Smeegle: "Simply put, gay couples have to shell out money to protect their legal rights where heterosexual couples are automatically covered."

Not really....

Have you ever heard of do-it-yourself wills?

A vast majority of legal contracts that couples might wish to enter would not require a lawyer. Obvioulsy when there is large amounts of money involved a lawyer might be wanted but that would be the case with straight couples as well.

Forms could either be available free of charge on-line or through other "gay rights" groups.

Again....unless we are talking about people with large amounts of money/assets there would be no reason for people to have to pay for legal contracts and that is the same with straight couples.

So what "rights" would marriage grant that a legal contract wouldn't.

And I didn't notice anyone resond to the fact that each state has different standards for who can or cannot get married.

Are those standards Unconstitutional and does this mean that the federal government needs to set ONE STANDARD for who can or cannot get married.

After all IF the States do not have the authority to decide who does nor does not get married would it not be up to the Feds to make those standards????

And of course if we are going to say that two men should be able to marry because that is their sexual preference why would a man not be able to marry a man and a woman if he was bisexual?

Then if one man is able to marry a man and a woman why would he not be able to marry two men?

Then if he was able to marry two men why would he not be able to marry more than two men or more than two women.

The same arguments that are being used to support gay marriage or denounce the lack of gay marriage can also be used to support or denounce the status of other "types" of marriage.

Do you find it morally wrong for two men to get married? Be honest. That's what this boils down to- you don't like it.

C-S: "Do you find it morally wrong for two men to get married? Be honest. That's what this boils down to- you don't like it."

It is always risky to try to tell someone else what they like or do not like before they tell you what they like or do not like.....

Do I find homosexuality morally wrong???

No.

Do I find it morally wrong for gays to marry???

Ultimately....No.

But I also do not think it is a Constitutional "right". IF the people of my State voted to include gay marriage in our definition of marriage I would be fine with that. I basically don't want one judge somewhere deciding for my State what we think marriage is.

We are debating what TUSC actually says not what I think is moral or not moral.

TUSC does NOT allow gay marriage. It simply does NOT.

Again what "right" would marriage cover that a legal contract wouldn't???

dottedmint:But I also do not think it is a Constitutional "right".

Do you think straight marriage is a constitutional right?

Cleveland-Steamer: dottedmint:But I also do not think it is a Constitutional "right".

Do you think straight marriage is a constitutional right?

The answer is quite simple, and knocks out the "if gays marry, then guys will start marrying sheep"..pff, as if girls dont like sheep.

Anyways, marraige is a sacred bond between 2 PEOPLE in love, period.

its simple, and precise

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

It's going to take the right case getting all the way up to the Supremes, but same-sex marriages will be legal one day.

Bonnie: "It's going to take the right case getting all the way up to the Supremes, but same-sex marriages will be legal one day."

And at what point will polygamy become legal???

....because every argument that can be used to argue in support of gay marriage can be used to argue in support of polygamy.

Then of course we can go back to one of my earlier questions....

Should there be any limitations on who can or cannot get married???

Why don't we just do away with marraige?

/devil's advocate

Puppet: "Why don't we just do away with marraige?"

Well....actually.....

IF anyone can get married to anyone and there are no limits to what "marriage" is then your questions isn't that far off....

After a certain point would there be anything "special" about marriage????

IF there would no longer be anything special about marriage why would there be a need for it???

dottedmint:
And at what point will polygamy become legal???

....because every argument that can be used to argue in support of gay marriage can be used to argue in support of polygamy.

Then of course we can go back to one of my earlier questions....

Should there be any limitations on who can or cannot get married???

Should a state be allowed to legalize polygamy if it wanted to?

And is there a right to "straight" marriage? You never answered that one.

dottedmint: ....because every argument that can be used to argue in support of gay marriage can be used to argue in support of polygamy.

Except that polygamy is not the issue. The issue is that two people wish to get married, not three, not ten.

They are being denied that right (Loving vs. Virginia) because of their sexual preference.

You are clouding the issue by insisting that polygamy somehow be given the same treatment, it is an irrelevant argument. There is no passionate movement to legitimize polygamy, it does not fit the model of our discussion. It is discrimination based on sexual preference.

After a certain point would there be anything "special" about marriage????

People get married for a variety of reasons. Some are special, some aren't.

But the right to marry has already been decided by the Courts, and denying two gay men the right to marry is no different than refusing a black man and a white woman the same.

It's a union, they choose to call it "marriage" and I have no problem giving them that respect.

C-S: "Should a state be allowed to legalize polygamy if it wanted to?"

IF the people of my state voted to include polygamy in our definition of marriage again I would be fine with that. It is not up to a federal judge to decide. ...just as with gay marriage....

"And is there a right to "straight" marriage? You never answered that one."

Sorry.....I missed that......

I would say that NO it is not a right that is granted by TUSC. It is up to the States to define what "marriage" is or is not.

Whidbey: "You are clouding the issue by insisting that polygamy somehow be given the same treatment, it is an irrelevant argument."

No. I am not insisiting that polygamy be given the same treatment. I am simply pointing out that the same arguments that you use to support gay marriage can be used to support polygamy.

"There is no passionate movement to legitimize polygamy, it does not fit the model of our discussion.

Ten or twenty years ago there was no "passionate movement" to legitimize gay marriage. There are people who support polygamy and if gay marriage becomes a nationwide standard for marriage why would these people not start pushing for their "right" to marry whoever they want?

"It is discrimination based on sexual preference."

I asked this before and nobody responded to it.....

Should a bisexual man be allowed to marry a man and a woman?

IF you are going to say "NO" then you would be discriminating against this man based on his "sexual preference"".

Hmmmm...

Should a brother and sister be able to marry???

How about mother and son???

Mother and daughter???

Would those be constitutionally protected "rights"????

dottedmint: Ten or twenty years ago there was no "passionate movement" to legitimize gay marriage. There are people who support polygamy and if gay marriage becomes a nationwide standard for marriage why would these people not start pushing for their "right" to marry whoever they want?

Well, it isn't a very good argument. There is no reason to compare the two.

I think you need to focus on the comparison between denying same-sex marriage with the denial of marriage based on race. It is very much the same thing, and it's unpleasant really how much it echoes the the discrimination of the Civil Rights Movement.

And if polygamy does become an issue, so what? It's not what we're talking about now.

It's a smoke screen, and seeing as how you don't oppose homosexuals marrying, why bring it up at all?

It's still a case where equal protection under the law is being denied. The commonality is that marriage is viewed as two people entering a bond, not three, not ten.

Should a brother and sister be able to marry???
How about mother and son???
Mother and daughter???

Nope. This has already established with medical reasons why this cannot happen, and I doubt it will change.

Again, the issue is HOMOSEXUAL marriage. Please stick to the topic. There is no movement, no demand for any of the other red herrings you've brought up...:)

Whidbey: "I think you need to focus on the comparison between denying same-sex marriage with the denial of marriage based on race. It is very much the same thing, and it's unpleasant really how much it echoes the the discrimination of the Civil Rights Movement."

And I think that is a poor argument.

Saying a black man can only marry a black woman is not the same as saying a man can marry any* woman. It's not even close.

"It's a smoke screen, and seeing as how you don't oppose homosexuals marrying, why bring it up at all?"

Because you talk about ensuring "equal protection" and that people not be discriminated against based on sexual prefrence and I'm trying to figure out if you are serious about what you say or if you only mean it when it applies to gay marriage.

"It's still a case where equal protection under the law is being denied. The commonality is that marriage is viewed as two people entering a bond, not three, not ten."

So you are only willing to allow a bisexual man to marry one person? He has to decide if he is going to marry a man or a woman?

That seems to me that you are denying a right based on sexual preference.

You said.....

"Denying the right of marriage because of sexual preference is discrimination. "

Bisexuality is a sexual preference.

"Nope. This has already established with medical reasons why this cannot happen, and I doubt it will change."

Actually there would be no medical reason to ban mother/daughter, father/son, brother/brother, or sister/sister. Also, reproduction is not always a goal of marriage so father/daughter, etc. does not need to have any medical issue.

So again.....since there doesn't need to be any medical issue....

Should a brother and sister be able to marry???

How about mother and son???

Mother and daughter???

Would those be constitutionally protected "rights"????

So I am reading this and wondering: What is the (perceived) point of marraige?

I've been married, and the wedding was a public expression of love and commitment in the eyes of people we respected, held dear, and is some cases were simply related to. Does this act of ceremony need to have a public filing on record with a governmental organization, the very institution of which many do not agree should hold power over our personal lives? If the power of the act of marraige be in the eyes of a God, then no paperwork is necessary.

I now find myself pondering the scope of societal illusions.

/Not snark.
//Divorced, and still good friends with the ex and his fiance.

dottedmint: Saying a black man can only marry a black woman is not the same as saying a man can marry any* woman. It's not even close.

That wasn't my point. The issue is that two people are being denied the right to marry, which ultimately violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment.

I think this is about the third time I've had to remind you of this.

dottedmint: Actually there would be no medical reason to ban mother/daughter, father/son, brother/brother, or sister/sister. Also, reproduction is not always a goal of marriage so father/daughter, etc. does not need to have any medical issue.

There are laws on the books right now that prohibit incestuous marriages, and . You're grasping.

And stop bringing up polygamy--we are discussing gay marriage and gay marriage only. No more "should a mother marry a daughter" and other red herrings, either. I'm not going to waste my time discussing those non-issues further, sorry.

The only issue is whether two people are allowed to marry or not, and under the present system, there is discrimination.

This is what you should be addressing, and it sounds like you refuse to acknowledge that the law is not being enforced.

Whidbey: "The issue is that two people are being denied the right to marry, which ultimately violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment. "

"There are laws on the books right now that prohibit incestuous marriages, and . You're grasping."

"And stop bringing up polygamy--we are discussing gay marriage and gay marriage only. No more "should a mother marry a daughter" and other red herrings, either. I'm not going to waste my time discussing those non-issues further, sorry."

"The only issue is whether two people are allowed to marry or not, and under the present system, there is discrimination."

"This is what you should be addressing, and it sounds like you refuse to acknowledge that the law is not being enforced."

Where to start...where to start....

1. The law says that one man can marry one woman. It doesn't say that two people can marry. This means that there is "equal protection" because any man can marry any woman.

2. There are laws on the book that says marriage is between one man and one woman.

And your first statement said....

"The issue is that two people are being denied the right to marry, which ultimately violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment. "

This completely contradicts your second statement.

After all if denying two people the "right" to marry violates the 14th Amendment then denying a brother and sister (two people) the "right" to marry would also violate the 14th Amendment.

And there is zero medical reason to ban sister/sister marriage...

You are contradicting yourself.

Either two consenting adults have a constitutional "right" to get married or they don't.

You can't say that "these two" have a "right" but "those two" don't have a "right"....unless you are a hypocrite....or unless you are not serious about "equal protection"...

3. We are discussing Constitutional "rights" and what TUSC actually says not just straight marriage, gay marriage, brother/sister marriage, polygamy marriage or any other one example of marriage.

We are discussing Constitutional "rights".....

4. The "law" is being enforced because it says that one man can marry one woman not just that two people can marry. As I've said before a gay man can marry any woman he wants just like a straight man can.

dottedmint: You can't say that "these two" have a "right" but "those two" don't have a "right"....unless you are a hypocrite....or unless you are not serious about "equal protection"...

It's just your other examples are irrelevant to the argument. Maybe you should find us a link where incest or polygamy became rampant in a country where they legalized same-sex marriage. I seriously doubt it.


dottedmint: The "law" is being enforced because it says that one man can marry one woman not just that two people can marry. As I've said before a gay man can marry any woman he wants just like a straight man can.

And the law is discriminatory on the basis of sexual preference. That's my argument.

Marriage, as we consider it a union between two people, is a right. It would really be stupid and pointless to have to spell out this definition with a host of legal snafu when we could just have easily looked to the 14th Amendment and realized that discriminating on the basis of sex is wrong, and doesn't guarantee citizens the same rights as others.

Whidbey you are contradicting yourself.

You say, "Marriage, as we consider it a union between two people, is a right."

But then you say, "There are laws on the books right now that prohibit incestuous marriages,"

So if marriage between two people is a "right" then it would not matter what two people we are talking about. You can't have it both ways.

Please explain why two gay men have a "right" to get married but two gay brothers don't have a "right" to get married.

And if it is a Constitutional "right" for a man to marry a woman why does a brother not have the same Constitutional "right" to marry his sister? Marriage after all does not mean reproduction.

You are telling me how wrong it is to deny people the "right" to marry and yet you are doing just that.

You also say, "And the law is discriminatory on the basis of sexual preference."

You have told me that it is wrong to deny a gay man from getting married to another man because the sexual preference of that man means that he is not going to want to marry a woman.

But you are telling me that it is OK to deny a bisexual man his right to marry who he wants based on his sexual preference.

"It would really be stupid and pointless to have to spell out this definition with a host of legal snafu when we could just have easily looked to the 14th Amendment...."

But I need to point out to you (again) that the law in most states only define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So your claim that the law only says marriage is a union between two people is more than a bit incorrect.

"...and realized that discriminating on the basis of sex is wrong, and doesn't guarantee citizens the same rights as others."

But you are willing to discriminate on the basis of sex when it comes to a bisexual man.

dottedmint: Please explain why two gay men have a "right" to get married but two gay brothers don't have a "right" to get married.

I really don't have to: it's not the issue.

Both incest and polygamy are illegal. Being a homosexual is not.

There would have to be one hell of a justification to change most people's minds about your two irrelevant examples. That would fall on you. I already asked you to provide evidence of such a thing happening in countries where same-sex marriage is permitted. "What if" two gay brothers wanted to marry doesn't cut it.

Same-sex marriage is based on the common understanding we have of marriage already: that two people have the right to marry. Brothers aren't marrying sisters today, and group marriage isn't happening. There is much more of a universal condemnation of both.

I contend that both are already covered under the 14th Amendment. Both incest and polygamy are already illegal on moral grounds. I do not support either, and I'm sure you don't likewise.

Same-sex marriage is the challenge we should be focusing on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with two same-sex partners marrying, and whatever taboo exists, it is wrong and it needs to be changed. THAT is the issue.

Whidbey: "Both incest and polygamy are illegal. Being a homosexual is not."

Actually, at one time homsexual acts were illegal in many states. The USSC ruled that laws making sexual acts between consenual adults illegal were unconstitutional. Now I admit that I don't recall the reasoning the courts used when they overturned those laws or I suppose we could debate that ruling but I agree with that ruling. IF it is unconstitutional to have a law banning gay sex between consenting adults then it should also be unconstitutional to have a law that bans sex between consenting adult brothers.

"There would have to be one hell of a justification to change most people's minds about your two irrelevant examples."

Well....people were saying the same thing about gay marriage 10 or 20 years ago.

"I contend that both are already covered under the 14th Amendment. Both incest and polygamy are already illegal on moral grounds. I do not support either, and I'm sure you don't likewise."

The problem is that every argument that you use to support gay marriage can be used to support polygamy and even the incestual marriages that I brought up.

"Same-sex marriage is the challenge we should be focusing on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with two same-sex partners marrying, and whatever taboo exists, it is wrong and it needs to be changed. THAT is the issue."

SO if two brothers wanted to get married there would be nothing wrong with that.....

dottedmint: Actually, at one time homsexual acts were illegal in many states. The USSC ruled that laws making sexual acts between consenual adults illegal were unconstitutional. Now I admit that I don't recall the reasoning the courts used when they overturned those laws or I suppose we could debate that ruling but I agree with that ruling

You agree with that ruling? How? I thought if it wasn't in the constitution it didn't exist?

dottedmint: The problem is that every argument that you use to support gay marriage can be used to support polygamy and even the incestual marriages that I brought up.

The argument in favor of straight marriage can be used to support incest, polygamy, and all the rest as well. Arguments in favor of legalizing alcohol can be used in favor of legalizing crack. Your slippery slope argument is getting a little tired, not to mention a tad offensive.

Just because an argument can be taken to absurd levels doesn't mean that argument is incorrect. The disconnect you seem to be having is that Gay marriage isn't polygamy or incest. It's a pretty simple concept.

C-S: "Just because an argument can be taken to absurd levels doesn't mean that argument is incorrect. The disconnect you seem to be having is that Gay marriage isn't polygamy or incest. It's a pretty simple concept."

And gay marriage isn't straight marriage either.....

The law in most states say that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I am being told that this is unconstitutional because it is wrong to not allow two men to marry because it is wrong to discriminate against sexual preference.

SO IF two men should be allowed to marry why shouldn't two men be allowed to marry if they were brothers???

Again...there is ZERO medical reason not to allow that. At least with a brother/sister situation you could at least point to medical issues. But then again...if one of them was "fixed" there would be no reason to not allow it.

And if it is wrong to discriminate against people based on their sexual preferences why would a bisexual man not be allowed to marry both a man and a woman?

I had pointed out that the law is equal because a gay man can marry any woman that he wants.

I was told that his sexual preference means that he wants to marry a man not a woman and it is wrong not to let him marry a man.

Well a bisexual mans sexual preference means that he wants to marry both a man and a woman so why is it ok to deny him that right?

Cleveland-Steamer: Your slippery slope argument is getting a little tired, not to mention a tad offensive.

Agreed.

dottedmint: I had pointed out that the law is equal because a gay man can marry any woman that he wants.

I really wish you'd quit bringing this up. It is not the issue at hand, the issue is marriage.

And I wish you'd quit bringing up incest and polygamy.

Rather than accept that there is discrimination, your method is to cheapen the argument by making us defend things we don't care to talk about. That is disingenous, no one is advocating that siblings marry. NO one.

The issue is that the current laws discriminate homosexuals from marrying, and if the States refuse to enforce the 14th Amendment as it stands, then there needs to be a Supreme Court-defined definition of marriage.

Thanks to red herrings like your arguments.

In 1948, California became the first state in the U.S. to allow interracial couples to marry. Another 19 years passed before the U.S. Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage in 1967 and made interracial marriage available to loving, committed couples across the entire country.

In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. If same-sex marriage takes as long as interracial marriage to spread across the country, the process will take until 2023.

dottedmint: I am being told that this is unconstitutional because it is wrong to not allow two men to marry because it is wrong to discriminate against sexual preference.

SO IF two men should be allowed to marry why shouldn't two men be allowed to marry if they were brothers???

You answered your own question:

dottedmint: ...gay marriage isn't straight marriage .....

Since you are obviously capable of seeing the difference between types of marriages, you should also be able to comprehend the very large difference between gay marriage and incest, and I don't need to indulge your silly and offensive logical fallacies any further.

dottedmint: I was told that his sexual preference means that he wants to marry a man not a woman and it is wrong not to let him marry a man.

Well a bisexual mans sexual preference means that he wants to marry both a man and a woman so why is it ok to deny him that right?

Wow, this is just...wow. This statement is completely devoid of anything remotely bordering on intelligence. "Bisexual" merely defines sexual preference, not promiscuity or "wanting two people simultaneously."

And why are all of your examples men? I challenge you to make all of your examples women and see if you feel the same about the issue.

Your insistence on resorting to strawmans, slippery slopes, and offensive and ignorant stereotypes only shows the inherent weakness of your argument and your inability to honestly debate the issue.

You have not addressed any of my points regarding substantive due process rights under the 14th amendment (NOT EP) and the merits and problems of literally reading the constitution. You also never answered why you believe your previously cited ruling guaranteeing sexual privacy in the home was constitutional. I am genuinely curious about this as this seems opposite to your previously stated views on the constitution.

Instead, you blindly resorted to your old and tired fallacious arguments without answering a single substantive point in any of my posts.

Are logical fallacies and ignorant stereotypes the only reasons for discriminating against a significant portion of our population? Should that be enough?

c-s: "...you should also be able to comprehend the very large difference between gay marriage and incest..."

Hmmmm.....let's see....

Two gay men (sorry) women get married....

Two gay women get married who happen to be sisters....

Obviously other than being sisters everything else is the same.

There would actually be more similarities than differences.

"Bisexual" merely defines sexual preference, not promiscuity or "wanting two people simultaneously."

What?!?!?!

Promiscuous means: not restricted to one sexual partner

Bisexual means: characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes

Now granted....not every bisexual woman is going to want to have sex with a man and woman at the same time but some will.

A bisexual women could spend one night with her wife and the next night with her husband...

There are people who have that sort of life style.

"And why are all of your examples men? I challenge you to make all of your examples women and see if you feel the same about the issue."

Ummm.....yep. Changing the sex of the people involved doesn't change my views....

"You have not addressed any of my points regarding substantive due process rights under the 14th amendment"

That is because I don't think the DP rights are being violated.

"You also never answered why you believe your previously cited ruling guaranteeing sexual privacy in the home was constitutional. I am genuinely curious about this as this seems opposite to your previously stated views on the constitution."

As I said earlier I don't recall what reasoning they used in their ruling and perhaps I should look it up but something tells me that the government cannot make consensual sexual acts illegal.

Here's an article by WorldNetDaily that talks about making incest legal....

Link (new window)

Time, in its article, "Should Incest Be Legal," noted that so far most of the challenges have been unsuccessful. "But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest." Jacoby noted he'd reported several years ago on an incest case, in which the brother and sister involved were prosecuted.

"But the next [case] to come along, or the one after that, may not lose. In Lawrence, it is worth remembering, the Supreme Court didn't just invalidate all state laws making homosexual sodomy a crime. It also overruled its own decision just 17 years earlier (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986) upholding such laws," Jacoby wrote. "If the court meant what it said in Lawrence - that states are barred from 'making ... private sexual conduct a crime' - it will not take that long for laws criminalizing incest to go by the board as well."

And from the TIME article itself....

Link (new window)

In Ohio, lawyers for a Cincinnati man convicted of incest for sleeping with his 22-year-old stepdaughter tell TIME that they will make the Lawrence decision the centerpiece of an appeal to the Supreme Court. "Our view of Lawrence is a fairly narrow one, that there is a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendment's due process clause that says private consensual activity between adults cannot be criminal," said J. Dean Carro, the lead lawyer for Paul D. Lowe, the former sheriff's deputy sentenced in 2004 to 120 days in jail after pleading no contest to incest.

And from The Boston Globe....

Link (new window)

In Germany, the Green Party is openly supporting the Stubings in their bid to decriminalize incest. According to the BBC, incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium, Holland, and France. Sweden already permits half-siblings to marry.

dottedmint: A bisexual women could spend one night with her wife and the next night with her husband...

There are people who have that sort of life style.

Spare me. Since you only seem capable of comprehending logical fallacies let me put it this way: a straight man is equally capable of wanting to marry two women as a bi man is of wanting a man and a woman.

Ergo, straight marriage should be banned because it leads to bi-sexual polygamy.

Obviously that is absurd. But go ahead, keep spouting your partisan hack job arguments.

dottedmint: As I said earlier I don't recall what reasoning they used in their ruling and perhaps I should look it up but something tells me that the government cannot make consensual sexual acts illegal.

"Something tells you?" I thought if it wasn't in the Constitution it doesn't exist? "Something tells me" making gay marriage illegal is discriminatory. Thank you for lowering your standard of constitutionality to "something tells me the government can't do it", I guess we can stop arguing this now.

Maybe you should look up their reasoning? Wait, I'll help you: It's based on the right to privacy, which isn't in the Constitution. You can't agree with that ruling and be a strict textualist, it's that simple. You are contradicting yourself.

Oh yeah thanks for the irrelevant WorldNet Daily links. (Are you farking kidding me? WorldNet Daily?) For the millionth time INCEST IS NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

That's why I don't believe you when you say "ultimately... gay marriage isn't immoral." You equate it with other things which are highly questionable and considered immoral in Western Society and/or unhealthy (such as polygamy and incest). You wouldn't stoop that low unless you had a moral agenda or actually believed it was on par with those things. So no, I don't believe that you are not arguing this because you think it's wrong, sorry.

"If the court meant what it said in Lawrence - that states are barred from 'making ... private sexual conduct a crime' - it will not take that long for laws criminalizing incest to go by the board as well."

ooooooh! Spooky!

C-S: "You equate it with other things which are highly questionable and considered immoral in Western Society and/or unhealthy (such as polygamy and incest)."

1. There is still a large portion of the population that sees homosexuality as being immoral. Granted I suspect that it is probably less than 50%, but just 10 or 20 years ago it would have been over 50%.

2. Would a sister/sister, brother/brother, or even sister/brother marriage be any more unhealthy than simple gay marriage? As long as children are not born it is not even slightly unhealthy. It is also no more unhealthy than straight marriage involving parents with hereditary illnesses.

It's based on the right to privacy, which isn't in the Constitution. You can't agree with that ruling and be a strict textualist, it's that simple. You are contradicting yourself.

Good point.....

Perhaps I should have said that I agreed with the outcome instead of just the ruling.....

I guess I don't see how the government can make consenual sexual acts between adults illegal.....

IF they can make gay sex illegal then they would be able to make straight sex illegal and I don't think either one would be good....

"You wouldn't stoop that low unless you had a moral agenda or actually believed it was on par with those things. So no, I don't believe that you are not arguing this because you think it's wrong, sorry."

Well....you can believe what you want but as before you would be wrong about what I think.

I think gays should be able to adopt.

I think gays should be able to join the military.

And as I said before....

IF my state voted to include gay marriage in our definition of marriage I would be fine with it.

It just IS NOT a Constitutional "right".

It is up to the States to define marriage...

dottedmint: It just IS NOT a Constitutional "right".

Disagree.

It is up to the States to define marriage...

Last time we let the states "decide," they wouldn't allow blacks to marry whites...

It's a nationwide civil rights issue, and unfortunately and ultimately a Supreme Court decision, seeing as how any circuit court ruling would be challenged, because obviously the language in the 14th Amendment just isn't clear enough, and apparently, neither is the language in Loving vs. Virginia...

dottedmint: I guess I don't see how the government can make consenual sexual acts between adults illegal.....

They make a law and then arrest people for breaking it. Fairly simple. Lots of states still have sodomy laws on the books, they just never get enforced or challenged.

I guess I don't see how you can champion states rights and literal readings of the constitution and then turn around and say you just "can't see" how the government can make something illegal, even though it's not "in the constitution."

You claim such a high standard of literal intepretation and then when it doesn't exist you just sit on intuition and "gut feeling." Interesting...

It is up to the States to define marriage...

You know, I can respect the states rights angle and I agree States should have more rights vis a vis the feds in other areas. But when you start spouting off Gay = polygamy = incest arguments that are just nonsensical and completely offensive, that's when I question what angle you are really coming from. Why go there? Why not stick to the states rights argument?

C-S: "You claim such a high standard of literal intepretation and then when it doesn't exist you just sit on intuition and "gut feeling." Interesting..."

1. I don't think I ever claimed to be 100% strict interpretationist but I do try to follow the actual text of TUSC as much as I can.

2. Do you think sexual acts between consenting adults is something the government should be able to ban? Is it a "right" covered by TUSC?

"But when you start spouting off Gay = polygamy = incest arguments that are just nonsensical and completely offensive, that's when I question what angle you are really coming from. Why go there? Why not stick to the states rights argument?"

Because even though you don't want to admit it, they are all related....

It is a case of a series of progressive steps....

I'm told that gay marriage should be allowed because two consenting adults should have a right to marry....

OK.....

Two consenting adults who happen to be brother and sister want to marry but I'm told that they can't.....

Why????

It's immoral, taboo, unhealthy......

Many have said, and some still say that about gay marriage.....

So tell me why adults who are related can't marry....there are after all people who are pushing to legalize just that.

Now I admit that polygamy is a bigger step to take and obviously wouldn't happen overnight but it is one of the next steps in this debate.

IF gay marriage becomes the norm at some point someone will ask why only two people can get married. Eventually more and more people will ask the same thing and eventually the topic of making polygamy legal will be the hot topic of the day. There are actually already many groups who are trying to legalize polygamy..... just as there are people trying to legalize adult incestual marriage.

These are the next steps in the marriage debate.....it doesn't just end with gay marriage.

Whidbey: "Last time we let the states "decide," they wouldn't allow blacks to marry whites..."

And now states also do not allow adult relatives to marry...

Is adult incestual marriage also "a nationwide civil rights issue"?

If not...why???

Wow. So stopping gays from getting married is the only buffer against rampant incest.

/Help us, Fred Phelps, you're our only hope.

I really love it when you guys try to put words in my mouth instead of simply debating what you think.

I never said, nor did I try to imply that banning gay marriage is some sort of safeguard against incestual marriage.

I'm told that two women have a Constitutional "right" to marry.

But then I'm told that two women do NOT have that "right" if they are sisters.

Why?

So far none of you guys have been able to explain why 'those two women' have a "right" to marry but 'these two women' don't have a "right" to marry.

IF you guys are willing to say that 'these two women' don't have a "right" to marry then marriage obviously isn't a Constitutionally protected "right".

So why do two sisters NOT have a Constitutionally protected "right" to marry????

dottedmint: Is adult incestual marriage also "a nationwide civil rights issue"?

No. But apparently it is to you...

Maybe you should get cracking and start printing up some posters.

Sorry, you've run out of gas on that non-argument.

We're trying to defend same-sex marriage, and it's hard to wade through the garbage you're throwing at us. Seriously.

Whidbey: "Sorry, you've run out of gas on that non-argument.

We're trying to defend same-sex marriage, and it's hard to wade through the garbage you're throwing at us. Seriously."

First I haven't even come close to running out of gas on this issue.

You guys have told me many many times that two women have a Constitutionally protected "right" to marry.

So why don't two women who are sisters (same-sex marriage) also have a Constitutionally protected "right" to marry?

None of you guys have actually said why these two women don't have the same "right" that you think other female couples have.

Then of course if you think that two people being able to marry is a Constitutionally protected "right" can you tell me why a brother and sister don't have the same "right" everyone else has?

Rights are not based on how society views something.

http://www.slate.com/id/3642/entry/23844/

I'm not going to debate this with you if you're going to keep straying from the issue, dottedmint.

Nice article Bonnie.

It's too bad that it doesn't actually answer my question.

IF two women have a Constitutionally protected "right" to get married why do two women who are sisters not also have the same Constitutionally protected "right" to get married?

From the article...

"Incest disqualifies someone from marriage because incestuous relationships destabilize and destroy the trust that is essential to family life, a trust that marriage is designed to affirm, indeed create. It is, in fact, an abandonment of the responsibility marriage demands."

Um....

Based on what exactly????

Allen and Patricia Muth are brother and sister but also are in a loving relationship that is illegal.

Allen served 8 years on prison.

Pat served 5 years in prison.

"If this had happened to a gay couple, the case would have become a cause celebre. Hard time as punishment for a private, consensual, adult relationship? Activists would have been outraged. Editorial pages would have thundered."

Link (new window)

Again from your link....

"Being a minor disqualifies someone from marriage because the kind of consent and responsibility that marriage demands can only be achieved by adults. "

I am not talking about minors.

I am talking about two consenting adults who are in a loving relationship.

Why do two consenting adults who are in a loving relationship not have a Constitutionally protected "right" to get married????

Again...your link....

"Polygamy disqualifies because the marital bond is designed to be so deep and profound that it can only be felt between two human beings, not more than two. "

I think those people who practice polygamy would disagree with that statement.

So can you tell me why two consenting adult women who are in a loving relationship have a Constitutionally protected "right" to marry but two consenting adult women are in a loving relationship but also sisters don't have the same "right" that you think the first couple has?

I think the fact that none of you guys have been able to answer that question says alot about your reasonings when it comes to marriage.

The Aristocrats!

And here is an article about Patrick and Susan Karolewski who are brother and sister.

This is what Patrick said, "We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family. Our whole family broke apart when we were younger, and after that happened, Susan and I were brought closer together,".

Link (new window)

So why do two women have a "right" to get married but these two adults don't have the same "right"?

Oh and Whidbey the "issue" here is Constitutionally protected "rights" and marriage.

You and others in here have told me that two consenting adults have a Constitutionally protected "right" to get married.

So tell me why these two loving, consenting adults don't have the same "right" that you say gays have.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/

dottedmint: So tell me why these two loving, consenting adults don't have the same "right" that you say gays have.

Your argument lost what little steam it had when it was pointed out to you that straight marriage "encourages" incest in the same fashion as your argument that gay marriage would.

It's ridiculous.

But hey, keep bringing it up, keep cheapening the argument.

Gay marriage leads to incest. That's what you're saying. Thanks for utterly poisoning this discussion with irrelevant slag.

dottedmint: 1. I don't think I ever claimed to be 100% strict interpretationist but I do try to follow the actual text of TUSC as much as I can.

2. Do you think sexual acts between consenting adults is something the government should be able to ban? Is it a "right" covered by TUSC?

Is it in the Constitution? No. Therefore according to you it should be open season on it. You haven't provided me with anything to back up your agreement with the Lawrence decision other than your "gut feeling."

The fact that you demand a citation to the exact wording of the Constitution for marriage (and warrants, and war powers, and abortion, and all the rest if them) seems a bit contradictory, methinks. You would never accept any argument from me that consisted of "well I just don't think they can do that."

dottedmint: It's immoral, taboo, unhealthy......

Many have said, and some still say that about gay marriage.....

"Many have said, and some still say" blacks and whites getting married is immoral, taboo, and unhealthy. Does that mean it is so?

Perhaps we should make straight marriage illegal since it leads to black and white marriage? Or *gasp* incest!

It's marriage between a man and a woman right?

So why can't a brother and a sister get married? They are a woman and a man that love each other right??

I mean, as you said:

dottedmint: Because even though you don't want to admit it, they are all related....

It is a case of a series of progressive steps....

Every form of marriage along this so called "moral continuum" is related and one naturally leads to another (according to you.) So....

Therefore, the only logical conclusion of your train of thought is banning marriage altogether.

Right? Oh wait I forgot:

dottedmint: straight marriage isn't gay marriage.

But gay marriage is polygamy? And incest? I am confused...

dottedmint: Rights are not based on how society views something.

Serious question: what are they based on? I think you are being unrealistic if you think that a society's collective determination of morality does not have some bearing on what "rights" we think we have, for better or worse.

I don't think it's off-base to point out that right now, in 2007, homosexuality and gay marriage are far more accepted than polygamy and incestual marriage.

I feel dirty even making that comparison...

Thanks again Bonnie....

Another nice article. Again it just doesn't seem to answer my question either.

Why should the couples that I have mentioned not be allowed to marry?

They are adult, consenting, and loving couples in steady devoted relationships.

So why can't they get married???

Heck.....why is sexual relationships illegal???

And to those of you who refuse to actually answer (or even attempt to answer) my question your silence is deafening.

You guys have debated yourselves into a corner.

You have told me that two consenting adults have a Constitutionally protected "right" to get married.

Now when I give you an example of two consenting adults in a loving relationship and ask why "they" can't marry I see a bunch of people sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La La La La...... I can't hear you" instead of actually answering my question.

IF two consenting adults have a "right" to get married then two consenting adults have a "right" to get married....

Now... you guys can stay in the corner with your fingers firmly planted in your ears or you can actually try to answer my question.

IF two consenting adults have a Constitutionally protected "right" to get married why does a brother and sister who are in a loving relationship not also have the same "right" that you say two women have?

dottedmint: You have told me that two consenting adults have a Constitutionally protected "right" to get married.

I thought I've been clear on this a few times: the right we are discussing is gay marriage. Not polygamy, not incest, gay marriage. The right should be narrowly construed and exists along with the right to straight marriage. It's not simply a right to marriage. Get it?

Once again it seems you are ignoring my posts, my questions, and my points entirely in order to re-post the same blathering talking points over and over again...

Heh.