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.
When you step back from the issue.....one might realize how insane the whole thing really is.. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.
So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.
Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.
And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.
You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.
Care to share it again?
My solution:
At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...862/reply?quote=10065091/reply?quote=10065091
At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.
From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.
As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.
Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.
And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.
Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying fuck what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?
Guesses about the percentages of the population that are gay range from 2%-10%. The percentage of those who get married, if it were legal nationwide, should be the same as straights.
I don't know anybody who doesn't have strong opinions on this issue, but the people truly affected by it are probably less than 5% of the population.
The "traditional marriage" argument has de-evolved over the last 20 years. When religious opposition became a less potent argument, it pivoted to "protection of traditional marriage". That's a tough angle because traditional marriages are legally unaffected by gay marriages, so they're stuck defending a concept.
I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.
1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.
Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.
he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.
The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.
The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.
The problem I have with the homos and their supporters on this issue is that you claim you don't want Big Brother telling you who you can marry because it's no one else's business then support the concept of that same "Brother" being able to limit certain types of marriage YOU don't like then trying to justify it as if you're actually doing something different than those who oppose same sex marriage. If two first cousins that are consenting adults want to marry or consenting adults that happen to want to marry more than one person , who the hell are you to tell them they shouldn't? In other words, since it doesn't harm you, you have no say
The problem I have with anti-homosexual homophobic posters on this issue is that you bring up strawmen to justify your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.
As a friend- and supporter of homosexuals who would like to marry- I think that there is no reason that they should not be treated any differently than my wife and I were treated when we got married. They want to marry for the exact same reasons that my wife and I wanted to get married- because we loved each other- and wanted to legally commit to each other for the rest of our lives in the way our legal system provides for.
It is homophobic posters like yourself that tell homosexuals that they only get to do what 'normal male/female couples' get to do. You think that the government should be ensuring that people only have the kind of sex that you approve of people having- you disapprove of 'peter puffers' and 'carpet munchers'- and think the government shouldn't allow allow oral sex between adults.
It is homophobic posters who bring up first cousins marrying(legal and has been legal in 11 states longer than same gender marriage) and then try to label homosexuals as being hypocrites for disapproving of first cousin marriages.
Even though homosexuals- and myself- aren't arguing for- or against- first cousin marriages. You are.
I have a problem with the hypocrisy of homophobes whose argument is so shallow that they can't argue their case without pretending like homosexuals have taken any position other than arguing to be treated just like any other couple who is exactly the same as they are- other than gender.
Bob and Bill want to be treated just like Bob and Jill in marriage- assuming the only difference between Bill and Jill is gender.
Yes- that is marriage equality.
When you step back from the issue.....one might realize how insane the whole thing really is.. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.
So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.
Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.
And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.
You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.
Care to share it again?
My solution:
At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...862/reply?quote=10065091/reply?quote=10065091
At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.
From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.
As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.
Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.
And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.
Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying fuck what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?
Guesses about the percentages of the population that are gay range from 2%-10%. The percentage of those who get married, if it were legal nationwide, should be the same as straights.
I don't know anybody who doesn't have strong opinions on this issue, but the people truly affected by it are probably less than 5% of the population.
The "traditional marriage" argument has de-evolved over the last 20 years. When religious opposition became a less potent argument, it pivoted to "protection of traditional marriage". That's a tough angle because traditional marriages are legally unaffected by gay marriages, so they're stuck defending a concept.
I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.
1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.
The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.
The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.
The problem I have with the homos and their supporters on this issue is that you claim you don't want Big Brother telling you who you can marry because it's no one else's business then support the concept of that same "Brother" being able to limit certain types of marriage YOU don't like then trying to justify it as if you're actually doing something different than those who oppose same sex marriage. If two first cousins that are consenting adults want to marry or consenting adults that happen to want to marry more than one person , who the hell are you to tell them they shouldn't? In other words, since it doesn't harm you, you have no say
The problem I have with anti-homosexual homophobic posters on this issue is that you bring up strawmen to justify your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.
As a friend- and supporter of homosexuals who would like to marry- I think that there is no reason that they should not be treated any differently than my wife and I were treated when we got married. They want to marry for the exact same reasons that my wife and I wanted to get married- because we loved each other- and wanted to legally commit to each other for the rest of our lives in the way our legal system provides for.
It is homophobic posters like yourself that tell homosexuals that they only get to do what 'normal male/female couples' get to do. You think that the government should be ensuring that people only have the kind of sex that you approve of people having- you disapprove of 'peter puffers' and 'carpet munchers'- and think the government shouldn't allow allow oral sex between adults.
It is homophobic posters who bring up first cousins marrying(legal and has been legal in 11 states longer than same gender marriage) and then try to label homosexuals as being hypocrites for disapproving of first cousin marriages.
Even though homosexuals- and myself- aren't arguing for- or against- first cousin marriages. You are.
I have a problem with the hypocrisy of homophobes whose argument is so shallow that they can't argue their case without pretending like homosexuals have taken any position other than arguing to be treated just like any other couple who is exactly the same as they are- other than gender.
Bob and Bill want to be treated just like Bob and Jill in marriage- assuming the only difference between Bill and Jill is gender.
Yes- that is marriage equality.
Bob and Jill are already married but with the consent of both, Bob wants to marry Jane, too. The only difference is that while you claim to argue for equality of consenting adults, you're entire argument centers around nothing more than two faggots wanting something. The multiple partner marriage meets all the criteria put forth by the homos yet you still say it's different. Keep sucking one.
That hasn't happened.
That hasn't happened.
It's next.
Christ on a cracker...who hurt you?When you step back from the issue.....one might realize how insane the whole thing really is.. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.
So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal.
Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.
And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further.
You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.
Care to share it again?
My solution:
At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...862/reply?quote=10065091/reply?quote=10065091
At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date.
From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction.
As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage.
Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.
And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.
Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying fuck what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?
Guesses about the percentages of the population that are gay range from 2%-10%. The percentage of those who get married, if it were legal nationwide, should be the same as straights.
I don't know anybody who doesn't have strong opinions on this issue, but the people truly affected by it are probably less than 5% of the population.
The "traditional marriage" argument has de-evolved over the last 20 years. When religious opposition became a less potent argument, it pivoted to "protection of traditional marriage". That's a tough angle because traditional marriages are legally unaffected by gay marriages, so they're stuck defending a concept.
I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.
1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.
The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.
The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.
The problem I have with the homos and their supporters on this issue is that you claim you don't want Big Brother telling you who you can marry because it's no one else's business then support the concept of that same "Brother" being able to limit certain types of marriage YOU don't like then trying to justify it as if you're actually doing something different than those who oppose same sex marriage. If two first cousins that are consenting adults want to marry or consenting adults that happen to want to marry more than one person , who the hell are you to tell them they shouldn't? In other words, since it doesn't harm you, you have no say
The problem I have with anti-homosexual homophobic posters on this issue is that you bring up strawmen to justify your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.
As a friend- and supporter of homosexuals who would like to marry- I think that there is no reason that they should not be treated any differently than my wife and I were treated when we got married. They want to marry for the exact same reasons that my wife and I wanted to get married- because we loved each other- and wanted to legally commit to each other for the rest of our lives in the way our legal system provides for.
It is homophobic posters like yourself that tell homosexuals that they only get to do what 'normal male/female couples' get to do. You think that the government should be ensuring that people only have the kind of sex that you approve of people having- you disapprove of 'peter puffers' and 'carpet munchers'- and think the government shouldn't allow allow oral sex between adults.
It is homophobic posters who bring up first cousins marrying(legal and has been legal in 11 states longer than same gender marriage) and then try to label homosexuals as being hypocrites for disapproving of first cousin marriages.
Even though homosexuals- and myself- aren't arguing for- or against- first cousin marriages. You are.
I have a problem with the hypocrisy of homophobes whose argument is so shallow that they can't argue their case without pretending like homosexuals have taken any position other than arguing to be treated just like any other couple who is exactly the same as they are- other than gender.
Bob and Bill want to be treated just like Bob and Jill in marriage- assuming the only difference between Bill and Jill is gender.
Yes- that is marriage equality.
Bob and Jill are already married but with the consent of both, Bob wants to marry Jane, too. The only difference is that while you claim to argue for equality of consenting adults, you're entire argument centers around nothing more than two faggots wanting something. The multiple partner marriage meets all the criteria put forth by the homos yet you still say it's different. Keep sucking one.
That hasn't happened.
It's next.
Mixed race marriage bans were declared illegal 50 years ago. If thats the slippery slope, then I am not likely to see it happen in my life time.
I don't know anyone advocating to change the laws to allow brothers to marry sisters, except opponents to gay marriage.
There is no slippery slope with the equal protection clause, it's very clear. If you legitimize sexual behavior via marriage, then it applies to any sexual behavior that isn't illegal. So that means, as soon as we make incestual relations legal,.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Sexual behavior is legitimate- and private- and has no connection to marriage.
No one is suggesting legalizing brothers marrying sisters except Conservatives who oppose same gender marriage.
The equal protection clause says that States can only deny rights to people if they can establish a valid State interest in denying those rights. No State has been able to make a convincing argument why Jack and Jill have the right to marry, but Jack and Bill do not.
How do you feel about this? Is it not sickening?
..
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Sexual behavior is legitimate- and private- and has no connection to marriage.
No one is suggesting legalizing brothers marrying sisters except Conservatives who oppose same gender marriage.
The equal protection clause says that States can only deny rights to people if they can establish a valid State interest in denying those rights. No State has been able to make a convincing argument why Jack and Jill have the right to marry, but Jack and Bill do not.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.
No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.
And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.
No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.
And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.
BULLSHIT! Show me where the Constitution says the State can deny our rights for "compelling reasons"!
Also show me where our right to privacy trumps another right, or anything trumps our right to privacy?
These are things that simply are not in the US Constitution.
Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.
We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.
I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.
Are we all on the same page, now?
How? How exactly is insisting that every person has the right to make moral decisions for themselves forcing my morality on you?Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.
We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.
I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.
Are we all on the same page, now?
NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?
If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.
Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults
All illegal at one time.
I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.
Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?
I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).
I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.
All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.
No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.
And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.
BULLSHIT! Show me where the Constitution says the State can deny our rights for "compelling reasons"!
Also show me where our right to privacy trumps another right, or anything trumps our right to privacy?
These are things that simply are not in the US Constitution.
I don't have to. You know examples of it.
Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.
Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.
Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.
Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.
How? How exactly is insisting that every person has the right to make moral decisions for themselves forcing my morality on you?
