So the next time we have a GOP c-in-c he just orders that the U.S. does not defend Obama-care.
Case closed.
I started reading this thread thinking it would be a discussion on whether it is unconstitutional for the GOVERNMENT to not allow gay couples to marry. Sadly, after less than one page it turned into a semi-religious debate on the morality of gay marriage. Before I state my opinion, I feel compelled to point out that the U.S.A is NOT a theocracy. This fact seems to be lost on many people. Just because a religion that is widely practiced in this country condemns gay marriage does not mean the government should refuse rights to a group of people. This also works both ways: just because the government allows gay marriage in the legal sense, it cannot force a religion to allow gay couples to marry in their churches (or temples, or whatever). This means that even though they can be married in the legal sense, they will not be married is the eyes of whatever god/gods condemn such actions so there really is no reason for people to oppose legal gay marriage on a religious basis. On another note, what do people expect to accomplish by not allowing gay couples to marry legally? This may come as a surprise to some, but gay people are going to be gay whether they are allowed to marry or not. Do some people actually think that gay couples everywhere are suddenly going to say “Oh man, we can’t get married! Fuck it, lets go bang some chicks (or dudes if they are lesbians)!”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It is immoral to commit an act which is against human flourishing. [/quote]
Why is it immoral? Who said it was immoral? WHich acts do you consider to be “against human flourishing”?
[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:
I started reading this thread thinking it would be a discussion on whether it is unconstitutional for the GOVERNMENT to not allow gay couples to marry. Sadly, after less than one page it turned into a semi-religious debate on the morality of gay marriage. Before I state my opinion, I feel compelled to point out that the U.S.A is NOT a theocracy. This fact seems to be lost on many people. Just because a religion that is widely practiced in this country condemns gay marriage does not mean the government should refuse rights to a group of people. This also works both ways: just because the government allows gay marriage in the legal sense, it cannot force a religion to allow gay couples to marry in their churches (or temples, or whatever). This means that even though they can be married in the legal sense, they will not be married is the eyes of whatever god/gods condemn such actions so there really is no reason for people to oppose legal gay marriage on a religious basis. On another note, what do people expect to accomplish by not allowing gay couples to marry legally? This may come as a surprise to some, but gay people are going to be gay whether they are allowed to marry or not. Do some people actually think that gay couples everywhere are suddenly going to say “Oh man, we can’t get married! Fuck it, lets go bang some chicks (or dudes if they are lesbians)!” [/quote]
Well said. I agree with this post 100%.
[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:
I started reading this thread thinking it would be a discussion on whether it is unconstitutional for the GOVERNMENT to not allow gay couples to marry. Sadly, after less than one page it turned into a semi-religious debate on the morality of gay marriage. Before I state my opinion, I feel compelled to point out that the U.S.A is NOT a theocracy. This fact seems to be lost on many people. Just because a religion that is widely practiced in this country condemns gay marriage does not mean the government should refuse rights to a group of people. This also works both ways: just because the government allows gay marriage in the legal sense, it cannot force a religion to allow gay couples to marry in their churches (or temples, or whatever). This means that even though they can be married in the legal sense, they will not be married is the eyes of whatever god/gods condemn such actions so there really is no reason for people to oppose legal gay marriage on a religious basis. On another note, what do people expect to accomplish by not allowing gay couples to marry legally? This may come as a surprise to some, but gay people are going to be gay whether they are allowed to marry or not. Do some people actually think that gay couples everywhere are suddenly going to say “Oh man, we can’t get married! Fuck it, lets go bang some chicks (or dudes if they are lesbians)!” [/quote]
This sounds like…this is a democracy, and anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again. Get over it, religious people have convictions and they are well founded. They also have a right to vote and to run for office. If you want to do something about it, why don’t you round us all up and put us in concentration camps so we can’t do anything about our country.
If you don’t like our beliefs, good for you. We gave you free speech for a reason, express it. But don’t be a dick and try to tell us what we can and cannot vote for, El Joseph. You can vote for whatever ridiculous immoral legislation you want. Just know your actions have consequences, so when our population kills itself from immoral acts and people wonder why we can’t even support our own elderly or poor. Just remember, you voted for it.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It is immoral to commit an act which is against human flourishing. [/quote]
Why is it immoral? Who said it was immoral? WHich acts do you consider to be “against human flourishing”?[/quote]
It is Kant’s argument.
It is immoral because it goes against man’s natural end. Which acts do I consider to be against human flourishing…those that detract from man’s natural end.
Even if I could demonstrate that children with gay parents, whether surrogate or adopted, are equally healthy to children with straight parents (and I can), you would find some religious reason to oppose equal rights for gays.
It comes down to your religious beliefs, period. The rest is just hocus pocus.
And people ask why atheists/agnostics have a problem with religion. If believers would mind their own business, we could all get along. But many of you find it Impossible to do so.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Even if I could demonstrate that children with gay parents, whether surrogate or adopted, are equally healthy to children with straight parents (and I can), you would find some religious reason to oppose equal rights for gays.
It comes down to your religious beliefs, period. The rest is just hocus pocus.
And people ask why atheists/agnostics have a problem with religion. If believers would mind their own business, we could all get along. But many of you find it Impossible to do so.[/quote]
As you usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. No one even knows how gay people become gay. Is it nature or nurture? You and I can’t say. Therefore, you have no idea the long-term damage that a gay couple would do to a growing child.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Even if I could demonstrate that children with gay parents, whether surrogate or adopted, are equally healthy to children with straight parents (and I can), you would find some religious reason to oppose equal rights for gays.
It comes down to your religious beliefs, period. The rest is just hocus pocus.
And people ask why atheists/agnostics have a problem with religion. If believers would mind their own business, we could all get along. But many of you find it Impossible to do so.[/quote]
As you usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. No one even knows how gay people become gay. Is it nature or nurture? You and I can’t say. Therefore, you have no idea the long-term damage that a gay couple would do to a growing child.
[/quote]
That assumes that “turning someone gay” = “doing damage”
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Even if I could demonstrate that children with gay parents, whether surrogate or adopted, are equally healthy to children with straight parents (and I can), you would find some religious reason to oppose equal rights for gays.
It comes down to your religious beliefs, period. The rest is just hocus pocus.
And people ask why atheists/agnostics have a problem with religion. If believers would mind their own business, we could all get along. But many of you find it Impossible to do so.[/quote]
As you usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. No one even knows how gay people become gay. Is it nature or nurture? You and I can’t say. Therefore, you have no idea the long-term damage that a gay couple would do to a growing child.
[/quote]
That assumes that “turning someone gay” = “doing damage”[/quote]
True, but it’s also a false assumption since research shows that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This sounds like…this is a democracy, and anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again. Get over it, religious people have convictions and they are well founded. They also have a right to vote and to run for office. If you want to do something about it, why don’t you round us all up and put us in concentration camps so we can’t do anything about our country.
If you don’t like our beliefs, good for you. We gave you free speech for a reason, express it. But don’t be a dick and try to tell us what we can and cannot vote for, El Joseph. You can vote for whatever ridiculous immoral legislation you want. Just know your actions have consequences, so when our population kills itself from immoral acts and people wonder why we can’t even support our own elderly or poor. Just remember, you voted for it.[/quote]
First, I never said this is a democracy (the U.S. is an indirect democracy at best and this is not the thread to argue the point). As for “anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again”, where did I say that? I brought up the argument that it is unconstitutional do deny gay couples the right to legally marry. Judge Walker even stated so when he overturned Proposition 8 on the grounds that it was based on traditional notions of same-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. Just take a look at the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It states that no state (and has since been interpreted to include the federal government) shall deny to any person under its jurisdiction equal protection under law. Since marriage is a legal institution in the United States that has over a thousand statutory provisions that bestow legal rights, protections, and privileges upon married couples, it is a violation of gay people’s 14th amendment rights to deny them the right to legally marry, as evidenced by Judge Walker’s ruling. I have already addressed the difference between legal and religious marriages and so will not readdress them now except to reiterate that under the 1st amendment, the government cannot force a religion to perform a marriage that goes against its beliefs. So you can put whatever you want on a ballot, but even if it passes the courts will ultimately decide if the legislation will stand. Unfortunately for you, though, the judges in our legal system seem to have a little bit more respect for our constitution than you or most politicians do.
[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This sounds like…this is a democracy, and anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again. Get over it, religious people have convictions and they are well founded. They also have a right to vote and to run for office. If you want to do something about it, why don’t you round us all up and put us in concentration camps so we can’t do anything about our country.
If you don’t like our beliefs, good for you. We gave you free speech for a reason, express it. But don’t be a dick and try to tell us what we can and cannot vote for, El Joseph. You can vote for whatever ridiculous immoral legislation you want. Just know your actions have consequences, so when our population kills itself from immoral acts and people wonder why we can’t even support our own elderly or poor. Just remember, you voted for it.[/quote]
First, I never said this is a democracy (the U.S. is an indirect democracy at best and this is not the thread to argue the point). As for “anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again”, where did I say that? I brought up the argument that it is unconstitutional do deny gay couples the right to legally marry. Judge Walker even stated so when he overturned Proposition 8 on the grounds that it was based on traditional notions of same-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. Just take a look at the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It states that no state (and has since been interpreted to include the federal government) shall deny to any person under its jurisdiction equal protection under law. Since marriage is a legal institution in the United States that has over a thousand statutory provisions that bestow legal rights, protections, and privileges upon married couples, it is a violation of gay people’s 14th amendment rights to deny them the right to legally marry, as evidenced by Judge Walker’s ruling. I have already addressed the difference between legal and religious marriages and so will not readdress them now except to reiterate that under the 1st amendment, the government cannot force a religion to perform a marriage that goes against its beliefs. So you can put whatever you want on a ballot, but even if it passes the courts will ultimately decide if the legislation will stand. Unfortunately for you, though, the judges in our legal system seem to have a little bit more respect for our constitution than you or most politicians do.
[/quote]
I argued a similar point earlier in this thread that the constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to define marriage, therefore can not deny one group or another. Personal viewpoints on the subject are irrelevant. I’m glad someone else shares my logic. My view is the law is the law and must be observed as such. If you want to change the constitution, then there is a specific procedure laid down for enacting amendments.
I could care less about DOMA. Personally, given marriage is a religious rite, I don’t see why the government is involved, at all. If the Church of What’s Happening Now wants to marry two goats, that’s their business. So, I think the law is pretty stupid.
THAT SAID:
It is very bad, as a lawyer, for the Executive Branch to refuse to defend any law passed by Congress — regardless of one’s political position. It basically gives the President the power of the Supreme Court to decide something violates the Constitution.
Turn this to the other extreme, let’s say President Sarah Palin decides that ObamaCare, the law permitting Gays in the Military, and laws protection abortion clinics are unConstitutional, and directs the Justice Department to not enforce these laws.
Obviously, people would be calling for President Palin’s impeachment.
The President takes an oath to defend the Constitution AND the Laws of the USA — all of them — not merely the ones that President likes.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I could care less about DOMA. Personally, given marriage is a religious rite, I don’t see why the government is involved, at all. If the Church of What’s Happening Now wants to marry two goats, that’s their business. So, I think the law is pretty stupid.
THAT SAID:
It is very bad, as a lawyer, for the Executive Branch to refuse to defend any law passed by Congress — regardless of one’s political position. It basically gives the President the power of the Supreme Court to decide something violates the Constitution.
Turn this to the other extreme, let’s say President Sarah Palin decides that ObamaCare, the law permitting Gays in the Military, and laws protection abortion clinics are unConstitutional, and directs the Justice Department to not enforce these laws.
Obviously, people would be calling for President Palin’s impeachment.
The President takes an oath to defend the Constitution AND the Laws of the USA — all of them — not merely the ones that President likes.[/quote]
What happened was that in July 2010, Judge Tauro declared Section 3 of DOMA (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) to be unconstitutional. This ruling was appealed by the Department of Justice in October of 2010 and the process is still ongoing. Obama, on the recommendation of Attorney General Eric Holder, agreed that DOMA section 3 is unconstitutional in same-sex marriages that are already legally established and stated that the Department of Justice will not be defending DOMA Section 3 in such cases. Now, if the appeal goes through (which it won’t), Obama and the DOJ will have no choice but to support the statute.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As you usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. No one even knows how gay people become gay. Is it nature or nurture? You and I can’t say. Therefore, you have no idea the long-term damage that a gay couple would do to a growing child.
True, but it’s also a false assumption since research shows that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.[/quote]
There have not been any studies which have followed a large number of children brought up by two gay men. You simply can’t make such a blanket assumption from small short term studies.
??? Non sequiter.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I can understand the ideology, but it’s also flawed in that polygamy, incest, etc., all have key areas where they differ in structure entirely with their own slew of problems. The argument is thus flawed.
The argument for gay marriage is the argument that a black horse is not a horse because horses can only be white.
The argument for polygamy or incest is the argument that a zebra is a horse. If the black horse can get in and be classified as a horse with the white horse, there’s no reason the striped equine shouldn’t. Except for the numerous differences between a zebra and a horse that differentiate between the two.
You do not argue that a horse can be black means a zebra can be a horse. Because that is stupid. It is built on the same premise- look, different colored equines can be horses too!- Except in the first case there’s an identical function except for a single detail, whereas while the second case may resemble the first one at sight, any logical inspection will find that it falls insufficiently short and isn’t relevant to refuting whether or not a horse can be black.[/quote]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, here’s the thing. I never said they weren’t distinguishable. Pretty much anything is distinguishable from anything else. Twins are distinguishable from each other on lots of counts. The issue is, are they distinguishable enough under the principle establishing a right, and under the legal principles governing the right, to be separable? And that is not known now - which is why it always comes up in the discussion.
On your example from biology, one doesn’t argue a wolf is a dog - but one does admit that both chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are dogs. The key is in the details, and the decision is made after hashing through them. On the surface, why is it that a Husky and a chihuahua are both dogs, but a wolf and a Husky are not both dogs?
In our system of precedents and courts, you can bet that if there is an open question on whether a legal right should apply in an instance in which it does not currently apply, some one will eventually sue to test the question. If you don’t believe me, think about the whole subject again.
Here, the starting point and definition in some of the state-level cases is that an adult has the right to marry. If it is an individual right, the boundaries of that right will be established by further litigation (unless you have a Constitutional amendment that comes up to constrain the process).
[/quote]
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I am not arguing that there is not a case for polygamy or incest. (Not saying you are, just clarifying.)
What I am saying is that it doesn’t have a place in a debate about gay marriage. Will gay marriage set a precedent? Sure, in the same way blacks marrying white did. It’s a separate issue, and that issue can be addressed if people really want it to- but in it’s own time.
To say “but first, what about this other issue?” when the issue has key differences separating it from this one not only overcomplicates the entire process, but brings nothing new or important tot he issue actually at hand. Should have polygamists have the right to marry ten people? Sure? Maybe? I don’t care? We can give polygamists their own damn thread.
Polygamists and incestual couples should not determine whether or not gay people can marry. They aren’t relevant. The precedent this would set is worth examining, most certainly, but it does not justify discrimination. The precedent would give polygamist and incestual couples another point to argue with, most certainly, and any movements supporting either issue could use that to gain support and leverage. However, at the end of the day, they are different issues and will be treated differently.
They are not a point against gay marriage though. Gay marriage is an asset to them in the same way blacks marrying whites is an asset to them. Their cause is separate and needs to be treated as such. If we value the entire gay marriage debate as nothing but a precedent, we lose sight of the issue at hand and it sets a horrible precedent in it’s own- throwing away an issue because it’s precedent could serve another controversial cause.
[/quote]
Here’s the issue - it’s not a debate over whether gay marriage is a good or a bad thing. I would agree with you in that case - debate whether gay marriage would be a good thing in and of itself, not in reference to other types of unions. However, that’s not what it is - it’s a debate over the limits of an individual right to marriage, based on the underlying legal theory one uses to establish that right. If you are establishing an individual, Constitutional right to marriage, you are setting up a right that has a very high threshold for restriction by the government. So, when establishing the boundaries of that right to marriage, you analyze the other cases to which it would likely extend.
It doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage per se - it has to do with an individual right to marriage, and how an individual would be able to exercise that right.
Side note: This is why it would be much easier and likely preferable from many standpoints to just pass a law creating a gay marriage status, because then there would be no right to litigate or apply more broadly - just a new law under which people could achieve their desired status and package of legal consequences (and associated benefits).
Side note 2: This isn’t a slippery slope argument, in that slippery slope arguments are probability chains in which you have some chain of events of small likelihood and then conclude the last event will (as in definitely will) be caused by the first. This is about analyzing how a new Constitutional right would be applied under differing fact patterns.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I can understand the ideology, but it’s also flawed in that polygamy, incest, etc., all have key areas where they differ in structure entirely with their own slew of problems. The argument is thus flawed.
The argument for gay marriage is the argument that a black horse is not a horse because horses can only be white.
The argument for polygamy or incest is the argument that a zebra is a horse. If the black horse can get in and be classified as a horse with the white horse, there’s no reason the striped equine shouldn’t. Except for the numerous differences between a zebra and a horse that differentiate between the two.
You do not argue that a horse can be black means a zebra can be a horse. Because that is stupid. It is built on the same premise- look, different colored equines can be horses too!- Except in the first case there’s an identical function except for a single detail, whereas while the second case may resemble the first one at sight, any logical inspection will find that it falls insufficiently short and isn’t relevant to refuting whether or not a horse can be black.[/quote]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, here’s the thing. I never said they weren’t distinguishable. Pretty much anything is distinguishable from anything else. Twins are distinguishable from each other on lots of counts. The issue is, are they distinguishable enough under the principle establishing a right, and under the legal principles governing the right, to be separable? And that is not known now - which is why it always comes up in the discussion.
On your example from biology, one doesn’t argue a wolf is a dog - but one does admit that both chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are dogs. The key is in the details, and the decision is made after hashing through them. On the surface, why is it that a Husky and a chihuahua are both dogs, but a wolf and a Husky are not both dogs?
In our system of precedents and courts, you can bet that if there is an open question on whether a legal right should apply in an instance in which it does not currently apply, some one will eventually sue to test the question. If you don’t believe me, think about the whole subject again.
Here, the starting point and definition in some of the state-level cases is that an adult has the right to marry. If it is an individual right, the boundaries of that right will be established by further litigation (unless you have a Constitutional amendment that comes up to constrain the process).
[/quote]
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I am not arguing that there is not a case for polygamy or incest. (Not saying you are, just clarifying.)
What I am saying is that it doesn’t have a place in a debate about gay marriage. Will gay marriage set a precedent? Sure, in the same way blacks marrying white did. It’s a separate issue, and that issue can be addressed if people really want it to- but in it’s own time.
To say “but first, what about this other issue?” when the issue has key differences separating it from this one not only overcomplicates the entire process, but brings nothing new or important tot he issue actually at hand. Should have polygamists have the right to marry ten people? Sure? Maybe? I don’t care? We can give polygamists their own damn thread.
Polygamists and incestual couples should not determine whether or not gay people can marry. They aren’t relevant. The precedent this would set is worth examining, most certainly, but it does not justify discrimination. The precedent would give polygamist and incestual couples another point to argue with, most certainly, and any movements supporting either issue could use that to gain support and leverage. However, at the end of the day, they are different issues and will be treated differently.
They are not a point against gay marriage though. Gay marriage is an asset to them in the same way blacks marrying whites is an asset to them. Their cause is separate and needs to be treated as such. If we value the entire gay marriage debate as nothing but a precedent, we lose sight of the issue at hand and it sets a horrible precedent in it’s own- throwing away an issue because it’s precedent could serve another controversial cause.
[/quote]
Here’s the issue - it’s not a debate over whether gay marriage is a good or a bad thing. I would agree with you in that case - debate whether gay marriage would be a good thing in and of itself, not in reference to other types of unions. However, that’s not what it is - it’s a debate over the limits of an individual right to marriage, based on the underlying legal theory one uses to establish that right. If you are establishing an individual, Constitutional right to marriage, you are setting up a right that has a very high threshold for restriction by the government. So, when establishing the boundaries of that right to marriage, you analyze the other cases to which it would likely extend.
It doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage per se - it has to do with an individual right to marriage, and how an individual would be able to exercise that right.
Side note: This is why it would be much easier and likely preferable from many standpoints to just pass a law creating a gay marriage status, because then there would be no right to litigate or apply more broadly - just a new law under which people could achieve their desired status and package of legal consequences (and associated benefits).
Side note 2: This isn’t a slippery slope argument, in that slippery slope arguments are probability chains in which you have some chain of events of small likelihood and then conclude the last event will (as in definitely will) be caused by the first. This is about analyzing how a new Constitutional right would be applied under differing fact patterns.
[/quote]
Honestly, do you think this was Zebs intent? Or the intent of the vast majority of people who bring up poly/incest/etc in the gay marriage debate?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Honestly, do you think this was Zebs intent? Or the intent of the vast majority of people who bring up poly/incest/etc in the gay marriage debate?[/quote]
I don’t know what anyone’s intent is - I am explaining why the issues of polygamy/incest/bestiality/etc. get brought up in these contexts all the time - and are relevant in a conversation (well, not really to the original topic of this thread, but to the marriage topic). They wouldn’t be at all relevant or applicable if it weren’t for the individual-right model of marriage that’s been created by the courts. How they’re relevant are solely as applications of an individual right to marriage.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Honestly, do you think this was Zebs intent? Or the intent of the vast majority of people who bring up poly/incest/etc in the gay marriage debate?[/quote]
You’re hardly one to speak of intent. What’s your intent by demeaning someone’s religion by calling God a “sky fairy?” And how many times have you taken a thread over with this sort of side-show? Really, you’re just above it all but only when it comes to homosexuals being allowed to marry, or any other cause on your liberal wish list. You of all people have no right to question anyones intent.