Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[Seawytch]

As for marriage, I would have no problem with it if it is something that is gained at the ballot box or throught the legislative process. I have a big problem with judges imposing it after the people have said "no" at the ballot box, such as they have in California.

Do you have a problem with past judicial "impositions" like when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia?

 

[Seawytch]

So let me ask you? Since you claim marriage should be allowed to any two consenting adults, what is your feeling on family members marrying each other?

Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?

So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.

If incest is your thing, fight to have those laws overturned in court. The thing with incest is that you CAN provide an "overriding harm" that occurs in incestuous relationships. Their children are more likely to have genetic abnormalities.

Before you and your sister can sue to get married, you have to get the incest restrictions "off the books". Good luck with your struggle.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?

So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.

If incest is your thing, fight to have those laws overturned in court. The thing with incest is that you CAN provide an "overriding harm" that occurs in incestuous relationships. Their children are more likely to have genetic abnormalities.

Before you and your sister can sue to get married, you have to get the incest restrictions "off the books". Good luck with your struggle.

So even gays think that society has the right to legislate sex between consenting adults, they just think they are the exception.

 

[Seawytch]

So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.

If incest is your thing, fight to have those laws overturned in court. The thing with incest is that you CAN provide an "overriding harm" that occurs in incestuous relationships. Their children are more likely to have genetic abnormalities.

Before you and your sister can sue to get married, you have to get the incest restrictions "off the books". Good luck with your struggle.

So even gays think that society has the right to legislate sex between consenting adults, they just think they are the exception.

LOL...don't get petulant. I'm sorry you can't currently marry your sister. I really don't care if you do, but right now it isn't legal. If you think you can win your case in court, fight for it. I am merely pointing out that an actual overriding harm can be provided when it comes to incestuous relationships. You can't provide one for consenting adult same sex relationships.

So, that makes your incest argument a...

 

[Inthemiddle]

All people have the same rights.

Get off of this. It's not true, and you know it.

Redefining marriage changes what marriage is.

It's not redefining marriage. Since when was marriage ever defined?

Anyone can enter into any agreement they want. The government doesn't have to recognize that agreement though.

Well, in order for it to be a legally binding agreement, the government does have to recognize it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If incest is your thing, fight to have those laws overturned in court. The thing with incest is that you CAN provide an "overriding harm" that occurs in incestuous relationships. Their children are more likely to have genetic abnormalities.

Before you and your sister can sue to get married, you have to get the incest restrictions "off the books". Good luck with your struggle.

So even gays think that society has the right to legislate sex between consenting adults, they just think they are the exception.

LOL...don't get petulant. I'm sorry you can't currently marry your sister. I really don't care if you do, but right now it isn't legal. If you think you can win your case in court, fight for it. I am merely pointing out that an actual overriding harm can be provided when it comes to incestuous relationships. You can't provide one for consenting adult same sex relationships.

So, that makes your incest argument a...

Actually it takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding to get any noticeable defects. Society does not regulate people with known defects that have as much as 50 to 100 percent chance of occurring.

Gays have no problem with society regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults EXCEPT in their case.

 

[Seawytch]

So even gays think that society has the right to legislate sex between consenting adults, they just think they are the exception.

LOL...don't get petulant. I'm sorry you can't currently marry your sister. I really don't care if you do, but right now it isn't legal. If you think you can win your case in court, fight for it. I am merely pointing out that an actual overriding harm can be provided when it comes to incestuous relationships. You can't provide one for consenting adult same sex relationships.

So, that makes your incest argument a...

Actually it takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding to get any noticeable defects. Society does not regulate people with known defects that have as much as 50 to 100 percent chance of occurring.

Gays have no problem with society regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults EXCEPT in their case.

Really? It was "they gheys" that passed the incest laws? Can you find any of "the gheys" that want to prevent you from marrying your sister? Good luck with both your fight to marry your sister AND in finding any of "they gheys" that want to prevent it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL...don't get petulant. I'm sorry you can't currently marry your sister. I really don't care if you do, but right now it isn't legal. If you think you can win your case in court, fight for it. I am merely pointing out that an actual overriding harm can be provided when it comes to incestuous relationships. You can't provide one for consenting adult same sex relationships.

So, that makes your incest argument a...

Actually it takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding to get any noticeable defects. Society does not regulate people with known defects that have as much as 50 to 100 percent chance of occurring.

Gays have no problem with society regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults EXCEPT in their case.

Really? It was "they gheys" that passed the incest laws? Can you find any of "the gheys" that want to prevent you from marrying your sister? Good luck with both your fight to marry your sister AND in finding any of "they gheys" that want to prevent it.

Every admitted gay on this board has stated they support laws preventing two consenting adults from marrying and having sex if they find it repugnant. Yet find it offensive when someone lumps them in that category.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually it takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding to get any noticeable defects. Society does not regulate people with known defects that have as much as 50 to 100 percent chance of occurring.

Gays have no problem with society regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults EXCEPT in their case.

Really? It was "they gheys" that passed the incest laws? Can you find any of "the gheys" that want to prevent you from marrying your sister? Good luck with both your fight to marry your sister AND in finding any of "they gheys" that want to prevent it.

Every admitted gay on this board has stated they support laws preventing two consenting adults from marrying and having sex if they find it repugnant. Yet find it offensive when someone lumps them in that category.

Oh please, go find some actual quotes from all these "gheys on the board". I happen to be one of those "admitted gheys" myself and I've said if you want to marry your sister, it's no skin off my nose, but FIRST you must get the laws overturned. When you do, I might even join your fight for marriage equality. First things first though...get to fighting your battle in court.

 

[bodecea]

So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.

If incest is your thing, fight to have those laws overturned in court. The thing with incest is that you CAN provide an "overriding harm" that occurs in incestuous relationships. Their children are more likely to have genetic abnormalities.

Before you and your sister can sue to get married, you have to get the incest restrictions "off the books". Good luck with your struggle.

So even gays think that society has the right to legislate sex between consenting adults, they just think they are the exception.

No, that's not what was sad at all...there has to be proven harm...what is the proven harm in allowing tax-paying, law-abiding consenting adults marry?

 

[bodecea]

Actually it takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding to get any noticeable defects. Society does not regulate people with known defects that have as much as 50 to 100 percent chance of occurring.

Gays have no problem with society regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults EXCEPT in their case.

Really? It was "they gheys" that passed the incest laws? Can you find any of "the gheys" that want to prevent you from marrying your sister? Good luck with both your fight to marry your sister AND in finding any of "they gheys" that want to prevent it.

Every admitted gay on this board has stated they support laws preventing two consenting adults from marrying and having sex if they find it repugnant. Yet find it offensive when someone lumps them in that category.

Feel free to find statements of mine like that. TIA

 

[Inthemiddle]

I've never met, or heard, of anyone who was simply incapable of being sexually attracted to anyone other than a sibling or cousin. Incest is not a form of sexual orientation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really? It was "they gheys" that passed the incest laws? Can you find any of "the gheys" that want to prevent you from marrying your sister? Good luck with both your fight to marry your sister AND in finding any of "they gheys" that want to prevent it.

Every admitted gay on this board has stated they support laws preventing two consenting adults from marrying and having sex if they find it repugnant. Yet find it offensive when someone lumps them in that category.

Oh please, go find some actual quotes from all these "gheys on the board". I happen to be one of those "admitted gheys" myself and I've said if you want to marry your sister, it's no skin off my nose, but FIRST you must get the laws overturned. When you do, I might even join your fight for marriage equality. First things first though...get to fighting your battle in court.

So consensual sex and marriage between 2 consenting adults is NOT a civil right? But isn't that one of your arguments?

 

[DiamondDave]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

Eliminate government from 'marriage'...

Let individuals, churches, organizations deal with what they consider marriage

In terms of government... for reasons of taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, recognize family units only... no matter the makeup of the 2 adults involved...

Stop silly 'discrimination' laws and lawsuits when it comes to people's views of other people's choices... if you don't want to rent your basement to a gay couple or a straight couple or whatever combination... so be it... you should not be forced to... don't have the government force anyone to accept or tolerate or recognize anything beyond the legal aspects

Ensure every member of a family unit has the same legal rights as anyone else

 

[bodecea]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

Eliminate government from 'marriage'...

Let individuals, churches, organizations deal with what they consider marriage

In terms of government... for reasons of taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, recognize family units only... no matter the makeup of the 2 adults involved...

Stop silly 'discrimination' laws and lawsuits when it comes to people's views of other people's choices... if you don't want to rent your basement to a gay couple or a straight couple or whatever combination... so be it... you should not be forced to... don't have the government force anyone to accept or tolerate or recognize anything beyond the legal aspects

Ensure every member of a family unit has the same legal rights as anyone else

Fine...drop the words "marriage" and "married" from all legal documentation, statutes, laws, and licenses. Then we'd be equal.


Good luck with that one.......tho, isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married? ODD.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

Eliminate government from 'marriage'...

Let individuals, churches, organizations deal with what they consider marriage

In terms of government... for reasons of taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, recognize family units only... no matter the makeup of the 2 adults involved...

Stop silly 'discrimination' laws and lawsuits when it comes to people's views of other people's choices... if you don't want to rent your basement to a gay couple or a straight couple or whatever combination... so be it... you should not be forced to... don't have the government force anyone to accept or tolerate or recognize anything beyond the legal aspects

Ensure every member of a family unit has the same legal rights as anyone else

Just to be clear those are two different things, one is Civil Marriage (that recognized by the government for governmental purposes) and the other is Public Accommodation Laws (those that mandate the manner in which people engaged on commerce must conduct their business).

I agree that government sould not discriminate against law abiding, taxpaying, non-related, consenting, adult, US Citizen couples base on the gender makeup of the couple.

I will join you and say that I would support the classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, and self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers based on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.

With that said there are two conditions to which I would be open:

1. This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence. However it would apply to elective procedures.

2. While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da. That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model. This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from firms that discriminate (which is the governments choice).
​

>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

I am for it, if 2 consenting adults want to get married its fine by me.

 

[Inthemiddle]

isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married? ODD.

Actually, the suggestion has been around for several years. Not entirely sure from where it originated. But it's made for some interesting twists to the whole debate. The anti-gay-marriage crowd opposed civil unions, but then becomes in favor of civil unions for all people hoping to prevent gay "marriage." "Purist" conservatives reject those ideas because they don't want to give even an inch toward gay marriage, while "purist" liberals reject it because they don't want to give an inch that might allow their relationships to be delegitimized. The whole thing has developed from two basic polar positions, to a spider web of ten positions:

1. Opposition to gay marriage or government recognition of any form of same sex relationship, to include prohibitions against powers of attorney for medical reasons, allowances of business to extend insurance benefits, etc, to partners. In the most extreme cases, also included may be support for criminalizing gay sex, legal prohibitions to same sex couples occupying single room dwellings, etc.

2. Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc, at their discretion.

3. Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc as a matter of law.

4. Support for civil unions for gays, retaining marriage for heterosexual couples, with "civil unions" falling short of the benefits of "marriage."

5. Support for civil unions for gays which provide all legal benefits and effects as "marriage," while marriage itself is retained for heterosexuals.

6. Opposition to all legal marriages in favor of legal civil unions, reserving marriage to religious entities.

7. Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate against couples for any reason.

8. Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the officiant's "religious beliefs."

9 Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the demonstrable teachings of the church entity.

10. Support for positive homosexual marriage, and legal prohibitions for an officiant to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married? ODD.

Actually, the suggestion has been around for several years. Not entirely sure from where it originated. But it's made for some interesting twists to the whole debate. The anti-gay-marriage crowd opposed civil unions, but then becomes in favor of civil unions for all people hoping to prevent gay "marriage." "Purist" conservatives reject those ideas because they don't want to give even an inch toward gay marriage, while "purist" liberals reject it because they don't want to give an inch that might allow their relationships to be delegitimized. The whole thing has developed from two basic polar positions, to a spider web of ten positions:

1. Opposition to gay marriage or government recognition of any form of same sex relationship, to include prohibitions against powers of attorney for medical reasons, allowances of business to extend insurance benefits, etc, to partners. In the most extreme cases, also included may be support for criminalizing gay sex, legal prohibitions to same sex couples occupying single room dwellings, etc.

2. Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc, at their discretion.

3. Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc as a matter of law.

4. Support for civil unions for gays, retaining marriage for heterosexual couples, with "civil unions" falling short of the benefits of "marriage."

5. Support for civil unions for gays which provide all legal benefits and effects as "marriage," while marriage itself is retained for heterosexuals.

6. Opposition to all legal marriages in favor of legal civil unions, reserving marriage to religious entities.

7. Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate against couples for any reason.

8. Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the officiant's "religious beliefs."

9 Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the demonstrable teachings of the church entity.

10. Support for positive homosexual marriage, and legal prohibitions for an officiant to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Secondly, I can't ever remember anyone advocating that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., be forced to provide Same-sex Marriages (when such a service would be part of the organizations religious services and also qualifiy as a Civil Marriage). The ONLY people that bring up that possibility are those obosed to Same-sex Civil Marriage in an attempt to use an appeal to emotion fallacy and/or strawman argument.



>>>>

 

[Warrior102]

Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?

So was sodomy. YOU use the excuse that two consenting adults determine your life style. Explain why Family members that are CONSENTING ADULTS are different?

Your ENTIRE argument depends on the call that what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do and who they want to marry is a civil right. Yet you would deny a right you demand for yourself to two consenting adults that happen to be related. I can only think of 2 reasons you would do that. Religion or the ICK factor.

i dont give a shit what the two consenting adults are. Who am i to say otherwise? Its not my business. Its not yours, nor is it the state or governments.

You want to marry more than one woman or man? go for it. Want to marry family? i dont care. Want to marry the same sex? go for it. Be happy and live your life. I dont need little shits like you coming in and telling anyone how to live. You dont own the word marriage.

Put a dick in your mouth and shut up.