Same sex marriage laws

[Elric]

“Finding something disturbing” is entirely subjective.

I suppose that it could be.

But tell me, what do you think that I mean by it?

“Tends to be self destructive and not very intimate” is very close to many conservative opinions of the “gay” lifestyle

Cant help it if they are wrong.

But on the other hand, the same thing could be and is said about hetrosexual marriage.

Why monogamus?

Why not?

Why sexual?

Why not?

Why not Spinster Aunts so they can make medical decisions for each other? or why not two male heterosexual, erstwhile bachelor business partners who “play the field” but use a civil union to simplify inheritance. Why not partners-in-crime so they can’t be forced to testify against each other?

Because they dont really need to and one is simply dishonest?

I have to ask what is the relevence of these?

Who gets to decide where to draw the line at “nearly the same as ‘marriage as human society as known it since the beginning’ but just this much different”

I dont know, I mean who decided that slavery is immoral?

They are two institutions that have been around for a very long time.

Who gets to define if a marrige is valid for immigration purposes? (I mean, “Living together as husband and wife” is so prior millenia. )

Huh?

If any two people can join together, can it be for whatever reasons they decide? Or is sex maybe something sacred after all?

Huh?

If your reason for denying marriage to any of the above is “that’s not marriage” or blended-family half-siblings with no blood relation “because its icky,” then how do you refute those who use the same arguments against same sex marriage?

Huh?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

But they are not the same thing, so why should you?

But they are.

1. Two men (joe and john) are adults. They are also homosexuals. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them?
   You say yes.
2. Two women (jane and hilda) are adults. They are also homosexuals. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them?
   You say yes.
3. Two Heterosexuals (Bob and Olga) are adults. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them to?
   well here is the kicker Bob and Olga grew up on opposite coasts. They are both adopted (two different families). Their birth parents are the same, but they did not know this till they feel in love and applied for their marriage license, where a blood test revelaed that they where related.
   So do we allow them to marry?
4. Two heterosexuals (Jane and Martin) are adults. They are consenting adults who want to marry. should we let them?
   They are both adopted. The birth parents are not the same but they where adopted by the same family. They feel in love and want to marry. SHould we let them?
5. Olga, Bob and Sharon all are in a partnership together. They are all adults, consenting and not related to each other. They want to have a marriage (all three of them) should we allow them all to marry each other?
6. Olga and Bob are both consenting adults. Olga grew up in NYC and Bob has grew up in Europe. They did not know it till after they fell in love but Bob is Olga’s uncle (black sheep of the family) shoild they be allowed to marry?

In all 6 examples the people are adults and consenting (only thing in common). So should they all be allowed to marry? If not why.

 

[Elric]

But they are.

1. Two men (joe and john) are adults. They are also homosexuals. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them?
   You say yes.
2. Two women (jane and hilda) are adults. They are also homosexuals. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them?
   You say yes.

Ok.

1. Two Heterosexuals (Bob and Olga) are adults. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them to?
   well here is the kicker Bob and Olga grew up on opposite coasts. They are both adopted (two different families). Their birth parents are the same, but they did not know this till they feel in love and applied for their marriage license, where a blood test revelaed that they where related.
   So do we allow them to marry?

Already answered that one, no.

1. Two heterosexuals (Jane and Martin) are adults. They are consenting adults who want to marry. should we let them?
   They are both adopted. The birth parents are not the same but they where adopted by the same family. They feel in love and want to marry. SHould we let them?

They are not related, so yes.

1. Olga, Bob and Sharon all are in a partnership together. They are all adults, consenting and not related to each other. They want to have a marriage (all three of them) should we allow them all to marry each other?

No.

1. Olga and Bob are both consenting adults. Olga grew up in NYC and Bob has grew up in Europe. They did not know it till after they fell in love but Bob is Olga’s uncle (black sheep of the family) shoild they be allowed to marry?

No.

In all 6 examples the people are adults and consenting (only thing in common).

Exactly, they only have two things in common (which they also have in common with hetrosexual marriage). That hardly makes them the same.

So should they all be allowed to marry? If not why.

No not all, unless you are suggesting that incest polygamy isnt wrong?

I am certainly not suggesting that.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Exactly, they only have two things in common (which they also have in common with hetrosexual marriage). That hardly makes them the same.

Then I want you to explain how they are different. We have explained how they are the same- that is, that thye are consenting adults in love. It is now up to you to explain why they are different.

 

[Elric]

Then I want you to explain how they are different.

You honestly cant see a difference?

We have explained how they are the same- that is, that thye are consenting adults in love.

That does not explain how they are the same, that is akin to saying that humans are the same as crocodiles because we both have teeth and eyes.

Essentially you are suggesting that there are things in common between them or that there are similarities, that doesnt make them the same by a long shot. In fact they have similarities to hetrosexual marriage as well, do we really want to go down that path?

It is now up to you to explain why they are different.

No it not up to me to do anything. There are others on this forum who have made the same statement and some of them are against same sex marriage, yet they can still see and understand that incest, polygamy and homosexuality are different things.

Homosexual means something completly different to incest and polygamy. In this discussion a homosexual is not having sex with one of their relatives or wanting 2 or more partners.

 

[PapaSquash]

1. Two Heterosexuals (Bob and Olga) are adults. They are consenting adults. They want to marry, should we allow them to?
   well here is the kicker Bob and Olga grew up on opposite coasts. They are both adopted (two different families). Their birth parents are the same, but they did not know this till they feel in love and applied for their marriage license, where a blood test revelaed that they where related.
   So do we allow them to marry?

OK, so this one is NO, due to blood relation. Must be for reasons of potential genetic problems, right? There’s no implied power imbalance, they didn’t grow up in the same household. Now what if Olga were Oscar? (or has a sex change operation and becomes Oscar.) Now is it OK? If not, why not? No chance of defective offspring.

Or is the reason going to remain simply “because they are related?” If so, we want to know what makes this answer more compelling then saying no “because they are not of opposite sex.”

Or is the answer “because I said so?” If we are supposed to be prepared to subjectively and arbitrarily junk the defintion of one of the foundations of human society, are we not supposed to wonder what the new definition is going to be based on?

Is it because those advocating homosexual marriage happen to have the clout to advance their agenda right now? What if the polyamorists pick up some in few years? Will they have a case then?

 

[Elric]

OK, so this one is NO, due to blood relation. Must be for reasons of potential genetic problems, right? There’s no implied power imbalance, they didn’t grow up in the same household. Now what if Olga were Oscar? (or has a sex change operation and becomes Oscar.) Now is it OK? If not, why not? No chance of defective offspring.

Or is the reason going to remain simply “because they are related?” If so, we want to know what makes this answer more compelling then saying no “because they are not of opposite sex.”

Or is the answer “because I said so?” If we are supposed to be prepared to subjectively and arbitrarily junk the defintion of one of the foundations of human society, are we not supposed to wonder what the new definition is going to be based on?

Is it because those advocating homosexual marriage happen to have the clout to advance their agenda right now? What if the polyamorists pick up some in few years? Will they have a case then?

What are you on about?

All this because I asked a question that nobody seems to be able to answer. Its getting to the point that I have almost forgotten what it was that I asked.

We have some people aserting that same sex marriage is the same as incest ect because they are conscenting adults. Unfortunatly that would also suggest that hetrosexual marriage is the same because they are conscenting adults and that just opens up a whole new can of worms.

Then there are others who state that they are not the same, yet they still treat them as though they are and making comparisons as though they are the same. If they are not the same then dont treat them as if they are.

When it comes down to it, you opposes incest and the like because you believe its wrong and it goes against your morals.

Well guess what, same with me.

You are not opposed to hetrosexual marriage because you do not believe that it is wrong.

Hey, same here.

You oppose homosexuality/homosexual marriage becuase you believe it is wrong and it goes against your morals.

This is where we differ, because I dont believe it is wrong for homosexuals (although it would be wrong for me).

There you go, none of this “conscenting adults” rubbish that seems to encourage higher levels of sillyness from people of both sides. Just treat them as different issues because that is what they are, it could actually be humanities next step towards enlightenment.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Elric,

would any of those 6 examples I gave you , would you answer differently if the anti-sodomy laws where still in effect and legal??

the only reason you perhaps see a problem with polygamy and incest marriages as I have given examples of is because there are laws against them, just like homosexuals at one time had laws against them.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Elric,

would any of those 6 examples I gave you , would you answer differently if the anti-sodomy laws where still in effect and legal??

the only reason you perhaps see a problem with polygamy and incest marriages as I have given examples of is because there are laws against them, just like homosexuals at one time had laws against them.

Those laws will too eventually fall. Then Elric can post here why they should be re-instated. Then he will have to give another reason besides “They are not the same”.

Yes, a serious can of worms has been opened.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent raises the question of whether other prohibitions on the private sexual behavior of consenting adults are unconstitutional, e.g. cases of incest. In Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005)[1], the 7th Circuit declined to extend its reasoning to cases of consensual adult incest, although it did rule that Lawrence v. Texas was “a new substantive rule and …] thus retroactive”.

The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered “narrow and strained” by at least one newspaper, The Boston Globe [2]. As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been “desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court’s recent precedents on sexual liberty.”

 

[iamrefreshed]

A little more for review.

“Justice Kennedy refused to accept the notion that “the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law.” And he concluded with a critical passage that can be altered, just slightly, to cover the case of Allen and Patricia Muth (replacing references to homosexuality with ones to incest): The present case does not involve minors [involved in a sexual relationship]. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that [incestuous] persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to [an incestuous] lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

nationalreview.com/comment/franck200508040812.asp

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Those laws will too eventually fall. Then Elric can post here why they should be re-instated. Then he will have to give another reason besides “They are not the same”.

Yes, a serious can of worms has been opened.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent raises the question of whether other prohibitions on the private sexual behavior of consenting adults are unconstitutional, e.g. cases of incest. In Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005)[1], the 7th Circuit declined to extend its reasoning to cases of consensual adult incest, although it did rule that Lawrence v. Texas was “a new substantive rule and …] thus retroactive”.

The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered “narrow and strained” by at least one newspaper, The Boston Globe [2]. As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been “desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court’s recent precedents on sexual liberty.”

A little more for review.

“Justice Kennedy refused to accept the notion that “the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law.” And he concluded with a critical passage that can be altered, just slightly, to cover the case of Allen and Patricia Muth (replacing references to homosexuality with ones to incest): The present case does not involve minors [involved in a sexual relationship]. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that [incestuous] persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to [an incestuous] lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

nationalreview.com/comment/franck200508040812.asp

Thank you

 

[Daddums]

Essentially you are suggesting that there are things in common between them or that there are similarities, that doesnt make them the same by a long shot. In fact they have similarities to hetrosexual marriage as well, do we really want to go down that path?

Perhaps I can help here. You came in to the middle a discussion a poster was having with other members. The poster had given “consenting adults” as the reason homosexual marriage is OK. Other members are making the argument that being just consenting adults alone is insufficient to determine whether or not a marital union should be permitted. To support their argument they are giving examples of other cases where the same consenting adult justification can be used to permit marriage. They are not saying the situations are the same, just that the same “consenting adults” argument can be used for all of the situations.

I don’t get the sense that you are defending the “consenting adults” justification for HM which is why, I think, this line of reasoning is confusing you.

I hope this helps a little.

Daddums

 

[Elric]

Elric,

would any of those 6 examples I gave you , would you answer differently if the anti-sodomy laws where still in effect and legal??

No.

the only reason you perhaps see a problem with polygamy and incest marriages as I have given examples of is because there are laws against them, just like homosexuals at one time had laws against them.

I understand what you are saying and it is a reasonable point, but legality has nothing to do with my opinion.

 

[Elric]

Those laws will too eventually fall. Then Elric can post here why they should be re-instated. Then he will have to give another reason besides “They are not the same”.

Yes, a serious can of worms has been opened.

Is there really a need for that?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

No.

I understand what you are saying and it is a reasonable point, but legality has nothing to do with my opinion.

So if anti-sodomy laws where in effect (still) you would still be pushing for SSM?

 

[Elric]

So if anti-sodomy laws where in effect (still) you would still be pushing for SSM?

Perhaps I should clarify.

It wouldnt change my opinion on homosexuality, but SSM would be quite difficult if homosexuality was illegal.

But I am not actually pushing for SSM.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Perhaps I should clarify.

It wouldnt change my opinion on homosexuality, but SSM would be quite difficult if homosexuality was illegal.

But I am not actually pushing for SSM.

Ok. so what are you “pushing” for?? I think I may of missed that somewhere

 

[Elric]

Ok. so what are you “pushing” for?? I think I may of missed that somewhere

I am not pushing for anything.

SSM would not affect me as I am not homosexual, I simlply think that homosexuals should be able to “bond” if they choose to.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I am not pushing for anything.

SSM would not affect me as I am not homosexual, I simlply think that homosexuals should be able to “bond” if they choose to.

And the fact you wouldn’t allow related people to ‘bond’ “if they choose to” makes your position hypocritical.

You did say “if they choose to”

 

[john_ennis]

Define right?

I think for most people they think that it goes without saying why incest ect are not right and they dont actually think about them, because they are seperate issues.

Personally I think that there is something disturbing about wanting to marry you sibling (or other relation) and polygamy tends to be self destructive and not very intimate.