CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[DinoDoc]

Here's a question. Should the law prevent people marrying their own siblings (of whatever gender)?

That along with bigamy would logically be the next step in the fight for marriage equality. They even have the same ideaological basis as that for expanding the definition of marriage to gays.

[Arrian]

As for the issue of polygamy - as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult (if you have 2 wives or husbands and want a 3rd, everybody signs off on it) and all have equal rights under the compact...

Eh, fine by me. Under that scenario, the cultists in Utah/Texas won't be getting any more welfare payments for "single mothers."

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Here's a question. Should the law prevent people marrying their own siblings (of whatever gender)?

That along with bigamy would logically be the next step in the fight for marriage equality. They even have the same ideaological basis as that for expanding the definition of marriage to gays.

Damnit, Agathon ruined this thread with bringing this **** in. Slippery slope nonsense.

Ideological basis for gay marriage: It's between TWO consenting adults with NO chance of biological defects in the children due to their relationship.

Ideological basis for bigamy: It's between MORE THAN TWO consenting adults with NO chance of biological defects in the children due to their relationship WITH a chance of emotional/sociological abuse from the nature of the relationship. That said, if everyone agrees.............

Ideological basis for incest: It's between TWO consenting adults with A NOT INSIGNIFICANT CHANCE of biological defects in the children due to their relationship.

These aren't the same basis.

[Ming]

I have no problem with with any pair of consenting adults getting married.

None of the arguments against such marriages hold up at all.

When people claim that marriage is for producing children, and that gays can't do so... They ignore the fact that many couples can't have children, but nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.
And this is because they are hetro.

When it comes to related people, the argument seems to be possible birth defects... but they ignore the fact that many normal couples, due to their genes, also face the risk of having children with birth defects, but nobody is arguing that they can't get married...

If it is against your religious beliefs/moral code, then you don't have to do it yourself... but religious beliefs are not universal, and you have no right cramming your beliefs down everybodies elses throat.

As far as bigamy goes, I'm open minded about that as well... as long as everybody in the relationship truly consents to it.

I see no reason why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to get married if they want to.

If the government is going to give special rights to people who get married, those rights should be available to all.

[Arrian]

Ming. Not such a bastard after all!

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
These aren't the same basis.

You've yet to give any meaningful difference between gay marriage and bigamy/incest. In one instance you even agreed with it and in the other you gave a reason to prevent the marriage of Ashkenazi Jews for instance.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You've yet to give any meaningful difference between gay marriage and bigamy/incest. In one instance you even agreed with it and in the other you gave a reason to prevent the marriage of Ashkenazi Jews for instance.

Meaningful difference: Incest scientifically can create children with defects. Not the same with gay marriage.

Bigamy: I don't "agree with it" but I don't know if it's the state's interest to ban it. It does have a very different ideological basis than gay marriage, which is -- just like heterosexual marrage -- a contract between TWO consenting adults.

I'm just merely pointing out your claims that they all have the same ideological basis is deeply flawed. It obviously stems from your (and Ben's) views that the ideological basis of gay marriage is to threaten your self-repressed lifestyle.

[Jon Miller]

I am not a big fan of this ruling. Nor a lot of people's reasoning.

I don't think that people have a right to be married (neither homosexual nor straight).

It comes down to this:

It is in the states interest to support long term monogamous relationships for it's heterosexual populace.

It is in the states interest to support long term monogamous relationships for it's homosexual populace.

It isn't in the states interest to support bigamous relationships. In today's age, it just isn't sustainable (baring some radical change in the way people have relationships). Additionally, generally one side (which is usually female) is getting the shaft due to economics.

It isn't in the states interest to support incestial relationships. Most people can see that one.

You don't want a large portion of your populace being taken advantage of. You don't want a large portion of your populace sexually frustrated. You don't want a large portion of your populace changing sexual partners often (this is even more important when children is involved).

These are the reasons why the state should support heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships. And not the other sorts.

JM

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm just merely pointing out your claims that they all have the same ideological basis is deeply flawed.

The claim is that if we extend the definition of marriage under the law on the basis of equal protection claims that there is nothing one can reasonably argue to avoid extending it yet further on those same lines.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The claim is that if we extend the definition of marriage under the law on the basis of equal protection claims that there is nothing one can reasonably argue to avoid extending it yet further on those same claims.

Did you intentionally not read the rest of my post that addressed this, or are you too delusional to recognize it?

[DinoDoc]

The rest of your post was based on your idiotic misunderstanding of what you thought was my arguement.

[Asher]

Did you intentionally not read the rest of my post that addressed this, or are you too delusional to recognize it?

The latter, then

If you can't see a "meaningful difference" between bigamy (multiple people) and monogamous pairing marriages (two people), or a "meaningful difference" between a relationship that produces children with high probability of birth defects and a relationship that does not bring children with birth defects into the world....then I don't know what to say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Meaningful difference: Incest scientifically can create children with defects.

What's your point?

Originally posted by Ming
When it comes to related people, the argument seems to be possible birth defects... but they ignore the fact that many normal couples, due to their genes, also face the risk of having children with birth defects, but nobody is arguing that they can't get married...

It does have a very different ideological basis than gay marriage, which is -- just like heterosexual marrage -- a contract between TWO consenting adults.

That's really only one form of marriage and I'm not even sure it's the most common. Again, what's your point?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's your point?

That's really only one form of marriage and I'm not even sure it's the most common. Again, what's your point?

What is my point? Are you serious?

My point was you're comparing relationships between two consenting adults with no impact on anyone else to a relationship prone to emotional abuses (bigamy) and a relationship prone to birth defects (incest). Then claiming there's no difference.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
My point was you're comparing relationships between two consenting adults with no impact on anyone else to a relationship prone to emotional abuses (bigamy)

Lots of relationships are prone to abuse of somesort. That's not really an arguement.

and a relationship prone to birth defects (incest).

As Ming said, there are a not insignifigant amount of couples who based on thier genes have a risk of producing children with birth defects. Should they not be allowed to marry?

Then claiming there's no difference.

Legally, I don't see one.