Congrats to gay and lesbians, the US government cannot deny your legitimate marriage

Stop. Wait. No. Don't. wrote:

You guys do realize that no one has actually given any reasons why bigamy, polygamy, or incest is any different than homosexuality. Apart from the obvious greater number, 3 or 4 or more, involved in bigamy or polygamy. So do you actually support equality, or are you just lazy thinkers who'd fail a basic logic course?

For legal purposes - taxes, transfer of estate, power of attorney - there is little reason to ban polygamy. Marriage in that sense is just a legal contract and could be entered into by and two or more consenting adults. If the polygamy lobby ever mounts enough strength (money) to challenge...

There are scientifically based moral reasons to ban incest, because offspring of incest partners are more likely to suffer birth defects. The court's decision today says the states can define marriage as they like so you can marry your cousin in some places but not others. Many blood relatives already have the legal benefits that gay partners lacked until today.

dADS wrote:

wondering about this wrote:

Well for one thing, where is the demand? Gays are a minority, but a pretty large one. How many people do you see wishing for marriage among relatives? Although I don't live in the South, so my perspective may be skewed...

Yes, because laws should clearly never respect the rights of small minorities simply because their voice isn't large enough to be heard. If 4 consenting adults want to enter a marriage and collect benefits, why should that be illegal? How about an adult brother and sister?

I actually want to hear the logic here-- and I'm not anti gay marriage.

Some have argued that polygamy is destabilizing to society in a way that gay marriage is not. Basically, if allowed, people like Donald Trump are going to marry 10 women. This leaves 9 guys out there somewhere who can't get married.

dosing macro-ly wrote:

Homosexuality isn't the norm, so I wouldn't assume a child to be homosexual, therefore wouldn't suggest homosexually oriented relationships. However, homosexuality is a genetic truth, so if a child showed they were homosexual, then I'd start adapting to it. I have gay and straight friends, I've set them both up on dates. I wouldn't think to introduce a gay female friend to a guy (for the purpose of dating) and likewise for a staight female friend.

Homosexuality is a genetic truth? So how is the NBA guy Jason Collins gay, but his identical twin brother is not?

We basically have legal polygamy, we just dont fully recognize the institution.

Ex.

A man can marry, divorce, marry divorce, marry divorce.. any number of women and have children with them. The law will require that he provide for those children, and remain in contact through visitation. If you assume that all the women get along, that is a polygamy by fact but not by law.

whoa what? wrote:

dosing macro-ly wrote:

Homosexuality isn't the norm, so I wouldn't assume a child to be homosexual, therefore wouldn't suggest homosexually oriented relationships. However, homosexuality is a genetic truth, so if a child showed they were homosexual, then I'd start adapting to it. I have gay and straight friends, I've set them both up on dates. I wouldn't think to introduce a gay female friend to a guy (for the purpose of dating) and likewise for a staight female friend.

Homosexuality is a genetic truth? So how is the NBA guy Jason Collins gay, but his identical twin brother is not?

They aren't identical.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

whoa what? wrote:

Homosexuality is a genetic truth? So how is the NBA guy Jason Collins gay, but his identical twin brother is not?

They aren't identical.

Even if they were identical twins (and I'm relying on your wrod that they aren't), genes + environment = phenotype, not genes alone. If I didn't feed your identical twin brother, would you argue that you were not genetically identical because one was skinny and one was fat?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

whoa what? wrote:

Homosexuality is a genetic truth? So how is the NBA guy Jason Collins gay, but his identical twin brother is not?

They aren't identical.

Source?

Retarded bigot idiot racist wrote:

But my point was this, if you don't believe that the bible is truth, you shouldn't be using excerpts from it to help make your points or counteract the points of others who use it in their arguments. You can't exclaim things to be false and then exclaim them true when it suits your argument.

This is wrong. If you accept the truth of a particular belief system, and I know that you believe the truth of that system, then I am perfectly entitled to use the truth-value of that system in my argument - whether that be to point out where your belief system and mine overlap, or to point out inconsistencies in your belief system.

think before you post wrote:

You know this whole issue is more complex than simple minds can handle. You do realize the Supreme Court ruling was not unanimous. There were four highly esteemed, well educated individuals on the court who voted in disagreement.

You do realise that the SCOTUS was ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage, not the morality of it?

Incest is bad for society because it has a high likelihood of producing children with genetic problems.

With marriage between more than two people, it becomes difficult to show that everybody is consenting. Also it introduces legal difficulties dealing with property rights.

Nonono, marriage is not about procreation, you redneck, Stone-Ager. That's not a legitimate argument against incest.

How is it difficult to show everybody is consenting? And what legal difficulties does it introduce with property rights? As long as it's clearly defined in the legal, contractual agreement these individuals make, it shouldn't be a problem. At least no more so than frivolous lawsuits are already.

And thanks to people for actually rationally answering this question. In particular, GenericID has shown a good acceptance of his own belief system.

welcome to the end of civilization as we knew it

nice job, libs

good bye

wondering about this wrote:

Some have argued that polygamy is destabilizing to society in a way that gay marriage is not. Basically, if allowed, people like Donald Trump are going to marry 10 women. This leaves 9 guys out there somewhere who can't get married.

"Some" who? And why would society be "destabilised" just because some men can't get married? And what do you mean by "destabilised", what is your definition of a "destabilised" society?

Just look at societies with many more men than women to see what he means.

GenericID wrote:

wondering about this wrote:

Some have argued that polygamy is destabilizing to society in a way that gay marriage is not. Basically, if allowed, people like Donald Trump are going to marry 10 women. This leaves 9 guys out there somewhere who can't get married.

"Some" who? And why would society be "destabilised" just because some men can't get married? And what do you mean by "destabilised", what is your definition of a "destabilised" society?

Government Cheese wrote:

Just look at societies with many more men than women to see what he means.

GenericID wrote:

"Some" who? And why would society be "destabilised" just because some men can't get married? And what do you mean by "destabilised", what is your definition of a "destabilised" society?

Why are you assuming that polygamy would only result in multiple wives and not multiple husbands? That sounds pretty sexist.

Government Cheese wrote:

Incest is bad for society because it has a high likelihood of producing children with genetic problems.

This statement demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of genetics. Ask yourself why many of the best, most productive and healthiest breeds of domesticated animals are heavily inbred.

With marriage between more than two people, it becomes difficult to show that everybody is consenting. Also it introduces legal difficulties dealing with property rights.

Difficult, but not impossible, and when has difficulty been a valid excuse for not doing the right thing?

Suggesting that laws be made to avoid other legal hassles (property rights in the case of polygamy) are making incorrect arguments.

There are basically no valid reasons yet put forward as to why polygamy should be treated any different under the law than homosexual marriage.

How are these societies "destabilised"? If you can't even name these societies why should I do the work?