The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Seawytch]

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

There are homosexuals in my husband's firm, we're not really close friends with them but we entertain them in our home like we do all the associates. With that said they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some gays act. It's the militant types doing their cause more harm than they realize.

Thanks for mentioning your experience.

I am good friends with quite a few Christians- actually they are amongst the friends I have known for most of my life. I have attended their weddings, visited them, cheered on their children- just like I do all of my friends.

With that said, they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some Christians act- the ones who seem to forget what Christ's two greatest commandments are.

Its the bigoted Christians that are doing their faith more harm than they realize.

And yes- I am speaking of Christians just like you.

I would bet hard money that your friends are what we call "social Christians". The ones who think the main message of Christ's ministry was "be nice to each other", and are more likely to describe themselves as "spiritual", rather than any sort of hard moral conviction.

That's probably what extremist Muslims say about the moderate Muslims too.

 

[Seawytch]

ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman.

Which is the same exact argument used in Loving v Texas except the "qualifier" was that they had to be of the same race.

Lost then too.

 

[Pop23]

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

What choice did the children of those relationships have - did they get to choose their parents? Why should those children be ostracized?

The children should not, but it IS THE parents that but them in THAT SITUATION. No child should be born from an incestuous MARRIAGE. The parents of THIS CHILD will likely carry defective bloodlines that DOES NOT JUST EFFECT THIS CHILD, but generations to follow.

The recent USSC ruling opened the door to just that.

Read up on children created by incest. You need an understanding before you can make a sane argument: Kissing Cousins Everything You Didn t Want To Know About Incest And Why Inbreeding Isn t Actually As Dangerous As It Sounds

It seems his research ends with cousins? Distant relatives?

Where's the info on siblings? You Dili realize that is wide open as well, right?

You know how to use Google, so, use it. And the reproduction argument against incestuous marriage is the only bucket to be found, and it doesn't hold much water according to biology.

Then provide the damn link for siblings

Inbreeding is not good.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm sorry, when did THAT become "the definition"?

Since the beginning of math.

I'm pretty sure the argument was "love", not "more than everyone else".

Like I said, it's equivocation fallacy. Nobody supporting same sex marriage has ever said that "love" means every and any form of love, whatsoever. I love chocolate. That doesn't mean I'm going to marry a Hershey's bar. If you cannot understand that there are different kinds of love, then you lack maturity to even bother addressing this issue.

So now you want to investigate everyone's relationships when they apply for marriage licenses

That's ridiculous, and nobody supporting same sex marriage has ever said such a thing. To the contrary, those opposing same sex marriages are the only ones who have suggested that two people applying for a marriage license should be investigated to live up to various auxiliary criteria. Are you going to be sexually active, are you fertile, do you plan to have children, etc.

to make sure that they're as movie-script-infatuated as they can possibly be with each other, before you'll validate their union?

There's that immaturity again. There is nothing "movie script" about marriage. To the contrary, marriage is difficult, it takes hard work, it is full of pain and trials. You need to start dealing with this issue on an adult level, not the level of an infatuated school girl.

Please don't tell me what polygamy is and isn't like. It's even worse than the scads of atheists clamoring to tell me the "correct" way to be a Christian.

Um, what? You quoted my post. That suggests you're replying to my post. But your words seem like they're meant to be addressed to the Universe.

Are you really saying that if, rather than loving just one person, I love two people more than anyone else in the world, you feel justified in denying me the happiness of marriage simply because my relationship is different from yours?

I'm saying that loving two people more than anyone else in the world is mathematically impossible. If you love someone more than anyone else in the world, then you love them more than the third wheel in your plural relationship. The fact that you are devolving to preschool level math and still can't get it right shows how entirely unhinged you are about all of this. Stop being so damned ridiculous.

 

[Pop23]

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't have the first clue what I'm talking about? I'm not the one waxing rhapsodic about how entire cultures throughout history have been completely invalid because they didn't adhere to an intensely Westernized and extremely modern view of marriage, love

Nobody has made such an argument. If you can't even be honest about the discussion, and are only going to engage straw men, then you're not worthy of any attention.

 

[GHook93]

My cousin married a closeted gay man. She said it was awful. He was a nice guy and treated her well, but she thought he was old school with sex after marriage. He had trouble on their wedding night and every time thereafter. In their 7 year long marriage they had sex twice.

It eventually ended in divorce. She finally got married again at age 36 and he came out of the closet shortly after the divorce. It did neither of them justice to get married. It was actually more unfair to her. Many anti gay marriage crowd members would be glad this gay man had a heterosexual marriage, regardless of how unfair it is to the straight member of the marriage!

Um, no, there's no reason to believe that any of us are in favor of being dishonest to people, other than your desire to smear us.

I responded to the OP about gay men marry hetero women. Those marriages are a disaster and completely unfair to the heterosexual spouse.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

You want arguments to justify non legality of polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?

Polygamy leads to male dominated societies.
Incest leads to genetically unhealthy offspring.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing these things. Marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the constitution via the 9th and 14th amendments. Like all rights protected by the constitution, they are not unlimited, and can be infringed where a legitimate government interest exists, so long as the law in questions meets the appropriate level of scrutiny for the right being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. In the case of polygamy and incest, government infringement meets the standard for strict scrutiny. Laws that prohibit these are general in nature, serve a legitimate government interest, and are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern.

Simple as that.

 

[Pop23]

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

You want arguments to justify non legality of polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?

Polygamy leads to male dominated societies.
Incest leads to genetically unhealthy offspring.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing these things. Marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the constitution via the 9th and 14th amendments. Like all rights protected by the constitution, they are not unlimited, and can be infringed where a legitimate government interest exists, so long as the law in questions meets the appropriate level of scrutiny for the right being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. In the case of polygamy and incest, government infringement meets the standard for strict scrutiny. Laws that prohibit these are general in nature, serve a legitimate government interest, and are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern.

Simple as that.

Thanks, so PROCREATION should be a limiting factor in marriage. We agree, but because of the recent SC ruling your arguments are arbitrary by the number, and discriminatory toward heterosexuals.

Name another contract that only allows two participants in the contract. Thus, arbitrary.

Name a single same sex couple that has procreated, how do you deny same sex family members from marriage when it's impossible for them to marry and deny the straight siblings because they can procreate?

That is the legal paradox this ruling caused. Show me that my fears are unfounded.

 

[SwimExpert]

Thanks, so PROCREATION should be a limiting factor in marriage. We agree, but because of the recent SC ruling your arguments are arbitrary by the number, and discriminatory toward heterosexuals.

See, this is the obtuse level of those opposed to same sex marriage. They take minute details, and inflate them in to wide ranging universals. It's like performing surgery by clobbering a patient with a baseball bat.

I did not say what you want to believe I said. I said...and I quote: "are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern."

Name another contract that only allows two participants in the contract. Thus, arbitrary.

Any contract that deals with mutually exclusive arrangements will have only two parties. The Super Bowl is a good example. The NFL is one party, the network is the second party. Both sides agree that they will be tied to each other, and that they will forsake all others in favor of their partner, to whom they will be deeply committed. They will support their partner, honor their partner, cherish their partner. They will work not just for their own selfish needs, but for the betterment of both, so that together they can each be better than either one could ever be by themselves.

 

[SwimExpert]

Name a single same sex couple that has procreated, how do you deny same sex family members from marriage when it's impossible for them to marry and deny the straight siblings because they can procreate?

That is the legal paradox this ruling caused. Show me that my fears are unfounded.

Un, no, it's not a paradox. It's nonsense. I am not advocating to deny same sex marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Thanks, so PROCREATION should be a limiting factor in marriage. We agree, but because of the recent SC ruling your arguments are arbitrary by the number, and discriminatory toward heterosexuals.

See, this is the obtuse level of those opposed to same sex marriage. They take minute details, and inflate them in to wide ranging universals. It's like performing surgery by clobbering a patient with a baseball bat.

I did not say what you want to believe I said. I said...and I quote: "are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern."

Name another contract that only allows two participants in the contract. Thus, arbitrary.

Any contract that deals with mutually exclusive arrangements will have only two parties. The Super Bowl is a good example. The NFL is one party, the network is the second party. Both sides agree that they will be tied to each other, and that they will forsake all others in favor of their partner, to whom they will be deeply committed. They will support their partner, honor their partner, cherish their partner. They will work not just for their own selfish needs, but for the betterment of both, so that together they can each be better than either one could ever be by themselves.

You realize that you are talking corporate entities that are representing thousands of investors and parties right? Show me the signatures of the parties, likely there are more that two, PLUS, and this is where you deflect, the law that allows this contract does not mandate only two parties.

You did make me chuckle though.

You can only narrowly define this by excluding the procreation ability of one demographic group, then flip that to include the inability to procreate by the other. ARBITRARY.

 

[Pop23]

Name a single same sex couple that has procreated, how do you deny same sex family members from marriage when it's impossible for them to marry and deny the straight siblings because they can procreate?

That is the legal paradox this ruling caused. Show me that my fears are unfounded.

Un, no, it's not a paradox. It's nonsense. I am not advocating to deny same sex marriage.

No your not, what makes you think I thought you would?

However the paradox exists, no matter how much you wish it didn't

 

[Zoom-boing]

[

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

Which is why the manner in which same sex marriage came about, by judicial fiat, is a mistake. In no way am I defending the Supreme Court's decision because, as you point out, now the states are disempowered to put any restrictions on marriage, no matter how ridiculous people make marriage. Polygamy? Marrying one's son to avoid an inheritance tax? Marrying a pet, a car, or even a battery operated vibrator? And this is just the beginning.

The decision should have been made by the states, but on a personal level, I'm asking what moral right that happily married heterosexual couples have to say, "Bliss for me, but not for thee." As you see from the OP, I'm approaching this from a very personal perspective that involves close friends of my family. I cannot justify denying them the happiness I've found in being married to my wife in the eyes of society.

Because it further normalizes the abnormal. The abnormal will never be normal and should not be considered so.

 

[Pop23]

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

You want arguments to justify non legality of polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?

Polygamy leads to male dominated societies.
Incest leads to genetically unhealthy offspring.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing these things. Marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the constitution via the 9th and 14th amendments. Like all rights protected by the constitution, they are not unlimited, and can be infringed where a legitimate government interest exists, so long as the law in questions meets the appropriate level of scrutiny for the right being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. In the case of polygamy and incest, government infringement meets the standard for strict scrutiny. Laws that prohibit these are general in nature, serve a legitimate government interest, and are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern.

Simple as that.

Polygamy is simply an alternative lifestyle. No one MUST participate in it, not unlike homosexuality, but the law says that only one alternative lifestyle deserves recognition? Bizarre

 

[featherlite]

People should have equal protection under the law and Ive never had a problem with people who chose different things than I would.
Finding a middle ground with others is my default position in life ...I do it with everything.lol

But this? equality for all is a cover for what some have in mind. You'd have to be a total idiot to not see it.

 

[Coyote]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

So, I'm still wondering. Why do you think the children of such unions need to be punished? You've thrown everything else at this conversation except what the conversation is really about.

Why do the children need to be punished?

 

[Coyote]

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

You want arguments to justify non legality of polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?

Polygamy leads to male dominated societies.
Incest leads to genetically unhealthy offspring.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing these things. Marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the constitution via the 9th and 14th amendments. Like all rights protected by the constitution, they are not unlimited, and can be infringed where a legitimate government interest exists, so long as the law in questions meets the appropriate level of scrutiny for the right being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. In the case of polygamy and incest, government infringement meets the standard for strict scrutiny. Laws that prohibit these are general in nature, serve a legitimate government interest, and are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern.

Simple as that.

Polygamy is simply an alternative lifestyle. No one MUST participate in it, not unlike homosexuality, but the law says that only one alternative lifestyle deserves recognition? Bizarre

Personally - I could care less about polygamy - it's consenting adults. But I can see some differences in rights.

Same sex marriage is till one and one - it's a fundamental right of marriage between too people who are biologically hardwired to be attracted to the same sex. I don't see it as any different than interracial marriage.

Polygamy - the man can still marry the partner of his choice - he just can't marry more than one. Can you make the same argument about polygamy that you can about interracial marriage and subsequently same sex marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

You want arguments to justify non legality of polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?

Polygamy leads to male dominated societies.
Incest leads to genetically unhealthy offspring.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing these things. Marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the constitution via the 9th and 14th amendments. Like all rights protected by the constitution, they are not unlimited, and can be infringed where a legitimate government interest exists, so long as the law in questions meets the appropriate level of scrutiny for the right being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. In the case of polygamy and incest, government infringement meets the standard for strict scrutiny. Laws that prohibit these are general in nature, serve a legitimate government interest, and are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern.

Simple as that.

Thanks, so PROCREATION should be a limiting factor in marriage. We agree, but because of the recent SC ruling your arguments are arbitrary by the number, and discriminatory toward heterosexuals.

Name another contract that only allows two participants in the contract. Thus, arbitrary.

Name a single same sex couple that has procreated, how do you deny same sex family members from marriage when it's impossible for them to marry and deny the straight siblings because they can procreate?

That is the legal paradox this ruling caused. Show me that my fears are unfounded.

As I have pointed out multiple times- the recent Supreme Court ruling changes nothing.

Procreation is not the reason for marriage- since States don't care whether couples have children, can have children or want to have children.
States even tell some couples that they have to prove to the State they cannot have children prior to marrying.

If procreation was the only concern about sibling marriage- then the State could simply require siblings to prove that they cannot procreate.

But no state does that. So your argument would have been a failure prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

And of course- laws against polygamy have nothing to do with procreation- since a polygamous family can procreate as well as any family.

You just can't come up with an argument as to why sibling marriage or polygamy should be illegal.

And that frankly- is your problem- no one elses.

 

[Syriusly]

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

You want arguments to justify non legality of polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?

Polygamy leads to male dominated societies.
Incest leads to genetically unhealthy offspring.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing these things. Marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the constitution via the 9th and 14th amendments. Like all rights protected by the constitution, they are not unlimited, and can be infringed where a legitimate government interest exists, so long as the law in questions meets the appropriate level of scrutiny for the right being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. In the case of polygamy and incest, government infringement meets the standard for strict scrutiny. Laws that prohibit these are general in nature, serve a legitimate government interest, and are as narrowly tailored as possible to specifically address the area of concern.

Simple as that.

Polygamy is simply an alternative lifestyle. No one MUST participate in it, not unlike homosexuality, but the law says that only one alternative lifestyle deserves recognition? Bizarre

Mixed race marriages are an alternative lifestyle. But those couples rights are protected by the Constitution also.

Either you can formulate an argument against polygamy- or you can't.

You clearly can't.

If States are as inept at composing an argument as you are- yes polygamy could be legal.

Not because same gender couples can legally marry- but because you and the State can't come up with a reason why polygamous marriage should be illegal.