REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Court:: CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2012 18:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2538
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 _ a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage _ was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

However, the appeals court said gay marriages cannot resume in the state until the deadline passes for Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. If such an appeal is filed, the panel's ruling would remain on hold until it's resolved.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," states the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court's most liberal judges.



A good first step. Now on to appeals and probably the Supremes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:32 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Of course it is. Never doubt the 9th's eagerness to overturn any decision of the people to promote a profoundly Left wing agenda.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:38 AM

STORYMARK


Unconstitutional is unconstitutional - even if a majority likes it that way.

A point you always struggle with. Its okay, no one expects better of you, Rappy.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course it is. Never doubt the 9th's eagerness to overturn any decision of the people to promote a profoundly Left wing agenda.



Although in this case, I'd call it a decision by the people to enforce discrimination. I'll be glad to see the end of it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:51 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course it is. Never doubt the 9th's eagerness to overturn any decision of the people to promote a profoundly Left wing agenda.



Although in this case, I'd call it a decision by the people to enforce discrimination. I'll be glad to see the end of it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Twice in as many minutes that Im in total agreement with you.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Although in this case, I'd call it a decision by the people to enforce discrimination. I'll be glad to see the end of it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I have no problem with discrimination.

We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest... allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.

You might think that's fine, but I don't.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:15 AM

BYTEMITE


People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.



So, you're equating interracial marriage, which is 1 man + 1 woman, to gay marriage ?

Really?

That's funny.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:33 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
A good first step. Now on to appeals and probably the Supremes.


The decision will be upheld by the Appeals Court and overturned by the Supreme Court...like most cases coming from California in the last 20 years.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:01 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest... allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.




The standard argument of the fucking retarded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest... allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.




The standard argument of the fucking retarded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"



Translation: I have no logical, mature, rational rebuttal, so I'll result to childish name calling.

Crassic.


But speaking of retards reproducing, I'm guessing you're fine w/ that , too ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:08 PM

STORYMARK


It's the typical response when dealing with an asshole so entrenched in his own bullshit that nothing will ever get through, yeah. Why bother with an argument - you've proven endlessly that you'll ignore facts you dont like, and invent those which you think support you.

Why do I have to keep explaining this to you???

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But speaking of retards reproducing, I'm guessing you're fine w/ that , too ?





And you don't? Sounds like you support eugenics - which would be utterly unsurprising.


Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one. But keep tiliting, Don.


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Wow.. .MORE childish profanity !



I guess that just comes naturally to you, huh?

And curious that you bring up 'eugenics'. That's the sole , driving reason for the basis of the pro-abortion movement.

You DO know that, yes ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest...



I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it's with the willing informed adult consent of all parties involved. I feel the same about Gay marriage.

Child/adult sex can not have such consent, and is aggression agains the child, which makes it wrong.

Incest - absent adult/child incest, which makes it wrong as noted above - has genetic dangers, which is one of the major reasons for prohibitions against it. However, folks as close as first cousins have married, and still do, in many cultures. I'd really have to go with the informed willing adult consent rule again.

Quote:

allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.


Don't think so. As long as marriage requires willing informed adult consent of all parties involved, I'm not seeing a problem. Adult/child marriage and adult/child incest would still be outside the rules, sinde all parties could not provide such consent. So would adult/dog, since a dog can't provide informed adult consent.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:21 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one.



True. Yet I manage to get my point across without name calling.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:32 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.



So, you're equating interracial marriage, which is 1 man + 1 woman, to gay marriage ?

Really?

That's funny.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



Let me see. Gender: something a person is born with, which generally stays the same into the adult years.

Race: something a person is born with, which generally stays the same into the adult years.

Same sex romantic love, co-habitance, and involvement in life decisions: possible.

Interacial romantic love, co-habitance, and involvement in life decisions: possible.

Same Sex child bearing and raising capacity: possible.

Interracial child bearing and raising capacity: possible.

Looks like I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:45 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

I have no logical, mature, rational rebuttal, so I'll result to childish name calling.
Omygawd, he finally ADMITTED IT!!!

It IS the same as interracial marriage, in more ways than that. Back when interracial marriage was illegal, African Americans were considered "less than" other humans, sometimes even called animals. They were "the other", and had no right to marry "real" people. Now gays are "the other", and even tho' their marrying one another AFFECTS NOBODY BUT THEMSELVES, the same stigma and illegality pervades.

If people had taken Prop. 8 seriously, it never would have passed. Now that people KNOW how it was managed, it wouldn't pass. If The Church (there it is again) hadn't spent tons of money and propaganda to get it passed, it wouldn't have passed. If it came up for a vote today, it wouldn't pass. Simple as that.

If it gets to the Supremes, they may well uphold Prop. 8...gawd knows they're currently pawns of the right. But they do so at their own peril, because it IS unconstitutional.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.



So, you're equating interracial marriage, which is 1 man + 1 woman, to gay marriage ?

Really?

That's funny.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



Let me see. Gender: something a person is born with, which generally stays the same into the adult years.

Race: something a person is born with, which generally stays the same into the adult years.

Same sex romantic love, co-habitance, and involvement in life decisions: possible.

Interacial romantic love, co-habitance, and involvement in life decisions: possible.

Same Sex child bearing and raising capacity: possible.

Interracial child bearing and raising capacity: possible.

Looks like I am.



No, but you're making MY case for me. Thanks.





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:53 PM

BYTEMITE


Which one is incorrect? Science has progressed quite a lot, and a father and a mother specifically is no longer needed to conceive. Let alone the ways around that, such as using a surrogate mother, or a sperm donor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Thanks for, again , proving my point.

You need science to create a family for you, not so w/ interracial marriage.

Not the same.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:02 PM

BYTEMITE


Uh, no. Plenty of them have families even without science. I merely pointed out that with science, heterosexual reproduction no longer even applies.

Not to mention that sometimes even heterosexual families need help conceiving. Their marriage isn't invalid because they used science to get children. Or when they never have children at all.

You are making the naturalistic fallacy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Uh, no. Plenty of them have families even without science. I merely pointed out that with science, heterosexual reproduction no longer even applies.



That's just so quaint.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:29 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one.



True. Yet I manage to get my point across without name calling.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



And bravo for you.

But as Ive made clear, I don't consider Rappy worth anything but name-calling. I have more respect for the dog shit on my shoe.

And I am extremely amused that he doesn't seem to want to try to push back against yourt arguments. I believe that speaks to the strength of his conviction, and his true motive.

He's trolling for a fight with the libs, and doesn't really believe this BS all that much.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

But as Ive made clear, I don't consider Rappy worth anything but name-calling. I have more respect for the dog shit on my shoe.

And I am extremely amused that he doesn't seem to want to try to push back against yourt arguments. I believe that speaks to the strength of his conviction, and his true motive.

He's trolling for a fight with the libs, and doesn't really believe this BS all that much.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"



So, you'll note my ' strength of conviction ', yet I'm still only worthy of name calling.

Huh.

And since I replied to Geezer's OP, that kinda debunks your claim that I'm trolling for a fight w/ the libs. See, conservatives can have civil, sincere and mature disagreements, from time to time.


You ? Not so much.

Guess that speaks to YOUR character. Or lack there of.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 3:12 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 4:23 PM

BYTEMITE


First cousins do marry. Though that's problematic as well.

Very few cultures except the most elitist and restrictive have a class where brothers and sisters marry, but those cultures are fraught with so many problems as it is and generational problems in that ruling class that they stand as good cautionary tales against the practice. Cousin marriages would represent similar problems, though those are less class-restrictive.

From what I've seen lusting after a brother or sister indicates an underlying problem, too. It's not very common.

I think perhaps I forgot to include a clause about NON-EXPLOITATIVE relationships between consenting adults.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:12 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.



Just to outrage you even more, I figure that, absent the genetic risks, I wouldn't have a problem with adult brother and sister, or adult parent and adult child, assuming, as always, informed adult consent. After all, completely unrelated folks can have bad recessive genes that can produce birth defects. Should we test everyone for possible genetic problems and only let the folks with clean genes reproduce?

Let's just say that I don't care what folks do in their personal lives, in any combination of numbers, sexes, family relationships, races, religions, etc., as long as everyone is an adult, they all understand what's going on and the consequences for everyone involved, they all consent, and the welfare of any children produced is protected by the participants.

It's really just none of my business.

Nor, in my opinion, anyone elses.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:24 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.



This will sound harsh but, grow up.

Stuff like that has happened throughout human history. If you don't like it don't do it. At the end of the day what your neighbors do in their bed room and with who does not effect you in the least.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Well, McKenzie Phillips didn't MARRY her dad, but she sure did enjoy 'knowing' him, in a wifely / daughterly way.



Drugs is bad, mmmkay ?




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:47 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




You have the right to eat da poo poo, and illegal aliens have the right to be president.

So saeth men in black dresses at Bohemian Grove, raping little boys then blowing their heads off then cannibalizing them on live TV.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:51 PM

BYTEMITE


On one hand I can see Geezer's point, but on the other, perhaps I'm not as tolerant as I like to think. Because a parent child relationship would seem to me to be inherently exploitative, like a doctor coercing sexual favours out of a patient, or an employer and an employee. Or someone who is unable to understand sexuality being pressured into a relationship of that sort.

Ultimately it's probably true that legally there's no grounds to rule against any relationship. But as I said in a different thread, there's a difference between legality and morality. Some relationships ARE questionable, because there's a very serious question about consent. Even if consent has been apparently given and the experience isn't negative, the situation might be obliquely coercive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 6:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one.



True. Yet I manage to get my point across without name calling.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Well, occasionally you do, anyway.


Hell, sometimes Rappy does, too. Not often, but sometimes.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 6:04 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thanks for, again , proving my point.

You need science to create a family for you, not so w/ interracial marriage.

Not the same.




Is adoption now considered "science"? Are only those married couples who have children naturally to be considered "real" married couples?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 6:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya




Odd that you believe in the Bible, considering how squeamish you are about this kind of thing, Riona. Read it again. Note how much incest there is in all that "begetting" that's going on. If there was Adam and Eve, there's really no possible way to believe in that creation myth without believing there was one hell of a lot of incest going on, which your "god" seemingly approved of.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I have no problem with polygamy either. Adults should be free to choose their relationships, and personally, I think it would be fine if legal definitions of marriage are done away with all together. Let people choose the kind of contract they want, and make it cheap to pick one off a legal rack and end all this nonsense. Laws re this stuff only mean anything when the relationship ends by death or separation, so have a contract that states what you both or all feel is fair should this happen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:41 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:36 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Hello,

I think the point that Geezer is trying to make is that it's none of his business what consenting adults do with each other. No matter how 'grotty' it is. It's their business, not his.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:01 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Hello,

I think the point that Geezer is trying to make is that it's none of his business what consenting adults do with each other. No matter how 'grotty' it is. It's their business, not his.

--Anthony



Of course, the only problem you have then is, what constistutes an 'adult' ? Is it 21? 18? 16? Common for minors to be allowed to marry, provided the spouse is of age. Are we going to 'discriminate', when it comes to the issue of same sex marriages ? Won't Dan and Joe be able to marry, if Dan is 30 and Joe is... 16 ?

And what of incestual marriages ? Are they going to be subject to the same laws ? If so, why ?

So you see, this live and let love mindset some folks have... not sure it's all that well thought out.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 4:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.



So why is incest the grottiest?

Pretty obviously, it's because of the higher percentage of physical and mental defects found in children of brother/sister and parent/child breeding. The tribal elders/priests/shamans/etc. saw that this was a problem that caused hardship for the tribe. Similarly, once pair-bonding started between men and women, adultery - trying to steal someone elses mate - became taboo because of the trouble it caused. Eventually such strictures became codified in religion, as it was an easy way to enforce them.

I would agree that incest that produces children is a bad idea. There's just too much risk of a bad outcome. If no children can be produced, say if the male has a vasectomy, there's no risk of a bad genetic outcome, so what's the problem?

As Anthony said, I figure if everyone agrees and no one gets hurt, its none of my business. I'm not promoting or suggesting any particular form of marriage, but I don't particularly care as long as my caveats about consent and lack of harm are met.

For an interesting take on the whole group marriage and incest thing, read "Time Enough for Love" by Robert Heinlein.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 4:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course, the only problem you have then is, what constistutes an 'adult' ? Is it 21? 18? 16? Common for minors to be allowed to marry, provided the spouse is of age. Are we going to 'discriminate', when it comes to the issue of same sex marriages ? Won't Dan and Joe be able to marry, if Dan is 30 and Joe is... 16 ?


That is a consideration, since some folks never seem to reach the adult stage. Kardashians come to mind. And even heterosexual marriages between adults often fail. Just to set a mark, I'd say 18, when you can vote and go to war.

Quote:

And what of incestual marriages ? Are they going to be subject to the same laws ? If so, why ?

As noted, the problem with incestuous marriage, or incestuous sex at all, is the increased possibility of defective children. If there is a guarantee that there will be no children, who gets hurt?

Rap. For an avowed athiest, a lot of your objections sure seem to come from a religious mindset. Even though you've rejected the church, looks like a lot of its notions of "sin" still linger.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 4:59 AM

BYTEMITE


Speaking from a purely practical perspective, relationships with a power disparity between partners are a serious legal liability issue. Even if everyone starts out as a consenting adult (in so far as consent in that case is possible), those relationships are at a higher risk for accusations of abuse, rape, or exploitation, if the relationship isn't those already.

It's almost kind of an "Okay, we can't stop you, but why would you WANT to?" It's just a really ill-advised and bone headed move to make.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 5:18 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

As noted, the problem with incestuous marriage, or incestuous sex at all, is the increased possibility of defective children. If there is a guarantee that there will be no children, who gets hurt?


Debateably, the people involved. Especially in an adult parent child relationship, ESPECIALLY in an adult minor relationship.

But also, if you're talking true-exclusivity, and they follow your rule about not having kids, that's potentially wiping out part of a family genetic line. At the very least it's a relationship that would restrict hooking up with more suitable genetic partners, unless you're talking non-exclusivity. And that's if the birth control measures don't fail, and you have children produced by that relationship, which could be unfair health-risk wise to those kids. Or if the birth control doesn't have consequences on the side related to hormone levels, cancers, and etc. In the case of minors, it could stunt development, conception is easier due to hormones but child birth is more dangerous, and so on.

And then there's the liability issues I just mentioned. It's their choice, yeah, and they also used to do a lot of this stuff less than 100 years ago in America, but I really can't see any way they're being WISE. You can pretty much avoid all these issues with all other non-exploitative consenting adult relationships. Once you start to get away from those guidelines, scientific, social, practical, and legal problems arise.

I had a friend who's dad used to make her put on a strip show for him when she was pre-pubescent. He never did anything more than that to her, she thought it was just a game at the time, but later in life she felt it was extremely damaging.

I've heard stories of incest where it appears neither participant is particularly damaged by the experience, but I really have to wonder.

Like I said, if there's consent you can't do anything about it, you probably can't really pass a law, but I would highly advise against pursuing such a relationship.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:13 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I have no problem with polygamy either. Adults should be free to choose their relationships, and personally, I think it would be fine if legal definitions of marriage are done away with all together. Let people choose the kind of contract they want, and make it cheap to pick one off a legal rack and end all this nonsense.


I'm sure you and your horse will be very happy together.

Cheap joke, but you are right. This is a contract issue. Legally marriage has always been a contract, but it has always applied to opposite sex relations. It established rights and responsibilities between both parties and their families.

The question then is shoud the definition of marriage be expanded to include same sex couples? No. The institution works as intended. Same sex couples simply do not qualify and there is no compelling reason to modify the existing law to grant them access. There is no discrimination, since gay persons are still free to marry opposite sex partners and heterosexual folks are likewise barred from same sex marriages.

This does not mean there is no remedy. The govt is free to create another legal status for same sex couples that mirrors the one that exists for marriage. In other words, Civil Unions.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Debateably, the people involved. Especially in an adult parent child relationship, ESPECIALLY in an adult minor relationship.



But since I've already specified adult, informed, willing consent as a criteria, that argument is moot.

Quote:

But also, if you're talking true-exclusivity, and they follow your rule about not having kids, that's potentially wiping out part of a family genetic line. At the very least it's a relationship that would restrict hooking up with more suitable genetic partners, unless you're talking non-exclusivity.


So would that also apply to non-related couples who either decide not to have children, or to couples in which one or both partners are unable to procreate?

Quote:

And that's if the birth control measures don't fail, and you have children produced by that relationship, which could be unfair health-risk wise to those kids.

That's a consideration. I would suspect that permanent methods, such as vasectomy or tubal ligation, would be desirable.

Quote:

Or if the birth control doesn't have consequences on the side related to hormone levels, cancers, and etc.


The same risks as un-related partners take, so also moot.

Quote:

In the case of minors, it could stunt development, conception is easier due to hormones but child birth is more dangerous, and so on.

Again, informed, consenting, willing adults. Moot.

Quote:

And then there's the liability issues I just mentioned. It's their choice, yeah, and they also used to do a lot of this stuff less than 100 years ago in America, but I really can't see any way they're being WISE.

I see a lot of non-related couples marriages that I wouldn't call WISE. Either from immaturity of folks legaly adults, or due to pretty obvious inheritable traits that'll likely be passed on to their kids. Not sure I want to play eugenics.


Quote:

You can pretty much avoid all these issues with all other non-exploitative consenting adult relationships. Once you start to get away from those guidelines, scientific, social, practical, and legal problems arise.


So would you ban marriage for, say, an un-related couple who both have developmental defects that they'd likely pass on to their kids?

Quote:

I had a friend who's dad used to make her put on a strip show for him when she was pre-pubescent. He never did anything more than that to her, she thought it was just a game at the time, but later in life she felt it was extremely damaging.

Once again, adult, informed, consenting. Your friend's dad was committing child abuse. Anyone turn him in yet?

Quote:

Like I said, if there's consent you can't do anything about it, you probably can't really pass a law, but I would highly advise against pursuing such a relationship.


And I wouldn't advise for it, but absent any chance greater than a non-incestuous marriage of harm to those involved, I can see no reason to prohibit it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rap. For an avowed athiest, a lot of your objections sure seem to come from a religious mindset. Even though you've rejected the church, looks like a lot of its notions of "sin" still linger.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Just basing my views on the past 5 to 10,000 years of human social interaction. As you noted, taboos are born out of practical observations , made by the 'tribal elders', or the known experiences of what's worked and what hasn't, and why. It's these 'laws' , which later manifested into religious doctrine, to coerce folks into doing what's 'good' for the community. Like how, at one time, there may have been good reasons for certain types of foods to be avoided. It wasn't so much "Godâ„¢ said," , but it just made good common sense. Some things still apply, others don't, but it has nothing to do w/ who is saying it. At least for me, it's not a 'god thing' , as there is none.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Speaking from a purely practical perspective, relationships with a power disparity between partners are a serious legal liability issue. Even if everyone starts out as a consenting adult (in so far as consent in that case is possible), those relationships are at a higher risk for accusations of abuse, rape, or exploitation, if the relationship isn't those already.



But this can happen in any type of marriage. You only have to turn on the nightly news to see this happening in monogamous heterosexual marriage. Any stats to indicate it'd be more likely in any non-traditional marriage, as long as willing, informed, adult consent by all parties is required?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Just basing my views on the past 5 to 10,000 years of human social interaction. As you noted, taboos are born out of practical observations , made by the 'tribal elders', or the known experiences of what's worked and what hasn't, and why. It's these 'laws' , which later manifested into religious doctrine, to coerce folks into doing what's 'good' for the community. Like how, at one time, there may have been good reasons for certain types of foods to be avoided. It wasn't so much "Godâ„¢ said," , but it just made good common sense. Some things still apply, others don't, but it has nothing to do w/ who is saying it. At least for me, it's not a 'god thing' , as there is none.



Okay.

But as you note, "Some things still apply, others don't..."

We now eat pork and oysters, because the problems they caused in the old days no longer apply. We now allow divorce for the same reason - there's not the overwhelming need to keep family units together for survival that there was in the past.

Strictures agains homosexuality seem to have come from tribal societies, like the Israelites, where everybody needed to be breeding just to keep the population up. Is this still an issue?



But really: if adult, willing, informed, consenting Bob and adult, willing, informed, consenting Bill want to get married and have the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a married couple, who does it hurt? Especially, who does it hurt more than if it was Bob and Jane?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:38 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
This does not mean there is no remedy. The govt is free to create another legal status for same sex couples that mirrors the one that exists for marriage. In other words, Civil Unions.



Seperate but equal?

What compelling reason is there for not just allowing same-sex couples to marry each other? What harm does it do? Especially if you consider marriage from its civil and legal perspectives, rather than from a religious one?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:52 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


Thats the exact argument that I have never ever once heard refuted in any way, shape or form Geezer, well said.

It can't be refuted, because there is no effect whatsoever beyond Bob and Bill.

IMO, its heterosexuals who have destroyed the sanctity of marriage, long before homosexuals were even lobbying for marriage rights.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:56 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

What compelling reason is there for not just allowing same-sex couples to marry each other? What harm does it do? Especially if you consider marriage from its civil and legal perspectives, rather than from a religious one?
"


There is simply no reason to make something that is legal and works fine something other then what it is.

Gee, why no use oranges to make lemonade? Because its not lemonade, but you can still make orange juice.


H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL