LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[Seawytch]

How many I do or do not know is besides the point. Any uenuch living in the US can marry a woman, no questions asked. Meaning the issue of sex and conception is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.

Convicted murderers on death row with zero chance of conjugal visits can legally marry.

Your point?

They aren't fulfilling their "biological function" as OKTexas insists must be done in order for there to be marriage. He's wrong and misguided, of course...

 

[JoeB131]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

No, most of the states say that. For sure the ones petitioning with Utah in this case say it. Would they amount to 10s of millions of people? I think that's about how many are saying it, give or take.

If marriage wasn't a privelege then polygamists, incest, minors, anyone could get legally married. But that's not the case, is it? And your basis for only including LGBTs as people who want a special "right" to marry is? What again? Belligerence? The ability to be shrill, nagging or forceful?

It's illegal for polygamists or incestous or minors to get married to start with because the behavior is largely illegal to start with.

Probably the only ones who have a leg to stand on might be the polygamists, as it is already legal to have sex outside of marriage with multiple partners.

It is still going to be illegal to have sex with a close blood relative or a minor child.

But to the point, even on that, it's not clear cut. Some states only allow you to marry your second cousin. Some states allow you to marry your first cousin.

Some states allow you to get married as young as 14 with parental permission.

And here's the thing. The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" applies to those marriages.

So once again, we are back to the two silly arguments against gay marriage.

"My Imaginary Friend in the Sky Says it's Bad"

and

"I think it's Icky. (so icky that I just can't stop talking about it.)"

 

[The Rabbi]

Convicted murderers on death row with zero chance of conjugal visits can legally marry.

Your point?

They aren't fulfilling their "biological function" as OKTexas insists must be done in order for there to be marriage. He's wrong and misguided, of course...

So what? Lots of people don't. That isn't the point. The rule is built on the general, not the exceptions to it.

 

[freedombecki]

Let me help you people that think dogs and kids will be getting married soon after gay marriage is made legal everywhere.

US law dictates that a person must be at least 18 years of age and of mental competence to agree to the contract. Dogs and kids do not fit this description. Any contract entered into by a an animal or a minor is not legally binding. The entire basis for US contract law would have to be changed for people to marry their dogs. This simply will not happen. It would open a pandora's box of legal problems, such as someone saying that a family's dog owes them money and the family must pay.

Does that clear things up for anyone?

Let me clear something up for you, WQ: your uncanny prediction already took place in 2005. British Woman Marries Dolphin

And you thought your alias was pernicious.

 

[Silhouette]

They aren't fulfilling their "biological function" as OKTexas insists must be done in order for there to be marriage.

You may remember this from the OP?

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

 

[1751_Texan]

Let me help you people that think dogs and kids will be getting married soon after gay marriage is made legal everywhere.

US law dictates that a person must be at least 18 years of age and of mental competence to agree to the contract. Dogs and kids do not fit this description. Any contract entered into by a an animal or a minor is not legally binding. The entire basis for US contract law would have to be changed for people to marry their dogs. This simply will not happen. It would open a pandora's box of legal problems, such as someone saying that a family's dog owes them money and the family must pay.

Does that clear things up for anyone?

Let me clear something up for you, WQ: your uncanny prediction already took place in 2005. British Woman Marries Dolphin

And you thought your alias was pernicious.

lets see if her dolphin can come visit her in the Hospital or apply for survivor's benefits after her death.

I can marry my coffee cup if I wish. Why does anyone need to worry? If my coffee cup wants to contest taxes due at my death...why shouldn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

A natural increase of 1.4 million is not "barely at replacement rate", sorry, it's not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

A natural increase of 1.4 million is not "barely at replacement rate", sorry, it's not.

Oh look, here are some facts to destroy your pitiful little opinion. Now go and skulk somewhere else.
U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those are the talking points of the gay movement, true. But under scrutiny we discover it is no such thing.
Fairness--gays can do exactly what straight people do.
Liberty--no one is interfering with gays' lives, including the ability to marry in whatever ceremony they want
Freedom--ditto
Gov't keeping its nose out of other people's business--what you want precisely is for gov't to intervene in other people's business. You want gov't to recognize some people's marriages over other people's marriages. It is the opposite of what you say.
People getting on with their lives-who is stopping anybody?
Making decisions for themselves--who is stopping anybody?

Yeah, they said the same thing about black people. "They can sit on a bus just like white people" "they can sit in the diner just like white people"

Come off it with this petty little separate but equal nonsense. You're not in primary school now.
Gay people, making the assumption that if a gay person wants to marry, they want to marry someone of the same sex, CANNOT marry the person of their choice.

Or unless you really want to tell them that their choice actually is someone of the opposite sex.

Now, choice is a big thing in the US, it's called FREEDOM.

As for the "you want the govt to recognise people's marriages over other people's marriages", you've lost me, I really do hate it when people try to tell me what I think, but on this one, you seem to have it the other way around.

Okay, who is stopping gay people from marrying the person of their choice? That's be many state govts, wouldn't it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Those are the talking points of the gay movement, true. But under scrutiny we discover it is no such thing.
Fairness--gays can do exactly what straight people do.
Liberty--no one is interfering with gays' lives, including the ability to marry in whatever ceremony they want
Freedom--ditto
Gov't keeping its nose out of other people's business--what you want precisely is for gov't to intervene in other people's business. You want gov't to recognize some people's marriages over other people's marriages. It is the opposite of what you say.
People getting on with their lives-who is stopping anybody?
Making decisions for themselves--who is stopping anybody?

Yeah, they said the same thing about black people. "They can sit on a bus just like white people" "they can sit in the diner just like white people"

Come off it with this petty little separate but equal nonsense. You're not in primary school now.
Gay people, making the assumption that if a gay person wants to marry, they want to marry someone of the same sex, CANNOT marry the person of their choice.

Or unless you really want to tell them that their choice actually is someone of the opposite sex.

Now, choice is a big thing in the US, it's called FREEDOM.

As for the "you want the govt to recognise people's marriages over other people's marriages", you've lost me, I really do hate it when people try to tell me what I think, but on this one, you seem to have it the other way around.

Okay, who is stopping gay people from marrying the person of their choice? That's be many state govts, wouldn't it?

This isnt about black people. Gays are not black people. QUit deflecting to this moronic comparison.

And quit posting lies. Gay people get married in every state of the union, even those that dont recognize gay marriage. No one is stopping gays from marrying. No one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You folks still ignoring the science of it all, why is that?

The science of it?

Is this about science?

Is the US constitution and the Bill of Rights about science?

 

[The Rabbi]

You folks still ignoring the science of it all, why is that?

The science of it?

Is this about science?

Is the US constitution and the Bill of Rights about science?

Not my quotation.
Haven't you been humiliated enough for one discussion?

 

[frigidweirdo]

He wouldn't.
But before anyone thinks it's some weird sexual deviency consider that in bankruptcy marital property is privileged. So a guy facing bankruptcy might marry his dog to get those benefits, if that were allowed. Or he could marry his college roomate, even though both are straight. And he can do that now in several states.
It makes a mockery of marriage. No question. That is exactly its intent.

So.... you think college room mates are going to marry to get benefits? It makes a mockery of marriage?
How many uni students get married, where one is male and one is female, just to get the benefits?

What's the difference between two uni students who are men doing this and two uni students of the opposite sex?

Damn, you're coming up with some good arguments for getting rid of marriage.

Like I said, straight people are doing a bad enough job with marriage already, there's little integrity left. Why gay people would want to get themselves involved in this, I don't know, however, it's not up to me to decide, it's up to them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because 24 hour chapels are the norm and most people get married there, right?
Another straw man/red herring point.
Dismissed.

Why do you hate RuPaul? He's fabulous!

Does it need to be the norm? Gay marriage wouldn't be the norm if introduced, because most marriages wouldn't be gay marriages.

So... another strawman/red herring point from you?

 

[The Rabbi]

He wouldn't.
But before anyone thinks it's some weird sexual deviency consider that in bankruptcy marital property is privileged. So a guy facing bankruptcy might marry his dog to get those benefits, if that were allowed. Or he could marry his college roomate, even though both are straight. And he can do that now in several states.
It makes a mockery of marriage. No question. That is exactly its intent.

So.... you think college room mates are going to marry to get benefits? It makes a mockery of marriage?
How many uni students get married, where one is male and one is female, just to get the benefits?

What's the difference between two uni students who are men doing this and two uni students of the opposite sex?

Damn, you're coming up with some good arguments for getting rid of marriage.

Like I said, straight people are doing a bad enough job with marriage already, there's little integrity left. Why gay people would want to get themselves involved in this, I don't know, however, it's not up to me to decide, it's up to them.

Your reading and comprehension skills are as bad as I've seen. You are a total waste of time. A true joke.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You folks still ignoring the science of it all, why is that?

The science of it?

Is this about science?

Is the US constitution and the Bill of Rights about science?

Not my quotation.
Haven't you been humiliated enough for one discussion?

No, it isn't, but then again all I've done is quote and then post, don't ask me how it did that, I'm no computer techy.

 

[The Rabbi]

The science of it?

Is this about science?

Is the US constitution and the Bill of Rights about science?

Not my quotation.
Haven't you been humiliated enough for one discussion?

No, it isn't, but then again all I've done is quote and then post, don't ask me how it did that, I'm no computer techy.

I'll add that to the long list of things you are not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

A natural increase of 1.4 million is not "barely at replacement rate", sorry, it's not.

Oh look, here are some facts to destroy your pitiful little opinion. Now go and skulk somewhere else.
U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

Uhhu. You provide a stat that only says one part of what we're talking about. How many people died?

This is the point. It's not how many people are born, it's how many more babies are born compared to people dying that's the issue.

A 1.4 million natural increase in the population can also happen at the same time of birth rates, per capita, dropping. In fact this is probably very, very natural, if less people die, less people need to have so many babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_demographics

Simple chart for you.

About 4 million births, 2.5 million deaths. Birth rate is 12.6, the lowest ever, down from 14.1 in 2002, 15.8 in 1992.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not my quotation.
Haven't you been humiliated enough for one discussion?

No, it isn't, but then again all I've done is quote and then post, don't ask me how it did that, I'm no computer techy.

I'll add that to the long list of things you are not.

Wow, amazing, great, super, fantastic.

Here we have a perfect example of someone playing politics games that have nothing to do with anything. Seriously dude, this is a waste of time, don't play childish games with me, I'm not interested. Stick to the damn point or just don't bother replying, okay?

 

[The Rabbi]

A natural increase of 1.4 million is not "barely at replacement rate", sorry, it's not.

Oh look, here are some facts to destroy your pitiful little opinion. Now go and skulk somewhere else.
U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

Uhhu. You provide a stat that only says one part of what we're talking about. How many people died?

This is the point. It's not how many people are born, it's how many more babies are born compared to people dying that's the issue.

A 1.4 million natural increase in the population can also happen at the same time of birth rates, per capita, dropping. In fact this is probably very, very natural, if less people die, less people need to have so many babies.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple chart for you.

About 4 million births, 2.5 million deaths. Birth rate is 12.6, the lowest ever, down from 14.1 in 2002, 15.8 in 1992.

Proving you are an uninformed idiot all over again.
All tbe people living will eventually die. Every one of them. Growth comes only from new people, not old ones. When the replacement rate falls below 2.1, you are losing population. Period. Europe is especially hard hit by this. In 150 years there will be Germans, French or Italians left. Or very few.