The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Syriusly]

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

The paradox exists only in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Why?

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

So you think it would be okay for siblings to marry- just so long as the siblings were both sterile or the female was over 55 years old?

 

[Pop23]

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.

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?

How are they being punished by the government? This is a governmental sponsored institution you understand? A piece of paper will not change the perceived punishment. And I think that's all this is about, your perception. I have never "punished" a child for their parents behavior, you?

Are children of single mothers also so punished?

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

So you think it would be okay for siblings to marry- just so long as the siblings were both sterile or the female was over 55 years old?

That is existing Wisconsin law, now why would the age requirement, or the fertility requirement pertain to gay siblings?

Since the law exists, and the requirement is as above, we now need to deal with its marriage implications.

Seems a paradox, leave the requirements for gays, and you argue it's because THAT HETEROSEXUALS CAN PROCREATE, a right must be denied, or delayed, for gays.

What is the compelling state interest in denial, or age requirement of 55 to the gay couple?

A paradox. The only argument is procreation, and that starts this whole mess over again.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

So you think it would be okay for siblings to marry- just so long as the siblings were both sterile or the female was over 55 years old?

That is existing Wisconsin law, now why would the age requirement, or the fertility requirement pertain to gay siblings?

Since the law exists, and the requirement is as above, we now need to deal with its marriage implications.

Seems a paradox, leave the requirements for gays, and you argue it's because THAT HETEROSEXUALS CAN PROCREATE, a right must be denied, or delayed, for gays.

What is the compelling state interest in denial, or age requirement of 55 to the gay couple?

A paradox. The only argument is procreation, and that starts this whole mess over again.

So you think that it would be okay for siblings to marry- just so long as the siblings were both sterile or the female was over 55 years old?

 

[Pop23]

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?

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

 

[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

Why?

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State.

Please post the finding in which same sex siblings have ever produced a child , defective or not, then please share the compelling governmental interest to deny closely related same sex couples from marrying?

I can't come up with a single one. You?

Try sharing it if you actually have one. Using procreation as the reason is stupid and goes against SSM.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

True, it is arbritrary.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

Then it sounds like there are more cons to polygamy than same-sex marriage which has no cons imo.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

True, it is arbritrary.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

Then it sounds like there are more cons to polygamy than same-sex marriage which has no cons imo.

Except you can't have one without the other.

There were solutions, but we are past those now.

Rational heads failed the day, so now we are either forced to accept incest and polygamy as state approved marriage or desolve the institution as a governmental license all together.

Sad it had to come to this, but unless someone comes up with a reasonable legal argument, without the limiting factors once included in marriage, one or the other is a done deal.

In either case, not good I fear

 

[Coyote]

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?

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

True, it is arbritrary.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

Then it sounds like there are more cons to polygamy than same-sex marriage which has no cons imo.

Except you can't have one without the other.

There were solutions, but we are past those now.

Rational heads failed the day, so now we are either forced to accept incest and polygamy as state approved marriage or desolve the institution as a governmental license all together.

Sad it had to come to this, but unless someone comes up with a reasonable legal argument, without the limiting factors once included in marriage, one or the other is a done deal.

In either case, not good I fear

I disagree - you're applying the slippery slope.

Your exact same arguments could have been made for interracial marriage. Would you go back on that decision?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

Marriage has been a right all along- the courts recognized that right about 80 years ago.

This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State laws based upon that right of marriage.

The hypocrisy comes from those on the right- who oppose same gender marriage- suddenly arguing on behalf of sibling marriage and polygamy- even though they actually don't support any of them.

Irrelevant. Hypocritical behavior by one side does not negate hypocritical behavior on another.

When marriage became a right is also irrelevant - there is literally no argument left for marriage to be denied for virtually anything. 2 weeks ago you COULD have mounted a procreation/family argument even if it was wrong (it really was the last bastion of those that want government to control marriage) but that is now no longer an option.

I am not here to argue for or against polygamy or sibling marriage.

But there are arguments against each that existed before- and existed after last Friday's ruling.

Last Friday's ruling is as unrelated to the issues of sibling marriage and polygamy as Loving v. Virginia was.

Again, incorrect.

There has been for a LONG time the argument that governmental meddling in marriage is tied to the societal need to promote procreation and family. That argument is now moot - there is no possibility of procreation within a gay marriage.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Actually, they are the exact same thing. They all remove the practice of a RIGHT based on arbitrary and absent reasoning.

The reality is that they don't allow access to marriage because the general public disagrees with those lifestyles. Simple as that. Rights should not be subject to what the people see as proper though hence the opening of marriage to gay couples. The rest are no different.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, that is your false perception of multiple partners. There are plenty of people all over the world with successful partnerships that involve more than 2 people. That is simply a fact. It is also true that many do not work out but that is not for YOU to decide OR judge but for them.

That has nothing to do with denying them marriage rights however.

I think you are forgetting where my contribution to this thread originated. I am not chiming in here to either condone or condemn polyamorous arrangements, nor polygamist marriage. I am addressing the fallacious argument that "if love is love, then any and all marriages whatsoever."

Advocates of same sex marriage have never argued that all forms and levels of love are equivocal. Forcing any such equivocation into our arguments is therefore fallacy. Same sex marriage has always been an issue that stands on its own merits. The same is the case for plural marriage. The same is true for incestual marriage.

No, I would say that is actually false. First, and most important, gay marriages DOES NOT stand on 'its own merits' because extending marriage rights to gays has nothing to do with the merits of gay marriage. There is no need to ague merits for the exercise of rights - the exact opposite is true. The 'merits' of blocking gay rights are what was in question and what is lacking.

That is a VERY important distinction IMHO. Specifically in this case because there really is no actual merits against any of these groups having access to marriage rights. Those arguments are essentially identical for each and every group and moot.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry but that is utterly false. The paradox is there if you oppose some groups access to the right of marriage but not others based on virtually nothing.

Justify your assumption "based on virtually nothing."

I don't have to to be honest - I do not have to justify why one should have rights. YOU, OTOH must justify why you think that such rights should be denied.

I have already addressed this though - incestuous marriages are denied based on the idea that children have a higher likelihood of abnormalities.

This is, however, is completely arbitrary as the state does not address the dozens of other cases that are FAR FAR worse than incestuous relationships. Where are the laws that deny those with Huntington’s Disease access to marriage? AFAIK, non-existent. Somehow there is not compelling reason there where the child is in FAR more danger to not only contract a FATAL disorder but pass it on as well. Nor does it address the fact that procreation is clearly no a part of marriage law - otherwise it would matter in the case of gay marriages.
As I think it is well established that the ability to procreate is irrelevant in a marriage - where does the state get off on suddenly caring when there is the possibility of procreation?

That argument fails out the gate. There is even less of an argument against plural marriages.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

True, it is arbritrary.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

Then it sounds like there are more cons to polygamy than same-sex marriage which has no cons imo.

Except you can't have one without the other.

There were solutions, but we are past those now.

Rational heads failed the day, so now we are either forced to accept incest and polygamy as state approved marriage or desolve the institution as a governmental license all together.

Sad it had to come to this, but unless someone comes up with a reasonable legal argument, without the limiting factors once included in marriage, one or the other is a done deal.

In either case, not good I fear

I disagree - you're applying the slippery slope.

Your exact same arguments could have been made for interracial marriage. Would you go back on that decision?

Lol, no it couldn't against interracial. In loving, the two limiting factors, the number, which was not then arbitrary as it was a simple use of one of each gender, and an excellent way to exclude family members too closely related, applied equally to ALL FAMILY MEMBERS were left intact

Now, state the reasonable legal argument to restrict two same sex siblings from marriage?

Inbreeding? You simply can't be serious.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

True, it is arbritrary.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

Then it sounds like there are more cons to polygamy than same-sex marriage which has no cons imo.

Except you can't have one without the other.

There were solutions, but we are past those now.

Rational heads failed the day, so now we are either forced to accept incest and polygamy as state approved marriage or desolve the institution as a governmental license all together.

Sad it had to come to this, but unless someone comes up with a reasonable legal argument, without the limiting factors once included in marriage, one or the other is a done deal.

In either case, not good I fear

I disagree - you're applying the slippery slope.

Your exact same arguments could have been made for interracial marriage. Would you go back on that decision?

Lol, no it couldn't against interracial. In loving, the two limiting factors, the number, which was not then arbitrary as it was a simple use of one of each gender, and an excellent way to exclude family members too closely related, applied equally to ALL FAMILY MEMBERS were left intact

Now, state the reasonable legal argument to restrict two same sex siblings from marriage?

Inbreeding? You simply can't be serious.

I agree there isn't one - however, having two siblings that are both homosexual and attracted to each other is so exceedingly rare as to be irrelevant. So yes, they could make a case and if they did - would it matter?

 

[Pop23]

Please name another contract that limits the number of participants to two.

That FACT, that there is no other, makes the number arbitrary and cannot stand.

True, it is arbritrary.

Polygamy is a very bad idea, and progressives should be fighting it harder than conservatives.

A wealthy polygamist can take away many many spouses from the eligible population of spouses available to the poor.

Not good, not good at all

Then it sounds like there are more cons to polygamy than same-sex marriage which has no cons imo.

Except you can't have one without the other.

There were solutions, but we are past those now.

Rational heads failed the day, so now we are either forced to accept incest and polygamy as state approved marriage or desolve the institution as a governmental license all together.

Sad it had to come to this, but unless someone comes up with a reasonable legal argument, without the limiting factors once included in marriage, one or the other is a done deal.

In either case, not good I fear

I disagree - you're applying the slippery slope.

Your exact same arguments could have been made for interracial marriage. Would you go back on that decision?

Lol, no it couldn't against interracial. In loving, the two limiting factors, the number, which was not then arbitrary as it was a simple use of one of each gender, and an excellent way to exclude family members too closely related, applied equally to ALL FAMILY MEMBERS were left intact

Now, state the reasonable legal argument to restrict two same sex siblings from marriage?

Inbreeding? You simply can't be serious.

I agree there isn't one - however, having two siblings that are both homosexual and attracted to each other is so exceedingly rare as to be irrelevant. So yes, they could make a case and if they did - would it matter?

You have just made my point. Thanks

 

[Coyote]

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

 

[Pop23]

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

Good lord:

That was prior to the SC ruling.

It says NOTHING about how, when you REMOVE THE LIMITING factors of one man to one women, how the number simply isn't arbitrary!

The number was 2 prior to loving and after loving as that was the minimum number required to procreate.

Tell me, what is the minimum number of same sex individuals required to procreate?

2....6.....10,000?

The number now is irrelevant whe you remove PROCREATION. The number is arbitrary and nonsensical.