USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But Liberals would allow the "children" to be aborted, so what's the problem??
Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge
- Thread starter MOe
- Start date
But Liberals would allow the "children" to be aborted, so what's the problem??
Cancel10
Independent Thinker
Care you elaborate?
If that is a legitimate reason to prohibit two people from marrying each other, then we must also prohibit people with hereditary, life-threatening diseases from reproducing. In fact, many people with these diseases are more likely to produce children with a disorder than people who are closely related. The rate of genetic defects for first cousins, for example, is around 8 percent. By contrast, the likelihood of heredity diseases being passed on is sometimes as high as 100 percent. Thus, if your argument for prohibiting incestuous marriage is based solely upon its affect on the children, you must also oppose marriage between people who carry hereditary diseases.
Furthermore, you are basing your argument on what you personally view as acceptable. You believe the equal protection clause applies to everyone...except, of course, when you don't like its effect on society. How is that any different from those who oppose gay marriage?
I get the impression you are one of those gay-hating, yet closet toe tapping repressed homosexual republicans.
Yo, listen up....gays aren't demanding to marry their cousins, uncles, or pet fish.
They want to marry their partners, just like heterosexual couples do.
that by definition, is an equality under the law issue. If heterosexuals can marry their partners, so should homosexuals.
I've never heard of anyone demanding that cousins, and pet fish be allowed to get married. Outside of maybe a few hillbillies in arkansas, no one even considers that an option.
Do you know anyone who wants to marry their cousin or their pet guinea pig?
No???
Then Let me know what the whole "cousins getting married" fake brouhaha is an actual issue that pertains to the equal protection clause. Otherwise, I'll assume toe-tapping conservatives are just bringing it up as a stupid diversion
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_consequences[/ame]
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language"]Latin[/ame] for argument to the consequences), is an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument"]argument[/ame] that concludes a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise"]premise[/ame] (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion"]appeal to emotion[/ame] and is a form of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy"]logical fallacy[/ame], since the desirability of a consequence does not address the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value"]truth value[/ame] of the premise.
Cancel10
Independent Thinker
Your impression is flawed. Like most liberals, you judge a book by its cover rather than questioning what is written inside. First off, I don't give a fuck how people choose to live their lives; frankly I couldn't care less if two men or two women get married. Second, I left the Republican Party several months ago because they've abandoned the concept of individual liberty and small government (concepts which you, as a liberal, also reject). As for your other accusation, it is so childish it warrants no response. Grow up.
I understand that. However, if we are going to force gay marriage onto the states via the equal protection clause, then we must also permit close relatives to get married. What you view as being socially acceptable is completely irrelevant. So long as they're two consenting adults, the law must be applied equally.
On the other hand, who are we to limit a marriage to only two people?
That is beside the point. Even if there is one individual out there who wants to marry his sister, it becomes an equal protection issue (according to your interpretation of the equal protection clause, that is. Not mine).
You are the one who is creating a diversion. For instance, I didn't once include animals in my argument (it is an absurd argument to begin with); you chose to put these words into my mouth. If you're willing to discuss this issue like an adult, fine. Otherwise, do us a favor and hop on the next boat to fuckoff island.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is a great post....i've made the same argument at another board, not as eloquent as you, and i was roundly put down as a pervert etc....and then we have the counter argument that there is a influence factor with parents marry children....etc...
it boggles the mind how libs can argue for gay marriage, and then turn around and deny that same benefit to close family members...if they want equal protection for gays, then equal means equal....for all
government should get out of marriage and simply call it a union or contract or whatever and let private institutions marry or whatever they want to call it
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well, I can't really support a ban on inner-family incest just based on the fact that it disgusts me. That's too subjective. I've already mentioned birth defects as differentiating it from homosexuality. Off the top of my head, I can come up with another. In certain incest situations, like father-daughter incest, the relationship is suggestive of child abuse. If the state explicitly tells fathers that their daughters are forever off limits, I think it could trickle down and reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. Same thing with brother-sister incest.
I don't think, however, that first cousin marriages really count as incest. Since the rate of birth defects is low in such marriages (unless they occur over several generations), and it's usually not indicative of child abuse, I think this is just a case of Americans overcorrecting in regard to sexual taboos. Practically no other society in the world has a problem with it.
I don't think, however, that first cousin marriages really count as incest. Since the rate of birth defects is low in such marriages (unless they occur over several generations), and it's usually not indicative of child abuse, I think this is just a case of Americans overcorrecting in regard to sexual taboos. Practically no other society in the world has a problem with it.
christiefan915
Catalyst
You're right, many states allow first cousins to marry.
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
First of all it's a State thing and States have the power to do a lot of things that you may not agree with. For instance North Carolina's Constitution boldly states that we are a Christian government as justification for helping the poor.
So I don't give a damn if Massachusetts or Vermont or California legalizes gay marriage, since I never plan to live there, and these states will suffer the consequences of reduced population.
That being said I don't see the citizens of Texas standing pat on this decision by an errant judge. Texans will speak up and amend their Constitution to reverse the damage that this one judge did.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The federal government has supremacy. Federal law is supreme to even the constitution of a state.
Also, the constitution explicitly states that states have to recongize contracts from other states, irregardless of the question about the 14th ammendment.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Moot point, since the Federal government has no authority to regulate marriage.
Read more: http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_supremacy_clause_in_the_us_constitution#ixzz0T5R9OCVv
W
WinterBorn
Guest
It is not a moot point where North Carolina's claim to being a "christian state" is concerned.
The link at the article you posted speaks to that.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
As usual you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, Solitary.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
From the article at the link you posted:
"As a result, all government officials across the United States who take an oath of office swear or affirm to support the Constitution. This includes state judges, county prosecutors and library board members. When attorneys are admitted to practice law, they swear fidelity to the US Constitution."
There is no comparable oath sworn to any religious organization or even to any religion.
Read more: http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_supremacy_clause_in_the_us_constitution#ixzz0T5txHmQo
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
That article is so vague that it has practically no effect.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Again, from the article at the link you posted:
"The Supremacy Clause
Article VI, clause 2 makes the Constitution, laws passed by Congress and treaties of the United States the supreme law of the land. This has become known as the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the highest form of law in the United States legal system, requiring that state judges to defer to federal law even if state laws or constitutions conflict."
Call yourselves a "christian state" is essentially meaningless. If, at any time, you try and press an issue as a christian state or discriminate against those who are not christian, you would be guilty of violations of the US Constitution.
What the words you quoted did was pacify radical christian fundamentalists, nothing more.
Read it again, "Article VI, clause 2 makes the Constitution, laws passed by Congress and treaties of the United States the supreme law of the land."
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What Solitary chooses to ignore from my original link: "In the event that Congress passes a law within its constitutional authority, then state law must defer. "
Where in the US Constitution is the authority to regulate marriage given to the Federal government?
Where in the US Constitution is the authority to regulate marriage given to the Federal government?