Civil Right?

[LAfrique]

As long as people are not inflicting physical or financial damage upon you, then they have the right to do as please. While I do not support the gay and lesbian lifestyle, I do not support any government telling consenting adults how to conduct themselves in the privacy of their home.

 

[George Costanza]

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.

And you never will - because none of these folks have the stones to just come right out and admit the real reason why they are opposed to gay marriage.

Nothing makes these bigots look worse than the gay marriage issue. I love it.

I don't say there is no compelling reason, I always try to say that none has been presented to date. Ya never know, someone might come up with a new, untested, rationale.

I would be open to think about it and give it an honest evaluation at least. It part of keeping an open mind and cultivating the ability to evaluate information and think critically.


>>>>

Well I say there is no compelling reason, other than intolerance and bigotry - and I challenge anyone opposed to gay marriage to come forward with a legitimate, rational, legal reason to prohibit gay marriage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And you never will - because none of these folks have the stones to just come right out and admit the real reason why they are opposed to gay marriage.

Nothing makes these bigots look worse than the gay marriage issue. I love it.

I don't say there is no compelling reason, I always try to say that none has been presented to date. Ya never know, someone might come up with a new, untested, rationale.

I would be open to think about it and give it an honest evaluation at least. It part of keeping an open mind and cultivating the ability to evaluate information and think critically.


>>>>

Well I say there is no compelling reason, other than intolerance and bigotry - and I challenge anyone opposed to gay marriage to come forward with a legitimate, rational, legal reason to prohibit gay marriage.

I have shown repeatedly that the Government has no legal compelling reason to deny blood relatives from marrying. Yet you support that ban, talk about a hypocrite.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have shown repeatedly that the Government has no legal compelling reason to deny blood relatives from marrying. Yet you support that ban, talk about a hypocrite.

Gunny,

With all due respect you have not provided "legal compelling reason(s)" as to why incestuous Civil Marriages are not allowed, what has been presented is opinion.

There is a slight difference between the arguments for/against incestuous Civil Marriage and Same-sex Civil Marriage - one series has actually been presented in courts of law from New England to California to the heartland and been found lacking in both State and Federal courts. The other has not and until such time as the arguments have been examined we won't really know if they are in fact compelling government reasons or not.

Will such cases occur in the future? Probably. Do we know the outcome? No. But the intent seems to be that because Case B about discrimination might result in the future because Case A about discrimination is being examined now and that is a government compelling reason for continuing the basis for discrimination in Case A - sorry I can't agree with that. (If I'm reading that wrong then let me apologize in advance.)

Each case would, and should, be evaluated on it's own merits and arguments presented.



>>>>

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have shown repeatedly that the Government has no legal compelling reason to deny blood relatives from marrying. Yet you support that ban, talk about a hypocrite.

Gunny,

With all due respect you have not provided "legal compelling reason(s)" as to why incestuous Civil Marriages are not allowed, what has been presented is opinion.

There is a slight difference between the arguments for/against incestuous Civil Marriage and Same-sex Civil Marriage - one series has actually been presented in courts of law from New England to California to the heartland and been found lacking in both State and Federal courts. The other has not and until such time as the arguments have been examined we won't really know if they are in fact compelling government reasons or not.

Will such cases occur in the future? Probably. Do we know the outcome? No. But the intent seems to be that because Case B about discrimination might result in the future because Case A about discrimination is being examined now and that is a government compelling reason for continuing the basis for discrimination in Case A - sorry I can't agree with that. (If I'm reading that wrong then let me apologize in advance.)

Each case would, and should, be evaluated on it's own merits and arguments presented.



>>>>

The only "compelling" reason to deny two consenting adults that happen to be related from marrying is birth defects. The REALITY is that 1st Generation birth defects are not much of a problem and the Government ALREADY allows people with a 50 percent chance of passing a known defect that eventually kills the offspring to marry, hell they can even marry someone with the same defect or another.

If the argument is that in succeeding generations birth defects become more of a problem for blood relatives then one must make several illogical assumptions. One would be that blood relatives that marry will have children that marry other blood relatives. We already know that the sexual preference of the parents is not a major factor in the sexual preference developed by their children. Or to you dispute that?

Did you know that in some States it is illegal for Step children to marry? People with NO blood connection? Why? Because of the ICK factor.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't say there is no compelling reason, I always try to say that none has been presented to date. Ya never know, someone might come up with a new, untested, rationale.

I would be open to think about it and give it an honest evaluation at least. It part of keeping an open mind and cultivating the ability to evaluate information and think critically.


>>>>

Well I say there is no compelling reason, other than intolerance and bigotry - and I challenge anyone opposed to gay marriage to come forward with a legitimate, rational, legal reason to prohibit gay marriage.

I have shown repeatedly that the Government has no legal compelling reason to deny blood relatives from marrying. Yet you support that ban, talk about a hypocrite.

It may be your opinion that laws prohibiting blood relatives from marrying are not supported by valid reason, but that is only your opinion and the fact is that a large number of states have such laws on the books - for valid, genetically-based reasons.

But that is neither here nor there. I congratulate you on your monumental deflection in this post. I challenged anyone supporting a ban on gay marriage to come forth and give a valid reason (other than intolerance and bigotry) justifying such a ban. Your response was to cite your opinion that laws against incestuous marrage were not valid, to say I support such laws and to then call me a hypocrite.

How about addressing my challenge directly? How about giving me one, valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed?

 

[George Costanza]

Did you know that in some States it is illegal for Step children to marry? People with NO blood connection? Why? Because of the ICK factor.

Funny you should mention the ICK factor. I had never heard of it before. I Googled it. For others who might not know what that is:

The ’Ick’ Factor: How Gay Sex Plays in the Equality Debate :: EDGE Boston

You may have hit upon one of the true reasons for opposition to gay marriage, even though you present it only in the context of the incestuous marriage. Needless to say, the ICK factor is a very, very close relative to intolerance and bigotry - nay, it's the same.

We need a VALID reason here, Gunny.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hell, let 'em get married. But no more "no fault" homosexual splits. They get to go through divorce court, just like hetero couples do. They can air their dirty laundry, twist the kids' little minds and turn 'em against each other, and sell off property for pennies on the dollar, just to spite each other. I'm sure the divorce attorneys would welcome the new market.

 

[paperview]

Hell, let 'em get married. But no more "no fault" homosexual splits. They get to go through divorce court, just like hetero couples do. They can air their dirty laundry, twist the kids' little minds and turn 'em against each other, and sell off property for pennies on the dollar, just to spite each other. I'm sure the divorce attorneys would welcome the new market.

so does that mean there will be no more "no fault" heterosexual splits?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hell, let 'em get married. But no more "no fault" homosexual splits. They get to go through divorce court, just like hetero couples do. They can air their dirty laundry, twist the kids' little minds and turn 'em against each other, and sell off property for pennies on the dollar, just to spite each other. I'm sure the divorce attorneys would welcome the new market.

so does that mean there will be no more "no fault" heterosexual splits?

I suspect you know what I mean. I've had several gay friends (guys and gals) who had ceremonies to celebrate their unions and when they split the sheets, it was loads easier than having to file for divorce. Not to mention cheaper, since no attorneys were involved. If they want to get married under the same civil laws that heteros abide by, then let them have the whole ball of wax.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well I say there is no compelling reason, other than intolerance and bigotry - and I challenge anyone opposed to gay marriage to come forward with a legitimate, rational, legal reason to prohibit gay marriage.

I have shown repeatedly that the Government has no legal compelling reason to deny blood relatives from marrying. Yet you support that ban, talk about a hypocrite.

It may be your opinion that laws prohibiting blood relatives from marrying are not supported by valid reason, but that is only your opinion and the fact is that a large number of states have such laws on the books - for valid, genetically-based reasons.

But that is neither here nor there. I congratulate you on your monumental deflection in this post. I challenged anyone supporting a ban on gay marriage to come forth and give a valid reason (other than intolerance and bigotry) justifying such a ban. Your response was to cite your opinion that laws against incestuous marrage were not valid, to say I support such laws and to then call me a hypocrite.

How about addressing my challenge directly? How about giving me one, valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed?

First give me a valid reason why Incestuous relationships between consenting adults should be banned.

Your appeal to authority fails as until fairly recently Homosexual sex was outlawed as well.

 

[Barb]

Did you know that in some States it is illegal for Step children to marry? People with NO blood connection? Why? Because of the ICK factor.

Funny you should mention the ICK factor. I had never heard of it before. I Googled it. For others who might not know what that is:

The ’Ick’ Factor: How Gay Sex Plays in the Equality Debate :: EDGE Boston

You may have hit upon one of the true reasons for opposition to gay marriage, even though you present it only in the context of the incestuous marriage. Needless to say, the ICK factor is a very, very close relative to intolerance and bigotry - nay, it's the same.

We need a VALID reason here, Gunny.

Thanks for the link. From that article:

Disgust, she adds, has never been a non-issue: "All societies known to us have subordinated some group or groups of people by ascribing disgusting properties to them. This is a key feature of misogyny, of anti-Semitism, of historical Indian caste prejudice, of American racism and so forth."

 

[konradv]

You are in the Minority. Gays and their myriad supports all claim Gay marriage is a Civil Right. And so far on this board have listed the reasons I provided.

Marriage is a civil right that should not be denied gays. You're twisting the argument to suggest that there are two kinds of marriage, when legally there wouldn't.