CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Perhaps you should look at the article and the links it contains?

The ashkenazi are an ethnic and religious group, and either way they can bear the costs themselves if that is their desire

Gotcha. Ethnic groups with a higher propensity for genetic diseases can't marry either now under your world view. Now that we have cleared out the Jews from marrying are there any other groups you would suggest?

You're great, DD... just great

People in American society can follow the rules designated by America. If they prefer not to, they can leave and go somewhere where they can follow their own rules. I don't think this is an entirely new concept...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wait, are you saying testing should be mandatory, but that the results will have no impact on granting the license?

-Arrian

Yes...

Again, I don't think the state should have a care about the children thing. This is not my sole objection to incest. The state should not permit incestuous marriages because of the combination of increased ACTUAL cost to society (based on significantly increased risk of genetic defects), AND the fact that the one benefit of marriage - dependent status - is available elsewhere.

Ming, the state must consider costs to society, even if they are discriminatory. This is after all the purpose of a state in the first place... the state may not discriminate unless there is a state interest in doing so, which exists in the case of incest (cost to the state). Even if it is not 100%, the increased risk is present and therefore is an economic cost to the policy as a whole.

[Arrian]

I therefore withdraw the fascism allegation.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

I'm really not a fascist... I'm a moderate libertarian ... it's just the context of this site, populated almost exclusively by far-right libertarians and communists

What's hilarious is I had the same problem in the College Republicans... I didn't believe in banning unions or in privatizing education (all of it!!) so I was the massive liberal and frequently told I should go join the College Democrats or even the Democratic Socialists... it was hilarious

[Arrian]

I know you're not a fascist. You just occasionally have the odd fascistic tendency

I occasionally have commie tendencies... and then go off on a rant about fiscal responsibility.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Ming, the state must consider costs to society, even if they are discriminatory. This is after all the purpose of a state in the first place... the state may not discriminate unless there is a state interest in doing so, which exists in the case of incest (cost to the state). Even if it is not 100%, the increased risk is present and therefore is an economic cost to the policy as a whole.

I have to call BS... using that criteria, the STATE should ban smoking, alcohol, fast foods, and even fast cars... all of which place far more considerable costs on society.

I don't see that as a valid argument considering what the state already does allow.

[SlowwHand]

Odd to find 2 yankees advocating State's Rights.
Won't you get kicked out of the club?

[Jon Miller]

The state, however, does restrict prostitution/heroin/crack/etc.

And it tried to restrict alcohol. That just didn't work because alcohol was too ingrained in society. The practice with tabacco where information and taxes are used has been much better.

That being said, the state isn't saying that you can't have sex with multiple partners and live together (for example). It is just saying that it isn't going to support it. And it is right to do so, because it isn't in it's interest to support it.

You need to do far more than just say that it isn't any of the states business. You need to show that it is the states business to promote it.

It definitely is in the states interest to promote marriage (of the monogamous type). Look at health/children/sexual/emotional statistics of married people versus unmarried people.

JM

[rah]

If you didn't incur state sponsered benifits, I'd agree with you. But since there are benefits, denying them willy nilly is discrimination

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ming


I have to call BS... using that criteria, the STATE should ban smoking, alcohol, fast foods, and even fast cars... all of which place far more considerable costs on society.

I don't see that as a valid argument considering what the state already does allow.

1. I'd agree with banning all of those things, except fast foods, which are not really themselves a problem (overconsumption is, but that's harder to regulate), if other concerns were nonexistent (Prohibition made those abundantly clear).

2. It is a matter of weighing costs versus benefits versus the costs to restricting individual liberty. There is no significant restriction on individual liberty to restricting marriage based on familial relations.

Marriage allows you to :
* Have a dependent relationship where one person is a tax deduction for the other, and depends on the other for financial support
* Have a sexual relationship (according to Agathon).

Currently you can:
* Have a family member enter into a dependent relationship with you
* Have sex with whomever you want (unless there is a ban on incestuos SEX, which i'm not aware of, and would be a separate point to this entire debate in any event).

No individual liberty is restricted except Agathon's "state recognized relationship", which I argue is a small restriction on liberty and far outweighed by the cost to society.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Odd to find 2 yankees advocating State's Rights.

Not odd that a Texan wouldn't understand that state in this context is a generic term for a government and not one of the fifty sub-national divisions of the US.

[Ming]

Snoopy.... One more time, we place NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS on people with genetic disorders who are MORE LIKELY than relatives to have children with birth defects. The state allows them to get married and have children who are at high risk to have birth defects.
This is no different. To allow one and not the other is simply discrimination.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by rah
If you didn't incur state sponsered benifits, I'd agree with you. But since there are benefits, denying them willy nilly is discrimination

What?

You don't have a right to state benefits. For example, it isn't a right to get education. It is a right for you to be able to receive an education that you can acquire, but you don't have a right to education that you can't acquire. For example, if you never passed 4th grade you can't require the state to accept and pay for you to attend Berkeley. On the other hand, it is in the states interest for anyone who is able to have further education, and so it will help the minroties get an education.

Another example, it isn't a right for you to drive. While ti is in the states interest for you to be able to get to your place of employment and otherwise enjoy mobility, it is not in the states interest for you to driv e when you are blind, or when you have shown yourself to be bad driver.

The state is not required to give benefits out in some equal way to everyone. Marriage has shown itself to be benefial, therefore the state supports it. In particular, exclusive marriage has shown itself to be beneficial. Therefore it is not in the states interest to support bigamy. So the state doesn't have to support it.

If it wasn't in the states interest to support marriage (2 person) then it wouldn't have the legal protections and benefits. It would be treated like 3 people living together (and having sex) which is entirely legal right now. If the state said that you could have 3 people lviing together having sex (/etc), than that would be descrimination.

What I and others maintain is that it is in the states interest to promote marriage between homosexuals as well as between heterosexuals.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
Snoopy.... One more time, we place NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS on people with genetic disorders who are MORE LIKELY than relatives to have children with birth defects. The state allows them to get married and have children who are at high risk to have birth defects.
This is no different. To allow one and not the other is simply discrimination.

How often do siblings have birth defects? How often do unrelated members of the populace?

The state has the option of testing everyone, or saying that this one group that will have trouble 90% of the time should just not engage in it.

Besides the fact that most psychologists/etc think that incestal relationships aren't healthy mentally.

JM

[Jon Miller]

To make it clear:

Sodomy laws = descrimination

No benefit or problem = neutral

Marriage = benefit

Descrimination only holds true if there isn't other reasons to not engage in it. Such as males benefit from education, why dont' females benefit from it also?

It is two person marriage (and in hetero couples, non-incestial) which is the benefit that the state wants to encourage. As such bigamy is not included by purpose. It isn't descrimination.

I guess since the benefits that the state wants gay couples to have don't include bearing children together, there is a greater argument to allow incestal gay marriages than incestal straight ones. So I guess it wouldn't be too bad if Ming and rah got married.

JM