the same arguments made by same sex marriage opponents.

1. None of these "imaginary" couples could help how they were born.

2. All of these "imaginary" couples can procreate in the same way as an elderly straight couple, as in, they can't.

3. To get the same benefits of marriage that a straight recieves automatically, they must go through extensive legal hoops and expense that straights don't when the Marry. And still there's the question of inheritance tax.

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....

The INCLUSSION of same sex couples in government licensed marriage.

So, which is it? Are the couples I listed:

Same sex siblings, straight or gay.

Opposite sex siblings that are physically unable to procreate.

To be included in the "right to Marry" or excluded for some "traditional" arbitrary reason?

Should they not be included in this Civil Right?

Is there a Compelling Governmental Reason to exclude them from the benefits granted with Marriage.

This indeed is paradox.

Argue against my couples and you argue against same sex INCLUSSION in marriage, argue for my couples and you include those couples that, in the past been considered incestuous.

But so far I've seen no reasonable compelling state interest to exclude.

You?

 

[Valerie]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.