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.
"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 becomes 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.
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
"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?
.
"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
The number now is irrelevant whe you remove PROCREATION. The number is arbitrary and nonsensical.
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.
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
You realize that you are talking corporate entities that are representing thousands of investors and parties right?
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.
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.
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.
Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.
I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.
So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.
I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.
Exhibit A:
Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:
1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.
2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.
3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.
I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.
So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.
I have and I got no regrets about it.
Its gays that have put Christians in a quandary.
Just for a little perspective (note the views expressed in this link are not necessarily my own):
Will Church Cave on Marriage Southern Baptist Leader Not Going To Happen
SALT LAKE CITY -- Episcopalians have voted to allow religious weddings forsame-sex couples, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Episcopalian church votes to approve same-sex marriage - CBS News
Sad you can't think of any reasonable legal argument against sibling marriage
A trend that is continuing in regards to the embrace of gay marriage, one denomination and parish at a time.
Christianity is an adaptable faith that in its modern incarnations trends toward tolerance and love
A trend that is continuing in regards to the embrace of gay marriage, one denomination and parish at a time.
A trend that is, strictly religiously speaking, in direct defiance of what the Bible says about marriage. Not once does it allow for this kind of marriage in a church. And as for me, it clearly says that they (and you) are reading from a different Bible than I am.
Christianity is an adaptable faith that in its modern incarnations trends toward tolerance and love
I got into a two week long discussion about this with bfgrn. Clearly, nobody reads that part where God isn't all love or tolerance. People are altering their perceptions of God to satisfy the political dogma of "gay marriage." Mind you I support it. But when I read statements like the above, I can't help but wonder, is this "trend" something done by will? Or by force?
Times change. And the trend has been toward Christians 'reinterpreting' their faith and giving ground to gays. Such is the quandary gays have placed Christians in. With Christians faced with two general options: another 'reinterpretation'. Or increasing marginalization.
And for the record, Episcopalians have no affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention, who consists of all Protestant Churches. Episcopalians and their churches are an arm of the Anglican denomination.
Times change. And the trend has been toward Christians 'reinterpreting' their faith and giving ground to gays. Such is the quandary gays have placed Christians in. With Christians faced with two general options: another 'reinterpretation'. Or increasing marginalization.
So, I guess this serves the "by force" argument. Change or die. What say you?
Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.
I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.
So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.
I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.
Exhibit A:
Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:
1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.
2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.
3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.
I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.
So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.
I have and I got no regrets about it.
