If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7606 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | » | Last
 
  2007-10-27 03:17:46 PM
Heh.
 
  2007-10-27 10:01:51 PM
C-S: "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?"

So these aren't "rights" that apply to everyone....

Hmmmm.....

Interesting.....

They only apply to the people who you think they should apply to....

Very interesting....

Alrighty.....

The "right" of marriage should only apply to straight marriage....

After all...that's as good of an argument as the reasoning you have given me as to why these consenting adults that I have mentioned shouldn't be able to marry.

Basically you still have not told me why two consenting adult women have a "right" to marry but two consenting adults who are brother and sister don't have a "right" to get married.

'We're not talking about incestual marriage' isn't an answer.

So two consenting adults have a "right" to get married if society agrees with that marriage????

Is that about what your point is?

IF that is the case then that "right" is not based on TUSC.

It is based on public opinion polls.

Let's fast forward several years and imagine that the demographics of the US changes and gay marriage is viewed as "wrong" by most of Americans.

At that point would their "right" to marry somehow simply end?

Or let's simply go back 10 years to a point where a majority of Americans didn't support gay marriage.

Does this mean that at that point two women did NOT have a Constitutionally protected "right" to marry and that they did not get that "right" until after a majority of Americans supported gay marriage.

And 20 or 30 years in the future IF/when a majority of Americans support the idea of consenting adults getting married (even if they were brother and sisiter) their "right" to marry would magically appear.

So again.....

IF two consenting adult women have a Constitutionally protected "RIGHT" to get married why does a consenting adult brother and sister not have the same "RIGHT"?
 
  2007-10-29 06:57:07 PM
dottedmint: 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.

Because...you could use the existing laws to justify your ridiculous argument.

No one is clamoring for incestuous marriage.

We are ONLY talking about same-sex marriage between two consenting adults.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

Incest is already covered under the 14th Amendment. It's illegal every place.

Rinse...repeat...wipe hands on pants.
 
  2007-10-29 08:45:39 PM
whidbey: "No one is clamoring for incestuous marriage."

UM....

Allen and Patricia Muth

Patrick and Susan Karolewski

These are four people who are clamoring for incestuous marriage.

I would be willing to bet that if I looked, I could find more....

How many people need to be clamoring for something before it is a "right"???


"We are ONLY talking about same-sex marriage between two consenting adults."

And the obvious point is that the four people that I mentioned are all consenting adults.

"Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not."

Right.....

The courts just ruled that two consenting adults have a "right" to have sex but it is illegal for "these" two consenting adults to have sex....

IF two women have a "right" to have sex why would two sisters not have the same "right"????

"Incest is already covered under the 14th Amendment. It's illegal every place."

Actually different states have different standards as what family "members" can get married. Granted none of them allow brothers and sisters to marry but they have different standards when it comes to cousins.

But again......if two women have a "right" to have sex why doesn't two sisters also have the same "right"???

And.....if two women have a "right" to get married why doesn't two sisters also have the same "right"???

Gee.....sounds like an "equal protection" issue or would it be a "due process" issue.....

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

Right.....
 
  2007-10-29 10:15:14 PM
BTW....

"Incest is already covered under the 14th Amendment. It's illegal every place."

Until one judge in one state ruled on it, gay marriage was illegal every place.

So what happens if one judge in one state rules that incest is legal????

Should it be???

Why???
 
  2007-10-29 10:57:52 PM
dottedmint You cease to have individual rights when you engage in the act of procreation.

The taboo against incest predates any laws, constitutions, or guarantee of "rights" mankind has ever written. It goes more to the heart of an individuals responsibility to maintain a healthy gene pool in order to insure the survival of our species.

Nature grants every newborn the right to start life with a random set of genes. We make the best of the hand we're dealt and the fittest survive. No privilege that you assume to derive from the Constitution can ever give you, or anyone, the right to mate with a sibling and deny the offspring that random paring of genes.
 
  2007-10-29 11:27:35 PM
RainForest: "dottedmint You cease to have individual rights when you engage in the act of procreation."

I'm not talking about reproducing.

I'm talking about consenting adults having sex or getting married.

"The taboo against incest predates any laws, constitutions, or guarantee of "rights" mankind has ever written. It goes more to the heart of an individuals responsibility to maintain a healthy gene pool in order to insure the survival of our species. "

Actually....that "taboo" isn't universal.

Some countries allow adult incest and some even allow incestual marriage.

"Nature grants every newborn the right to start life with a random set of genes. We make the best of the hand we're dealt and the fittest survive. No privilege that you assume to derive from the Constitution can ever give you, or anyone, the right to mate with a sibling and deny the offspring that random paring of genes.

Again....I'm not talking about reproduction.

I'm simply asking why two consenting adults do not have a "right" to have sex or marry if they wish to.

Obviously two sisters or brothers are not going to reproduce so your issue is mute with those examples.

Also not everyone who gets married wants to have children.

And actually even if a brother and sister create a child that child does have a "random paring of genes".

The genes from the brother is randomly paired with the genes from the sister.

Now.....if you wish to argue that a brother and sister having a child increases that childs chances of having a genetic defect then you would also argue that it should be illegal for a woman to have a child after a certain age or people with genetic defects of their own to be allowed to reproduce because those also increase the odds that the child will have a genetic defect.

So again.....

IF two women have a "right" to have sex or get married why should two sisters not have the same "right" to have sex or get married????
 
  2007-10-30 01:17:19 AM
good lord.
 
  2007-10-30 02:49:17 AM
dottedmint:I'm not talking about reproducing.

Yes, you are.
Any time you engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, reproduction is a possibility. There is no 100% effective method of birth control other than abstinence. And if you happen to be Christian and buy into the idea of Immaculate Conception, not even that works. The fact is you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're just beating a dead horse. But keep right on beating. You need the exercise.

Actually....that "taboo" isn't universal.

Some countries allow adult incest and some even allow incestual marriage.


Give me a specific example of a country where the entire population, not just the ruling elite, is allowed to engage in incest and sibling marriage.


And actually even if a brother and sister create a child that child does have a "random paring of genes".

The genes from the brother is randomly paired with the genes from the sister.


I doubt that I'll live long enough for you to comprehend the concept of quality of randomness.

. . .then you would also argue that it should be illegal . . .

You can't possibly know what I might argue. I'm a woman: I don't even know that half the time.
What I actually believe and practice personally when it comes to human reproduction is probably a lot more extreme than you would ever imagine.

So again.....

IF two women have a "right" to have sex or get married why should two sisters not have the same "right" to have sex or get married????


*drags out soapbox*
You'll never hear me argue that anyone has a right to get married. My religion doesn't practice marriage. But, on behalf of those that do, I would point out that marriage has historically been a religious venue. For those religions who practice it, it is a covenant between a couple, their God, and a community of believers. The Church agrees to support the couple with love and fellowship, and the couple agrees to raise any offspring in the Faith.

The government has no business regulating marriage in any shape form or fashion. To do so is to endorse a religious belief.

I firmly believe that anyone who maintains a common homestead is entitled to equal treatment under the law. But it should be treated as domestic law, not as marriage. 'Gay Marriage' is a term that was coined to be divisive and to unite the homophobic far right religious fanatics. Somehow 'Domestic Equality' just can't be made to sound that threatening. If two siblings maintain a home together, they deserve to be treated no differently than a married couple, or a couple living together. If two siblings want to have sex, it's none of my business. God will judge them. If they slip and produce a child, it's a crime against humanity. The child is innocent, but society has the right to make certain the parents never make that mistake again.

*puts away soapbox*
 
  2007-10-30 06:49:37 AM
RainForest: Yes, you are.

Um..... No I'm not. I know what I am debating and I am not debating reproduction.

I always find it very funny when people tell me what I think when they don't know me.

"Any time you engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, reproduction is a possibility. There is no 100% effective method of birth control other than abstinence."

Obviously that is not an issue when dealing with two sisters or two brothers and it is also not an issue when one or both is "fixed".

"Give me a specific example of a country where the entire population, not just the ruling elite, is allowed to engage in incest and sibling marriage."

Two countries that come to mind are France and Sweden...

"I doubt that I'll live long enough for you to comprehend the concept of quality of randomness. "

Don't worry. I fully understand the idea of randomness.

My point is that we do not have laws that ban older women or couples with genetic defects of their own from reproducing (both can pass on genetic defects to their children) yet we should have laws that ban a brother and sister from reproducing????

But again.....I see reproduction as a different issue than simply getting married or having sex.

"The government has no business regulating marriage in any shape form or fashion. To do so is to endorse a religious belief."

Um.....

Not really.

When a state defines marriage they are not endorsing a religion. This is obvious when athiests get married at the courthouse.
 
  2007-10-30 08:46:07 AM
i have received ron paul spam. i find that highly questionable.

that is all.
 
  2007-10-30 05:26:23 PM
dottedmint: So what happens if one judge in one state rules that incest is legal????

I don't know, but it sure is irrelevant to this argument.

These are four people who are clamoring for incestuous marriage.

*shakes head*

So what?

How many people need to be clamoring for something before it is a "right"???

I don't care. Your entire argument is irrelevant, ridiculous, and insulting.

Again: I'm not going to debate your red herrings.

No one in here cares about incestuous marriage but you.

You've said plenty, and it's time you admit to the group that you really have no argument.
 
  2007-10-30 09:10:37 PM
dottedmint: I see reproduction as a different issue than simply getting married or having sex.

This is why there are 6.6 billion people on earth.

Your intellect, such as it is, has escaped from its mammalian shell and is running wild in a land where actions have no consequences.

You might view reproduction as an issue separate from marriage and sex but you would be wrong. Until there is a 100% reliable, universally available, reversible, cheap, and fun method of birth control, sex and reproduction are the SAME topic.

Meanwhile, back in this universe, where the prime directive of every living thing is to perpetuate its species, your little mammal self has only two ways to guarantee that you will never reproduce:

1) Do not have intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. Ever.

2) Have yourself neutered. Not just 'fixed'. Sterilization for birth control has a greater than 1% failure rate for both men and women. Your body will do every thing it can to repair the damage and restore its fertility.


When you talk about the government granting the "right" to get married or the "right" to have sex I start looking really hard at the Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" and start counting the ammo. I don't want the government involved in my religion or my sex life
 
  2007-10-30 10:18:54 PM
Whidbey: "I don't know, but it sure is irrelevant to this argument."

Well...since gay marriage was illegal until one judge in one state said it wasn't and you had said, "Incest is already covered under the 14th Amendment. It's illegal every place." it would only take one judge in one state (just as with the gay marriage issue) to void your statement.


*shakes head*

Don't shake your head too hard. You can't afford to have anything fall out.... LOL....

"I don't care. [How many people...] Your entire argument is irrelevant, ridiculous, and insulting."

Oh....so you don't care if a minority is prevented from having the same rights as everyone else. Interesting....

"No one in here cares about incestuous marriage but you."

It's not that I actually care about incestuous marriage as much as I'm pointing out the hpocrisy of your comments.

'Two consenting adults have a right to get married but not these two consenting adults'

and....

'Two consenting adults have a right to a same sex marriage but not these two consenting same sex adults'

RainForest: "Meanwhile, back in this universe, where the prime directive of every living thing is to perpetuate its species, your little mammal self has only two ways to guarantee that you will never reproduce:"

I know several couples who have zero desire to ever have children. So your claim that it is the "prime directive of every living thing" is a bit ...um... off.

"Have yourself neutered. Not just 'fixed'. Sterilization for birth control has a greater than 1% failure rate for both men and women. Your body will do every thing it can to repair the damage and restore its fertility."

Um.....actually a vasectomy has an overall failure rate of 0.15% and this is mostly because couples have sex before all of the sperm is "flushed" out. And the rate that the vas deferentia reconnect is 0.025%.

As far as getting tubes tied there is about the same overall failure rate for vasectomy of around 0.1%.

And, I have a friend who just had a hysterectomy and there is 0.00000% chance she will have a child.

BTW....I don't think it is the "prime directive" of gay men to reproduce.
 
  2007-10-31 10:58:08 AM
dottedmint: You are saying that incestuous marriage is simply further along (below?) the same moral axis as homosexual marriage. (And therefore, you argue, homosexual marriage can be judged as being 'wrong' in the same way as everyone posting here agrees that farking your siblings is, like, totally gross.)

Now, we all have homosexual tendencies. Some more than others. If you deny or repress those, then you need help. To paraphrase Martin Amis: there is nothing wrong with homosexuality; it is when you repress it that the trouble starts.

I am an only child, so I can't really say from experience, but I'd guess that sexual attraction towards one's siblings is neither as ubiquitous nor as common as homosexuality. My guess is that it boils down to genetic programming. Sexual reproduction abhors incest because it is counter-productive. The reason why sexual reproduction exists is to "weed out" genetic faults. Reproducing with blood relatives has the opposite effect.

But let's say you're right and that homosexuality and incest really are just separated by degrees of moral relativism (if I am using the term correctly). Then I say: let brothers and sisters (or even siblings of the same sex) get married. As long as the heterosexual siblings are made aware of the dangers of them reproducing, then why not? I say give them that right constitutionally.
 
  2007-10-31 11:53:26 AM
IF two consenting adult women have a Constitutionally protected "RIGHT" to get married why does a consenting adult brother and sister not have the same "RIGHT"?

IF two consenting adult women have a Constitutionally protected "RIGHT" to free speech, why does a consenting adult brother and sister not have the same "RIGHT" to yell fire in a crowded theater?

Just trying it out for size.

IF two consenting adult women have a Constitutionally protected "RIGHT" to bear arms why does a consenting adult brother and sister not have the same "RIGHT" to own a howitzer?

This boat, she don't float.
 
  2007-10-31 01:47:56 PM
dottedmint: Well...since gay marriage was illegal until one judge in one state said it wasn't and you had said, "Incest is already covered under the 14th Amendment. It's illegal every place." it would only take one judge in one state (just as with the gay marriage issue) to void your statement

Stop being dense. Incest is illegal everywhere. Under any circumstance, marriage or not. That isn't going to change. Homosexuality is not illegal. Your argument does not connect whatsoever.

It's not that I actually care about incestuous marriage as much as I'm pointing out the hpocrisy of your comments.

There is no hypocrisy. We are talking about two completely different things.

Oh....so you don't care if a minority is prevented from having the same rights as everyone else. Interesting....

No, I object to the BS you've interjected into this discussion.

It is 100% completely irrelevant to the argument, and it is offensive to compare homosexuality to incest. You've already been told that the existing system could challenge any bans on incestuous marriage.

Where are the challenges? That's right. There are none. And if you still stubbornly disagree, I insist that you provide a list of court cases that have reached the federal level and are slated to be heard by the Supreme Court.

I have also asked you to provide me with any evidence that incestuous marriage is an issue in countries where same-sex marriages are permitted. Don't even bother, it's easier to admit you failed with that.

And just in case you've forgotten, the issue is that same-sex marriage should be treated with the same rights as straight marriage.

I do not want to hear you bring up sisters marrying, brothers marrying, ANYONE marrying other than the challenges that are relevant to this debate.

It's irritating enough that you won't admit you're wrong, it's even more so that you continue to compare the topic with something offensive and off-topic to the discussion. But hey, you must get off on that, is my only conclusion.
 
  2007-10-31 11:25:07 PM
Biobot: "You are saying that incestuous marriage is simply further along (below?) the same moral axis as homosexual marriage."

Ehh.... I guess I'd have to say 'sorta'....


"(And therefore, you argue, homosexual marriage can be judged as being 'wrong' in the same way as everyone posting here agrees that farking your siblings is, like, totally gross.)"

What I am trying to point out is that every argument that can be used to support gay marriage can also be used to support incestual marriage and every argument that can be used against incestual marriage can be used against gay marriage.

And I find it hypicritical of people to say that two consenting adults have a "RIGHT" to get married but these "other" two consenting adults don't have a right because they find that relationship distasteful.

My guess is that it boils down to genetic programming. Sexual reproduction abhors incest because it is counter-productive. The reason why sexual reproduction exists is to "weed out" genetic faults. Reproducing with blood relatives has the opposite effect.

I guess I don't disagree with that but I need to ask if 'older' women having chldren or people with genetic defects having children is "counter-productive" because they tend to increase genetic "faults".

"But let's say you're right and that homosexuality and incest really are just separated by degrees of moral relativism (if I am using the term correctly). Then I say: let brothers and sisters (or even siblings of the same sex) get married. As long as the heterosexual siblings are made aware of the dangers of them reproducing, then why not? I say give them that right constitutionally."

Well...I guess I'm not sure how many degrees there are between the two.

Obviously I would say that same-sex marriage is more accepted than incestual marriage but I'm not sure if they are truely that different.

Whidbey: "Stop being dense. Incest is illegal everywhere. Under any circumstance, marriage or not. That isn't going to change. Homosexuality is not illegal. Your argument does not connect whatsoever."

Gay marriage was illegal everywhere until ONE JUDGE in one state said it wasn't. There was also a time when gay sex was illegal as well...not everywhere but many places. A judge said that consenting adults have a right to have sex..... but for some reason not these other consenting adults. All it will take is for ONE JUDGE in one state to say incest is legal.

"Where are the challenges? That's right. There are none. And if you still stubbornly disagree, I insist that you provide a list of court cases that have reached the federal level and are slated to be heard by the Supreme Court."

Once again you are wrong. (I'd think you would get tired of that after awhile)

Have you not been following the discussion....

"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."

Link (new window)

"I have also asked you to provide me with any evidence that incestuous marriage is an issue in countries where same-sex marriages are permitted. Don't even bother, it's easier to admit you failed with that."

I pointed this out before....try to keep up here.....

In both France and Sweden incest is allowed.

"And just in case you've forgotten, the issue is that same-sex marriage should be treated with the same rights as straight marriage. "

Unless of course it is two sisters....

"I do not want to hear you bring up sisters marrying, brothers marrying, ANYONE marrying other than the challenges that are relevant to this debate."

Ooops.... So sorry.

You just want to ignore the people who are challanging the incest bans because you find that distastefull .

So why should Allen and Patricia Muth not be allowed to marry????
 
  2007-11-01 05:37:01 AM
dottedmint: Obviously I would say that same-sex marriage is more accepted than incestual marriage but I'm not sure if they are truely that different.

I don't believe you. I think you are very sure that they are different. But for the purposes of this argument, you refuse to admit it. And that makes you a troll.

So, whidbey, how's them Turks mobilising on that Iraqi border?
 
  2007-11-01 07:05:30 AM
Biobot: "I don't believe you. I think you are very sure that they are different. But for the purposes of this argument, you refuse to admit it. And that makes you a troll."

What?!?!?

First of all.....

I said, "Obviously I would say that same-sex marriage is more accepted than incestual marriage but I'm not sure if they are truely that different."

I never said that there was no difference.

I am saying that there are more similarities than differences.
 
  2007-11-01 04:34:58 PM
dottedmint: They only apply to the people who you think they should apply to....

No. The right to get married to one (1) person of the same sex that is not a member of your family applies (or should apply) to everyone.

dottedmint: Basically you still have not told me why two consenting adult women have a "right" to marry but two consenting adults who are brother and sister don't have a "right" to get married.

You are looking at this backwards. We all inherently have the right to do whatever we want. The Constitution (and any other body of law with authority) is, at its most basic level, an agreement we made with the government that allows them to inhibit our rights in certain ways, like, say, not allowing people to marry siblings. There are reasons that the government is able to restrict such an action, such as incest or polygamy, that do not apply to restricting gay marriage. Similarly, there are reasons for restricting incest and polygamy that do not apply to straight marriage.

Gay people don't have to have a reason "why" they should be allowed to marry. The correct way to look at it, and what you have not done so far, is tell me why the government should have the authority to restrict Gay marriage.

What compelling and legitimate government interest is served by restricting gays from marrying one another? Preventing incest? Polygamy? Well that's an easy one, those are already illegal. Next reason?

*crickets*
 
  2007-11-01 06:45:48 PM
dottedmint: You just want to ignore the people who are challanging the incest bans because you find that distastefull .

So why should Allen and Patricia Muth not be allowed to marry????


Like I said, I'm willing to discuss same-sex marriage that doesn't involve incest. Anything else is a disingenous non-argument on your part.

Incestuous marriage is already illegal in the United States, and is a separate issue.
 
  2007-11-01 10:24:22 PM
Wow....you guys just don't get it.

Whidbey: "Incestuous marriage is already illegal in the United States, and is a separate issue."

How many times do I have to point this out.....

Gay marriage was illegal in the United States until ONE JUDGE in ONE STATE said it should be legal.

So before that judge said gay marriage was legal did gays have a "right" to get married? IF your answer would have been "yes" then I could have simply said that gay marriage is "already illegal in the United States".

Simply saying that something is illegal is hardly an answer.

C-S: "No. The right to get married to one (1) person of the same sex that is not a member of your family applies (or should apply) to everyone. "

I find that rather funny because when I said a gay man has the same "right" to get married to a woman as a straight man I was basically told that it was wrong to limit a gay man to having to marry a woman.

When I limited the definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman I was attacked but you want to limit the definition of "marriage" to exclude family members.

So it is OK for you to say a man who is in love with his sister has to marry someone else but it is wrong for me to say that a man who is in love with another man has to marry someone else.

Sorry but that reaks of hypocricy.

"There are reasons that the government is able to restrict such an action, such as incest or polygamy, that do not apply to restricting gay marriage. Similarly, there are reasons for restricting incest and polygamy that do not apply to straight marriage."

Oh really....

What are the "reasons" that the government can keep Allen and Patricia Muth from getting married???

What "compelling and legitimate government interest" is served by keeping Allen and Patricia Muth from getting married?

And as I pointed out to Whidbey simply saying that they are already illegal is a poor argument because gay marriage was illegal just a couple of years ago.
 
  2007-11-01 10:29:55 PM
Maybe I'm going about this the wrong way......

Try this.....

Fill in the blank.....

Allen and Patricia Muth who are two consenting adults in a loving relationship should not be allowed to get married because "_________________________".
 
  2007-11-02 12:21:19 PM
dottedmint: How many times do I have to point this out.....

Gay marriage was illegal in the United States until ONE JUDGE in ONE STATE said it should be legal.


And you keep forgetting that being a homosexual is not legal, and incest in any form, marriage or not, is.

Actually, I don't think you've forgotten at all, you'll do anything to continue to make a mockery of this debate.

Allen and Patricia Muth who are two consenting adults in a loving relationship should not be allowed to get married because "_________________________".

Because we're not TALKING about incest. You are. It is IRRELEVANT to this argument. Incest is illegal across the board, and has nothing to do with homosexuals that are not siblings wishing to marry. THAT is the issue, and the ONLY issue here.

And this is the last I'm willing to discuss any of this here. Change the subject, and I'll be happy to add my point of view.

My point stands: That same-sex marriage between two people that are NOT brothers or sisters should be allowed because the current laws discriminate under the 14th Amendment.

Thanks to you, dottedmint, you have successfully cheapened the argument with your red herrings.
 
  2007-11-02 12:22:04 PM
whidbey: And you keep forgetting that being a homosexual is not legal, illegal and incest in any form, marriage or not, is.

FIFM
 
  2007-11-02 03:48:35 PM
dottedmint: What are the "reasons" that the government can keep Allen and Patricia Muth from getting married???

What "compelling and legitimate government interest" is served by keeping Allen and Patricia Muth from getting married?


Do you really need an explanation for why polygamy and incest are illegal? Think about it. Off the top of my head:

First off, Polygamy encourages patriarchy, abuse of women, is based on the principle of male ownership of wives, it relies on an incompatible and obsolete economic structure and is a relic of a bygone era of feudal lords and agrarian societies. Incest is unhealthy. There are some obvious ones right off the bat.

Less obvious but still important vis a vis government regulation: if you allow these things then you have to throw out just about every single fundamental tenet of property and inheritance law. These things are already complicated enough. Do you want state courts tied up for the next 100 years and spending hundreds of millions of dollars interpreting intestacy laws to decide which of the five wives gets what? Or if a mother/son husband and wife inherit via community property? Besides the fact that I just threw up in my mouth a little, that will never happen and would be a complete and utter catastrophe.

Both are also inherently opposed to the basic tenets of the 2 person head-of-household western nuclear-family social structure. Am I talking about morality? No. Economics. Marriage is largely a function of economics and polygamy (and incest to a lesser extent) are inherently incompatible and disruptive. Polygamy largely for the reasons stated above and incest because it discourages economic movement of assets (and thus, cha-ching, taxes) and people. Believe it or not our government actively tries to socially engineer how people in our society live, work, and function as family units.

None of the aforementioned reasons are exclusive, but only examples. There are a myriad of other reasons I am not thinking of right now.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is essentially the same thing as straight marriage besides the obvious. None of the above apply to it no matter how hard I know you want to try.

I am not going to debate any of the above points so don't bother trying to derail the argument even further.

The fact that I have even bothered to indulge you in your comparison of Gay marriage to polygamy and incest is sad and I am a little ashamed of myself. Now that I've done you a favor and answered your ridiculous question for the umpteenth million time, answer mine: what legitimate and compelling government interest is served by prohibiting gay marriage?
 
  2007-11-02 10:32:05 PM
C-S: "First off, Polygamy encourages patriarchy, abuse of women, is based on the principle of male ownership of wives, it relies on an incompatible and obsolete economic structure and is a relic of a bygone era of feudal lords and agrarian societies."

Thanks for bringing up polygamy....I had forgotten about that in the talk of incest....

To clarify.....

Polygamy simply means a form of marriage in which a person has more than one spouse.

Polygamy does NOT mean one man having many wives.

That would be called polygyny.

And...

Polyandry would be where one woman has more than one husband.

But in any case if the members of these relationships are consenting adults what business does the government have in preventing them?

"Incest is unhealthy."

Actually "incest" is not any more unhealthy than other sexual relationships.

"Do you want state courts tied up for the next 100 years and spending hundreds of millions of dollars interpreting intestacy laws to decide which of the five wives gets what? Or if a mother/son husband and wife inherit via community property?"

Interesting argument.....

But I think you are over estimating what any legal cases might cost.

Basically after one or two cases the precidents would be set and these cases wouldn't be any more complicated than other divorce or inheritance cases.

"Both are also inherently opposed to the basic tenets of the 2 person head-of-household western nuclear-family social structure."

Tell me you didn't just defend the "nuclear family"......

A "nuclear family" is made up of a Father, Mother, and Children.

Websters defines "nuclear family" as : a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children.

"Economics. Marriage is largely a function of economics and polygamy (and incest to a lesser extent) are inherently incompatible and disruptive. Polygamy largely for the reasons stated above and incest because it discourages economic movement of assets (and thus, cha-ching, taxes) and people. Believe it or not our government actively tries to socially engineer how people in our society live, work, and function as family units."

Economically a polyganist marriage would be better because you could have multiple incomes coming into one household making the household stronger.

And I'm not sure how an incestual marriage would be any worse economically than a traditional or gay marriage would be.

"None of the above apply to it [gay marriage] no matter how hard I know you want to try."

Oh really.....

Gay marriage is "inherently opposed to the basic tenets of the 2 person head-of-household western nuclear-family social structure".

"Now that I've done you a favor and answered your ridiculous question for the umpteenth million time, answer mine: what legitimate and compelling government interest is served by prohibiting gay marriage?"

I don't think I said the government should be able to ban gay marriage.

I think it is up to each individual state (via the people of that state) to decide how they would define marriage.

IF the people of a state feel that gay marriage should be allowed...fine....

Whidbey: "And you keep forgetting that being a homosexual is not illegal, and incest in any form, marriage or not, is."

You are only partly right.....

Being a homosexual is not illegal but until recently homosexual sex in many states was illegal.

Falling in love with your sister is not illegal but having sex with your sister is illegal.... at least until ONE JUDGE in ONE STATE says otherwise.

Same sex marriage is legal only because judges have said it was legal.

Incestual marriage is illegal at least until a judge says it is legal.

________________________________________________________________


When / IF a judge ever rules that a brother and sister have a "right" to get married I hope you guys will still be around because I would love to see what you guys would say at that point.
 
  2007-11-04 11:07:33 PM
I'd like to take a moment, interrupt the regularly scheduled disagreement, and go on my semi-annual tirade about the idiots in congress who think that they can legislate celestial mechanics and screw up all y'alls circadian rhythms. I say y'all because, while I may change my clock, I never change my schedule.

I'm in agribusiness. The trees and wildlife that I manage don't get the congressional memos and they don't have clocks that can be adjusted. They run on solar time and, so far, all of congress's legislation hasn't had any effect on when the sun actually rises or sets. So we still serve breakfast halfway between solar nadir and solar zenith. Dinner is at solar noon (zenith). Supper is six hours later and we serve Dinner again at solar midnight for folks that work night shift. Clocks exist as a not too convenient means of coordinating with people who don't actually go outside on a regular basis.

Daylight Saving Time wouldn't annoy me nearly as much if I didn't have to do business with people who use it. For every contact I have I need to keep track of what timezone they're in, what hours they work, whether or not they observe DST, AND whether or not they adjust their hours for DST. Quit a few of you appear to cheat and only shift your work day by half an hour. Life would be simpler if everyone used Universal Time. Then I'd only have to keep up with what hours you're at work. You can email me if you decide to change hours so you can take the kids to the beach during the summer. Or take Fridays off to ski during February.

I'd like to suggest, for those that own or operate a business, that next spring, when the decree comes to spring forward, don't. Change your clocks, but not your bodies. If you've been opening at 8am on standard time open at 9. Your employees won't be nearly as grumpy all summer and they'll make fewer mistakes. Then when it's time to fall back you can go back to the 8am opening time. Or you can let everyone sleep an extra hour,keep the 9am opening time, and the following year move it to 10am. Rinse, repeat and in a few years you'll have the entire company on the evening shift and you'll have defeated the purpose behind Daylight Savings Time. You may find, however, that it's actually less energy intensive to work after dark: the extra energy for lighting is probably offset by lower heating/cooling costs. It depends on your location. I know this won't work for retail, but, for others, does it really matter what hours you're open? You're never there when I call anyway. Of course that probably has a lot to do with the fact that I'm not going to be making phone calls when the sun's out.

I'll hush now and leave you with someone else's words of wisdom. Tennessee Ernie Ford compared DST to being cold and having a quilt that didn't quit come all the way up to your chin. So you cut a foot off the bottom and sew it onto the top.
 
  2007-11-05 06:52:19 PM
Cave giants don't get lunch?
 
  2007-11-05 09:05:47 PM
I gotta say RF that I really don't disagree with you.....

I've often wondered the need for DST but I think you misplace your displeasure.

If what I've read is true you should focus on your state legislature instead of Congress.

IF your state wanted to opt out of DST they would only need to pass a law.
 
  2007-11-06 03:12:46 AM
Soup4Bonnie: Cave giants don't get lunch?

I live in the South. Lunch is what you take on a picnic.
Dinner is the big meal of the day that civilized people eat at noon.


dottedmint:

IF your state wanted to opt out of DST they would only need to pass a law.


I'd still have to deal with all the people in other states who don't opt out. DST is a bad idea for our day and time. It needs to be eliminated.
 
  2007-11-09 09:36:18 PM
Picnicking cave giants killed it.

So who's the next president?
 
  2007-11-09 10:06:57 PM
Soup4Bonnie: So who's the next president?

I'm hoping for a strong third party candidate to appear and restore my faith in Government by the People.

I figure it's more likely that George W will declare himself eligible, neither Congress or the Supreme Court will challenge him, and he'll get elected to a third term.
 
  2007-11-10 09:16:26 AM
{sigh}

{shakes head}


Bush is not going to declare himself eligible to stay in office for a third term.

It also is not going to be a third party to win the WH. {sorry} Maybe someday but not this time around.

As a Republican I really hope the Dems pick Hillary but I think she is starting to fall apart a bit too early. I do hope she can hold on until they pick her.

Who would I vote for????

Honestly at this point I'm not sure.

I think McCain is probably the only one that I "don't like" but other than that I haven't made up my mind....
 
  2007-11-14 03:24:13 PM
WORDS
 
  2007-11-14 10:42:02 PM
Wow. Deadsville. So. I guess everything's OK, politically? Maybe this is a calm before...the storm?

Next President? The scenario I play out for my own amusement is that Hillary gets the nomination and manages to ensure a Republican win. Ouch.

I can't say I have confidence that she could lead this country, although the kind of President I'm looking for would stay out of the spotlight so much and just do his job. Without the obligation to engage the military and ride around like the top dog as previous Presidents have.

Obama could be the wild card if he gets his act together. Romney? Giuliani? I'm definitely seeing them groomed as candidates, but Rudy's going to fail this one, I'm guessing and some sinister last-minute candidate is what Hillary's going to be up against.

Double wild-card is Kucinich if Cheney gets impeached.
 
  2007-11-15 10:39:25 PM
No Whidbey I think it is my fault. I think I might have scared everyone away with the talk of incest. Sorry.

How about what John Edwards had to say in one of his ads....

"When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my Cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009 - in six months - I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care. I'm John Edwards and I approve this message."

Edwards would not have the power to do what he is saying in his ad.

How many of his supporters know that?
 
  2007-11-18 07:06:42 PM
dottedmint: Edwards would not have the power to do what he is saying in his ad.

Why not? Under the system of checks and balances is it not legal for the President to refuse to spend money that Congress has allocated? Congress certainly can't write the check themselves.
 
  2007-11-19 03:59:06 PM
dottedmint: No Whidbey I think it is my fault. I think I might have scared everyone away with the talk of incest. Sorry.

How about what John Edwards had to say in one of his ads....

"When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my Cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009 - in six months - I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care. I'm John Edwards and I approve this message."

Edwards would not have the power to do what he is saying in his ad.

How many of his supporters know that?

What he is saying should be true, in the latter case. They shouldn't get health-care for life from being a public servant for a few years before they go back to the public sector, thanks to term limits. Just as a citizen doesn't rave a right to universal health care. It would take a dramatic public sea-change and a constitutional amendment to nail this one down with nasty side effects and an economy asplosion.

If I sign a contract with a job that's going to pay my health care, I expect that contract to be honored. If companies want to pass the buck to the government, rather than just dropping health care from new contracts, we can't expect the same plans for everyone when the 'Big Three' (GM, Ford, Cerberus) just showed us what's going to happen when there are more demand-ees of payment than providers of cash at hand. MASSIVE FINANCIAL FAILURE without pulling the plug on the promises.
 
  2007-11-19 11:13:19 PM
Not really Rainforest.

Article I, Section 6. says, "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States."

The law that defines what benefits Congress gets is already passed. The President would not have the authority to simply ignore that law.
 
  2007-11-20 02:44:17 AM
dottedmint: The law that defines what benefits Congress gets is already passed. The President would not have the authority to simply ignore that law.

I agree that the President does not have the authority to ignore the law, but when did that ever stop a United States President?

George W Bush has issued signing statements listing over 1000 specific points in laws that he just signed into effect that he intends to ignore. His approach is a bit more drastic than others but his attitude is nothing new.
 
  2007-11-21 02:10:05 AM
I would assume, barring a law to the contrary, he would have the authority to do it for people in the executive, but not Congress.

Regardless, I just consider it more hot air from a presidential candidate. They're all full of sh*t and making promises they will never keep, surprise surprise. Nothing ever changes.
 
  2007-11-22 10:26:30 AM
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all....
 
  2007-11-28 07:28:41 PM
Wow...so.

Everything's still good, I see.

Thought I'd write on the wall here...;)
 
  2007-11-28 08:40:40 PM
Can this be the republican debate thread?
 
  2007-11-28 09:32:31 PM
I'm just going to talk to myself in this thread

Romney is getting his ass handed to him in the debate.
McCain is kicking ass on the torture question. I think he might march across the stage and rain blows down on Romneys head for his B.S.
Ron Paul did very well on the military support question.
Giuliani is doing, well, nothing at all.
 
  2007-11-28 09:33:44 PM
I Said: I'm just going to talk to myself in this thread

Romney is getting his ass handed to him in the debate.
McCain is kicking ass on the torture question. I think he might march across the stage and rain blows down on Romneys head for his B.S.
Ron Paul did very well on the military support question.
Giuliani is doing, well, nothing at all.


QFT Me
 
  2007-11-29 03:54:44 PM
UR GAY
 
  2007-11-29 03:59:51 PM
I was really hoping something would come of the proposed Kucinich/Paul collaboration.

Even if it just spurs gridlock and tons of vetos if they win...
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report