Civil Right?

[RetiredGySgt]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

The fact that it is a human right is more than enough to justify same sex marriage.

But not for blood relatives? They are exempt? How about plural marriages?

 

[Katzndogz]

You know, it's really quite simple. When a government has a legitimate interest in preventing marriages (marriage between blood relatives, for example), it can, and should, do so. When there is no legimate reason to prevent marriages between certain types of people (inter racial marriage, marriage between gays), then the government cannot prevent such marriages.

There is no legitimate reason whatsover for preventing gay marriage. Intolerance and bigotry are not legitimate reasons. I have yet to hear a valid, logical argument against gay marriage - they are either red herrings or bull shit arguments designed to mask the true reason for the opposition: intolerance and bigotry.

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

I thought the criteria was that they love each other, be consenting adults and all was right with the world.

Be warned if you are going to claim defects first generation defects from blood relatives is so minor as to occurrence as to be irrelevant, further the Government allows people that have a 50 percent chance to pass on a defect to marry and breed.

Other then your ick factor why should blood relatives be prevented from marrying?

Well, it is not technically true that blood relatives cannot marry. Beyond certain degrees of consanguinity, blood relatives are allowed to marry. I haven't reviewed this in some time, but I think that second cousins and beyond can marry.

You are joking when you ask why blood relatives are not allowed to marry, right? In case you are not - if blood siblings (brother and sister) produce a child, genetic defects can occur. If marriages between blood relatives continue in that same blood line, things can get really messy.

Remember the little guy with the banjo, sitting on the bridge as Burt Reynolds and his pals embarked on their little canoe trip into hell in "Deliverance"? That kind of stuff.

Off hand, it's tempting to agree with you. Suppose it's a brother and sister and they promise not to have children. Or, one can't have children. Or, they are too old to have children. Can they marry? If they can, and only brothers and sisters who are fertile can't marry, that's discrimination on any number of levels. If genetic manipulation could guarantee that the children would not have genetic defects would you agree that incest isn't so bad after all? Not to even go to the place where brothers and sisters don't need to be married to love each other, or have sex, or have children.

There is no way we can come up with jusitification to stop incest, or polygamy or any other demand for sexual license. It might take awhile or it might not but it is definitely coming.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Who says its a civil right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Who says its a civil right?

Off the top of my head Bodecea or how ever her name is spelled as well as Plasmaball and several others in several DIFFERENT threads. The Gay Community claims it is a civil right in their arguments all the time. Are you saying I known more about the arguments used for Gay marriage then you do?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Who says its a civil right?

Off the top of my head Bodecea or how ever her name is spelled as well as Plasmaball and several others in several DIFFERENT threads. The Gay Community claims it is a civil right in their arguments all the time. Are you saying I known more about the arguments used for Gay marriage then you do?

Where does the gay community claim that, except in states where gay marriage is legal? Its obviously not a civil right if it isn't legally protected.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who says its a civil right?

Off the top of my head Bodecea or how ever her name is spelled as well as Plasmaball and several others in several DIFFERENT threads. The Gay Community claims it is a civil right in their arguments all the time. Are you saying I known more about the arguments used for Gay marriage then you do?

Where does the gay community claim that, except in states where gay marriage is legal? Its obviously not a civil right if it isn't legally protected.

And yet our board Homosexuals and most of their supporters routinely make the claim and equate gay marriage to the Civil Rights fight for blacks. But you go right on being blind dumb and stupid to those claims, just proves you are out of touch.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LGBT Rights - Recent Court Cases, Issues and Articles | American Civil Liberties Union

Fighting for "rights"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gay Civil Rights.

Civil Rights - The History of Gay Rights

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Want more?

 

[George Costanza]

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

I thought the criteria was that they love each other, be consenting adults and all was right with the world.

Be warned if you are going to claim defects first generation defects from blood relatives is so minor as to occurrence as to be irrelevant, further the Government allows people that have a 50 percent chance to pass on a defect to marry and breed.

Other then your ick factor why should blood relatives be prevented from marrying?

Well, it is not technically true that blood relatives cannot marry. Beyond certain degrees of consanguinity, blood relatives are allowed to marry. I haven't reviewed this in some time, but I think that second cousins and beyond can marry.

You are joking when you ask why blood relatives are not allowed to marry, right? In case you are not - if blood siblings (brother and sister) produce a child, genetic defects can occur. If marriages between blood relatives continue in that same blood line, things can get really messy.

Remember the little guy with the banjo, sitting on the bridge as Burt Reynolds and his pals embarked on their little canoe trip into hell in "Deliverance"? That kind of stuff.

Off hand, it's tempting to agree with you. Suppose it's a brother and sister and they promise not to have children. Or, one can't have children. Or, they are too old to have children. Can they marry? If they can, and only brothers and sisters who are fertile can't marry, that's discrimination on any number of levels. If genetic manipulation could guarantee that the children would not have genetic defects would you agree that incest isn't so bad after all? Not to even go to the place where brothers and sisters don't need to be married to love each other, or have sex, or have children.

There is no way we can come up with jusitification to stop incest, or polygamy or any other demand for sexual license. It might take awhile or it might not but it is definitely coming.

I have often thought that if there was some guarntee that a brother and sister would never procreate (voluntary sterilization), then the reason for preventing them marrying would cease to exist. So why not then? I don't see why not.

(Don't do anything with the phone numbers I sent you until I have a chance to research a bit farther. I think I can get you some better info than that first sent.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, it is not technically true that blood relatives cannot marry. Beyond certain degrees of consanguinity, blood relatives are allowed to marry. I haven't reviewed this in some time, but I think that second cousins and beyond can marry.

You are joking when you ask why blood relatives are not allowed to marry, right? In case you are not - if blood siblings (brother and sister) produce a child, genetic defects can occur. If marriages between blood relatives continue in that same blood line, things can get really messy.

Remember the little guy with the banjo, sitting on the bridge as Burt Reynolds and his pals embarked on their little canoe trip into hell in "Deliverance"? That kind of stuff.

Off hand, it's tempting to agree with you. Suppose it's a brother and sister and they promise not to have children. Or, one can't have children. Or, they are too old to have children. Can they marry? If they can, and only brothers and sisters who are fertile can't marry, that's discrimination on any number of levels. If genetic manipulation could guarantee that the children would not have genetic defects would you agree that incest isn't so bad after all? Not to even go to the place where brothers and sisters don't need to be married to love each other, or have sex, or have children.

There is no way we can come up with jusitification to stop incest, or polygamy or any other demand for sexual license. It might take awhile or it might not but it is definitely coming.

I have often thought that if there was some guarntee that a brother and sister would never procreate (voluntary sterilization), then the reason for preventing them marrying would cease to exist. So why not then? I don't see why not.

(Don't do anything with the phone numbers I sent you until I have a chance to research a bit farther. I think I can get you some better info than that first sent.)

You have FAILED to provide evidence that society has a compelling reason to prevent siblings from marrying. Your entire argument for gays is that they love each other and are consenting adults. Your supposed argument against Incest between consenting adults depends on supposed danger of birth defects.

People with KNOWN DEFECTS that have a 50 percent chance to occur if they breed are NOT asked to be sterilized nor made to promise such. Hell two people with the same defect can procreate legally as well. In most cases the Government does not even test for those defects. And if they are discovered in a blood test all that happens is the two people are notified of the risk.

Incest procreation in the 1st Generation has almost no chance of birth defects. And there is no compelling evidence to suggest that those children would form an incestuous relationship to raise the danger, much less evidence that it would continue through the ages.

 

[NoNukes]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

The fact that it is a human right is more than enough to justify same sex marriage.

But not for blood relatives? They are exempt? How about plural marriages?

My father and mother in law were first cousins and they were allowed to marry. There is a good reason for most blood relatives not to marry, but there is not a good reason for gays not to marry, it is just hatred.

 

[Luissa]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Is hetero marriage a civil right here?

~S~

I know we have the right to marry, everyone does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

My question is, wouldn't marriage be under privileges and immunities? The Supreme court already ruled that marriage is a natural right. Wouldn't telling two consenting adult what sex they can marry be abridging their privileges? No where does the Constitution define marriage being only between opposite sex. With it being already established as a right, wouldn't defining marriage in anyway be enforcing a law that abridges someone's privileges?

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, it is not technically true that blood relatives cannot marry. Beyond certain degrees of consanguinity, blood relatives are allowed to marry. I haven't reviewed this in some time, but I think that second cousins and beyond can marry.

You are joking when you ask why blood relatives are not allowed to marry, right? In case you are not - if blood siblings (brother and sister) produce a child, genetic defects can occur. If marriages between blood relatives continue in that same blood line, things can get really messy.

Remember the little guy with the banjo, sitting on the bridge as Burt Reynolds and his pals embarked on their little canoe trip into hell in "Deliverance"? That kind of stuff.

Off hand, it's tempting to agree with you. Suppose it's a brother and sister and they promise not to have children. Or, one can't have children. Or, they are too old to have children. Can they marry? If they can, and only brothers and sisters who are fertile can't marry, that's discrimination on any number of levels. If genetic manipulation could guarantee that the children would not have genetic defects would you agree that incest isn't so bad after all? Not to even go to the place where brothers and sisters don't need to be married to love each other, or have sex, or have children.

There is no way we can come up with jusitification to stop incest, or polygamy or any other demand for sexual license. It might take awhile or it might not but it is definitely coming.

I have often thought that if there was some guarntee that a brother and sister would never procreate (voluntary sterilization), then the reason for preventing them marrying would cease to exist. So why not then? I don't see why not.

(Don't do anything with the phone numbers I sent you until I have a chance to research a bit farther. I think I can get you some better info than that first sent.)

Honestly, I don't see where the argument to not allow them to marry holds any water. Under your own assertions and using the same exact test as gay marriage - they should be allowed to may under whatever circumstances they see fit. As a matter of fact - there really should be almost no restrictions as long as the basic tenants are followed - chiefly free consent. You have no right to tell a man he cannot marry his sister as you have no right to tell a man he cannot marry another man. I have always wondered why people can have such a double standard here - assuming that they have the moral high ground in prevent one set of consulting adults yet calling other bigots for doing the exact same thing.

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

Because the main purpose of the government is to produce, oversee and promote an organized, well running society. If that society is composed of drooling idiots, it isn't going to work so well.

First - I would argue that is NOT the main purpose of government. More to the topic though - that is a terrible stance because promoting gay marriage is NOT promoting a well running society as gays are unable to further society with children - the underlying purpose of union is family. The government's main purpose, to me, is to ensure our freedoms and under that guise, gay marriage has no effect on anyone's rights. Therefore, there is no reason to restrict it.

 

[Barb]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

The fact that it is a human right is more than enough to justify same sex marriage.

But not for blood relatives? They are exempt? How about plural marriages?

I say hell to the yes for plural marriages! There's a passel of freeloading public welfare recipients in Utah alone who would have to take legal responsibility for their offspring by plural wives if this were allowed.

The aide to children of unmarried “plural” wives is routinely used to enrich the collective coffers of their husbands < While their child brides and children are routinely left wanting) and the Mormon Church. This enrichment at the public trough is in addition to public funding that states and the federal government granted to polygamous Mormon towns that have incorporated. When Arizona permitted Colorado City to incorporate in 1985, after using the Establishment Clause as grounds to deny the same status to a “cult” city (@_@ Not white, not Christian) led by an India “guru,” the newly incorporated Colorado City became eligible for public funds.

Since then [Colorado City] has received over $1.8 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to pave streets, upgrade fire equipment and build a water-storage tank. Hildale got $94,000 for its fire station. And the government-financed airport on the edge of Colorado City cost $2.8 million.

Ross, Rick, Government money and public funds pay for polygamy, April 6, 2002, retrieved December 16, 2011 from Government money and public funds pay for polygamy
See also Cart, Julie, The Los Angeles Times, “Utah paying a high price for polygamy,” September 9, 2001, retrieved December 16, 2011 from Utah Paying a High Price for Polygamy

Even when Warren Jeffs made the national news for charges of child sexual assault in Utah, the media was too reticent to point out the welfare and tax fraud that takes place in these federally funded compounds.

me

So, hell yes, make them take responsibility for their wives and children, and stop the public funding of these religious communities.

 

[sparky]

Off hand, it's tempting to agree with you. Suppose it's a brother and sister and they promise not to have children. Or, one can't have children. Or, they are too old to have children. Can they marry? If they can, and only brothers and sisters who are fertile can't marry, that's discrimination on any number of levels. If genetic manipulation could guarantee that the children would not have genetic defects would you agree that incest isn't so bad after all? Not to even go to the place where brothers and sisters don't need to be married to love each other, or have sex, or have children.

There is no way we can come up with jusitification to stop incest, or polygamy or any other demand for sexual license. It might take awhile or it might not but it is definitely coming.

I have often thought that if there was some guarntee that a brother and sister would never procreate (voluntary sterilization), then the reason for preventing them marrying would cease to exist. So why not then? I don't see why not.

(Don't do anything with the phone numbers I sent you until I have a chance to research a bit farther. I think I can get you some better info than that first sent.)

You have FAILED to provide evidence that society has a compelling reason to prevent siblings from marrying. Your entire argument for gays is that they love each other and are consenting adults. Your supposed argument against Incest between consenting adults depends on supposed danger of birth defects.

People with KNOWN DEFECTS that have a 50 percent chance to occur if they breed are NOT asked to be sterilized nor made to promise such. Hell two people with the same defect can procreate legally as well. In most cases the Government does not even test for those defects. And if they are discovered in a blood test all that happens is the two people are notified of the risk.

Incest procreation in the 1st Generation has almost no chance of birth defects. And there is no compelling evidence to suggest that those children would form an incestuous relationship to raise the danger, much less evidence that it would continue through the ages.

b-b-b-b-but the bible says>>>>>>
Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

~S~

 

[sparky]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Is hetero marriage a civil right here?

~S~

I know we have the right to marry, everyone does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

My question is, wouldn't marriage be under privileges and immunities? The Supreme court already ruled that marriage is a natural right. Wouldn't telling two consenting adult what sex they can marry be abridging their privileges? No where does the Constitution define marriage being only between opposite sex. With it being already established as a right, wouldn't defining marriage in anyway be enforcing a law that abridges someone's privileges?

ok, the scotus claims it's a natural right

grand

yet now we look to them to define the parameters of that natural right

rather a cyclical litigant, eh?

~S~

 

[sparky]

The fact that it is a human right is more than enough to justify same sex marriage.

But not for blood relatives? They are exempt? How about plural marriages?

My father and mother in law were first cousins and they were allowed to marry. There is a good reason for most blood relatives not to marry, but there is not a good reason for gays not to marry, it is just hatred.

nothing binds folks togther better than a common target NN

this might be fairly obvious human nature to you

yet it's the number one tactic of politicians, clergymen, sales, and just about anyone who wishes to pull themselves up by pulling another down , easily applied to the masses of those of moral insecurity

~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laws banning brothers and sisters marrying are legal because they're applied to everyone equally, which is not the case with gays and marriage.

 

[Katzndogz]

Laws banning brothers and sisters marrying are legal because they're applied to everyone equally, which is not the case with gays and marriage.

So two gay brothers would be prohibited from marrying? Or two lesbian sisters? How about a gay father and son?

Now that we have accepted same sex marriage as normal, all the rest will fall quite quickly.