Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 23)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2014, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You seem angry that polygamy might also find its way into the "equal marriage" debate. Do you consider polygamy less legitimate than gay marriage?
You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyways.

I'm not a fan, as it tends to be a real shitshow for the women involved.

Buuuuut... too bad. Consenting adults get to do what they want.



P.S. I'm defining polygamy as multiple women marrying a man. Group marriage, where everybody is married to everybody, I have zero problems with.
( Last edited by subego; Sep 7, 2014 at 02:34 PM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2014, 08:45 PM
 
Any consenting adults?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 10:21 AM
 
Yes. Just don't have babies if you're first cousins or closer.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 10:58 AM
 
To clarify, this is how I feel philosophically. Things get sticky when translated in to actual policy.

"You are married yet are not allowed by law to procreate" is a problematic construction. One could argue it would be better for society to disallow marriage with this extremely narrow group rather than open up the can of worms government reproductive policy would entail.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes. Just don't have babies if you're first cousins or closer.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To clarify, this is how I feel philosophically. Things get sticky when translated in to actual policy.

"You are married yet are not allowed by law to procreate" is a problematic construction. One could argue it would be better for society to disallow marriage with this extremely narrow group rather than open up the can of worms government reproductive policy would entail.
That's what birth control/sterilization, genetic screening, and Planned Parenthood are for, yes?

That still would not preclude two men or women that are closely related from marrying since there would be zero risk of pregnancy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 11:33 AM
 
It's not a question of whether it's possible for a couple not to have children, but I think you need to go the extra step and make it illegal for them to have children.

Once we say the government has control over whether you can get pregnant, that horse isn't going back in the barn.

To put it another way. The marriage involves consenting adults, so I'm fine with it. Having a kid makes it no longer about those adults. You have a third individual who is not and adult and did not provide consent.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You seem angry that polygamy might also find its way into the "equal marriage" debate. Do you consider polygamy less legitimate than gay marriage?
lol. I'm angry that someone is purposely trolling the gay thread with this red herring.

Case in point:
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
MmmHmm
That's the substantive rebuttal I get for my observation from reading about the topic he posted. The ruling brings Utah more inline with the rest of states, not more liberal towards polygamy than any of the others. The law was so strict Shaddim would likely have run afoul of the law had he resided in Utah.

Any other snide observations about my potential state of emotion?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's not a question of whether it's possible for a couple not to have children, but I think you need to go the extra step and make it illegal for them to have children.

Once we say the government has control over whether you can get pregnant, that horse isn't going back in the barn.

To put it another way. The marriage involves consenting adults, so I'm fine with it. Having a kid makes it no longer about those adults. You have a third individual who is not and adult and did not provide consent.
That's partially correct. Until the advent of hormonal birth control, marriage has always been one man and woman, and the children that may result from that union. I know "we are not China" yet there is an example of a government that has got into the business of deciding who gets pregnant. The "One Child Policy" has resulted in gender selection "family planing" and as a result, an overabundance of male children.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
lol. I'm angry that someone is purposely trolling the gay thread with this red herring.

Case in point:


That's the substantive rebuttal I get for my observation from reading about the topic he posted. The ruling brings Utah more inline with the rest of states, not more liberal towards polygamy than any of the others. The law was so strict Shaddim would likely have run afoul of the law had he resided in Utah.

Any other snide observations about my potential state of emotion?
It's not a red herring/slippery slope. There are countries that have issued such licenses, the Netherlands being one. With the increase of persons of Middle Eastern origin where polygamy is common, it's only a matter of time before someone from Dearborn or Minnesota goes to court.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2014, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That's partially correct. Until the advent of hormonal birth control, marriage has always been one man and woman, and the children that may result from that union. I know "we are not China" yet there is an example of a government that has got into the business of deciding who gets pregnant. The "One Child Policy" has resulted in gender selection "family planing" and as a result, an overabundance of male children.
I'm not sure what your point is.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2014, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
lol. I'm angry that someone is purposely trolling the gay thread with this red herring.

Case in point:

That's the substantive rebuttal I get for my observation from reading about the topic he posted. The ruling brings Utah more inline with the rest of states, not more liberal towards polygamy than any of the others. The law was so strict Shaddim would likely have run afoul of the law had he resided in Utah.
I asked because I had sensed this frustration in earlier discussions on the matter.

I mean, do you really think you can have an honest discussion on equal marriage (derogatory thread title aside) without other forms of bonds coming into question? Rather than a red-herring or slippery-slope tactic, it's more a matter of; "it begs the question". There are other forms of relationships not allowed to marry and they've already ratcheted up their rhetoric in light of the same-sex marriage ban upheavals nationwide. I think it's more than a slippery-slope, it's a foregone conclusion those not in favor of it will also have to get over.

Any other snide observations about my potential state of emotion?
Nope, I'm done.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2014, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It's not a red herring/slippery slope. There are countries that have issued such licenses, the Netherlands being one. With the increase of persons of Middle Eastern origin where polygamy is common, it's only a matter of time before someone from Dearborn or Minnesota goes to court.
It has no direct correlation with gay marriage. It directly stems from accusations on the right about gay marriage supporters not being 'progressive' enough or "the sky is falling" claims that now all marriage bets are off.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I asked because I had sensed this frustration in earlier discussions on the matter.
Where?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I mean, do you really think you can have an honest discussion on equal marriage (derogatory thread title aside) without other forms of bonds coming into question?
Having them come into question (or, really, reviewed) and them being fully realized are two different things. People like Chongo use the argument (among many in a "see what sticks" approach) that gay marriage shouldn't happen because it will validate every other type of illegal marriage automatically. As if we can't judge what marriage limits should be invoked rationally, examining the facts with logic.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2014, 01:54 PM
 
These cases are already working their ways through the courts. Time Magazine had an article on this. Time is hardly a "right wing rag"
Should Incest Be Legal? - TIME
When the Supreme Court struck down Texas's law against sodomy in the summer of 2003, in the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, critics warned that its sweeping support of a powerful doctrine of privacy could lead to challenges of state laws that forbade such things as gay marriage and bigamy. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in a withering dissent he read aloud page by page from the bench.
It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.

I don'tknow if this real, but it is on the Slate website.
Incestuous twin brothers wonder if they should reveal their secret relationship.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2014, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Where?
I agreed not to make observations about your emotional state, but... from page 2.

Having them come into question (or, really, reviewed) and them being fully realized are two different things. People like Chongo use the argument (among many in a "see what sticks" approach) that gay marriage shouldn't happen because it will validate every other type of illegal marriage automatically. As if we can't judge what marriage limits should be invoked rationally, examining the facts with logic.
I won't speak for Chongo, but when the point is often raised it is expressing a disciplined, mature approach to considering the implications of legislation. People ridicule "slippery slope" on this matter or that as if there are no such things. Much of my time is in trying to understand those who champion SSM. I can appreciate and even embrace support for it, but I'm curious about and often seek more understanding of the champions' root MO.
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2014, 09:47 PM
 
As has been posted before, this is one activist's view what is behind the push for "marriage equality"



Origianlly posted by Masha Gessen
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2014, 09:06 PM
 
Polygamy doesn't really come into any serious discussion on marriage equality. Its just a tactical red herring.

In the discussion on marriage equality, the equality part refers to the equal rights of all citizens to marry a single person with whom they are in love and wish to spend the rest of their life. Its not about granting equality to all forms of marriages or relationships. On top of that, traditional polygamy is miles away from any kind of equality in itself, one husband to many wives and not the other way around.

The arguments for incest or bestiality are better comparisons in terms of the equality argument but there are of course other factors there to consider. Bestiality can be argued to be a form of animal abuse and any kind of endorsement of incest is going to lead to people grooming their own children for marriage when they are adults. It is far better (and still perfectly fair and equal) to bar marrying ones immediate relatives than to only stipulate whether you are allowed to procreate with them or not.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2014, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Polygamy doesn't really come into any serious discussion on marriage equality. Its just a tactical red herring.

In the discussion on marriage equality, the equality part refers to the equal rights of all citizens to marry a single person with whom they are in love and wish to spend the rest of their life. Its not about granting equality to all forms of marriages or relationships. On top of that, traditional polygamy is miles away from any kind of equality in itself, one husband to many wives and not the other way around.

The arguments for incest or bestiality are better comparisons in terms of the equality argument but there are of course other factors there to consider. Bestiality can be argued to be a form of animal abuse and any kind of endorsement of incest is going to lead to people grooming their own children for marriage when they are adults. It is far better (and still perfectly fair and equal) to bar marrying ones immediate relatives than to only stipulate whether you are allowed to procreate with them or not.
So, your saying my cousin's gay sons could not marry if they wanted to? You want to deny them just because they are siblings?

As to the "Red Herring" of polygamy, we'll see what happens in the coming years as the population of persons of middle eastern origin increase in the west. ( we don't need to worry about the FLDS, they are already suing) I won't be surprised if France or the Netherlands is the first to allow polygamy. The US has Dearborn and Minnesota. Then again the UK has its own problems. Polygamy is nothing compared to Rotherham.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I won't speak for Chongo, but when the point is often raised it is expressing a disciplined, mature approach to considering the implications of legislation. People ridicule "slippery slope" on this matter or that as if there are no such things. Much of my time is in trying to understand those who champion SSM. I can appreciate and even embrace support for it, but I'm curious about and often seek more understanding of the champions' root MO.
Here's the thing – look historically at why incestuous marriage and polygamy are illegal. It's two logical and different reasons for each, and neither applies to gay marriage. That's why the "slippery slope" is a red herring.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agreed not to make observations about your emotional state, but... from page 2.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 10:30 AM
 
There is no logical reason why communal marriage is illegal.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the thing – look historically at why incestuous marriage and polygamy are illegal. It's two logical and different reasons for each, and neither applies to gay marriage. That's why the "slippery slope" is a red herring.
Ahh, but that was before the advent of birth control, surgical sterilization, and prenatal genetic testing.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Ahh, but that was before the advent of birth control, surgical sterilization, and prenatal genetic testing.
All reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 01:24 PM
 
Then why do advocates of SS unions use couples who use birth control as an example of why they should be allowed to "marry"?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2014, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Then why do advocates of SS unions use couples who use birth control as an example of why they should be allowed to "marry"?
Because advocates of traditional marriage like to use bad arguments.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2014, 06:25 AM
 
Polygamy and incestuous marriage are banned because its next to impossible to make sure that all parties give their consent willingly, and usually they don't.
If anything same sex marriages are the ones least likely to infringe on anyones consent because not only is no-one arranging or pressuring people into them, you'd really have to want it to put up with the hassle you get from its opponents.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 10:30 AM
 
This is how the world ends
BBC News - Brazilian baby registered with three parents
The two women had been in a four-year relationship before the birth and had asked their male friend to help them have a child.

He had agreed, but had asked in return to be recognised as the father of the baby girl, who was born on 27 August.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 02:03 PM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Check-mate non-polygamists
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2014, 09:36 AM
 
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2014, 09:05 AM
 
Two armed “polygamist women” dressed like “ninjas” were subdued by a sword-wielding man during a home invasion, according to police in suburban Utah.
Soon to be a hit movie.
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 03:42 PM
 
Marriage or being a couple should be 2 persons that love and respect each other, abuse and unfaithfulness does not have its place. It should say you are the most important person in my life and I can be happy only with you. When you have this in place, children will grow up as stable and happy adults.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 03:49 PM
 
Same-sex legal in Louisiana... for now - KLFY News 10

A landmark day in Louisiana law after the long-standing ban on marriage for same-sex couples has been ruled unconstitutional by 15th Judicial District Court Judge Edward Rubin.

On September 22nd, Rubin ruled in the case of Costanza and Brewer V. Caldwell, stating the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution in three ways:

1. Violates due process clause of the 14thamendment

2. Violates equal protection clause of the 14thamendment

3. Violates full faith and credit clause
This is a bounce back for the LGBT community, after a shattering decision from Federal Judge Martin Feldman. In early September, Feldman upheld the state's ban. His write-up stated, “the regulation of marriage was left up to the states and the democratic process.”

Costanza considered Feldman's decision to be a major set-back but said Rubin's decision re-kindled the fight for the community.

For now, Rubin's decision will have precedent.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 05:07 PM
 
And now for something completely expected.
Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says - Telegraph
Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”
Is this true mattyb?

France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I...
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And now for something completely expected.
Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says - Telegraph?
So, you think this will happen over here? When?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 09:03 AM
 
Can't see why not, aside from reproduction issues, it's just moral holdover based on religious indoctrination.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And now for something completely expected.
Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says - Telegraph
Your summary as »incest as a fundamental right« is misleading. The article is about decriminalization, meaning it argues that we should no longer send people to jail (usually just the men) for having a mutually consensual sexual relationship with a sibling. As far as I understand, there are usually only criminal charges made after the siblings have children.

As such, this has nothing to do with homosexuals.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So this is the equivalent of decriminalizing weed, not legalizing it. Move along nothing to see here.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The article is about decriminalization, meaning it argues that we should no longer send people to jail (usually just the men) for having a mutually consensual sexual relationship with a sibling.
Congrats, Chongo. 2/2 on completely misleading posts that treat decriminalization rulings as if they were legalization. Your desperation is palpable.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
As such, this has nothing to do with homosexuals.
He's trying to play the slippery slope angle.

Well, he would be if I hadn't demolished that earlier. Now he's just scaremongering, grousing, and exaggerating.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 12:55 PM
 
I was being completely honest, I don't see why it should be illegal, as long as the people aren't reproducing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2014, 05:06 PM
 
They both apply

( Last edited by Chongo; Sep 26, 2014 at 05:17 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2014, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
They both apply

This is just restating 'slippery slope' in different terms.

Why wasn't interracial marriage a slippery slope?

Edit:
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, you think this will happen over here? When?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2014, 01:12 PM
 
Arguably, the slippery slope was when they stopped doing arranged marriages, because then people were free to choose who they married, inevitably leading to gay people wanting to choose same-sex partners.

Or maybe genie was out of the bottle when human survival was no longer dependent on having as many kids as possible, leading to marriages where people felt they had a choice as to whether or not to procreate.

Or maybe Pandora's Box was opened when the government created civil marriage, removing religion and its moral implications from the act, opening the door to irreligious joinings of interfaith, interracial and same-sex couples.

Yeah, I think any one of those things was more back-breaking to 'traditional' marriage than a couple of decriminalization rulings in Utah or Germany.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2014, 04:29 PM
 
Hormonal birth control and no fault divorce are what cracked the lid of Pandora's Box. Same sex unions are ripping the lid off.

Interracial marriage still involves a man and a woman uniting them with any children that come from that conjugal union.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Hormonal birth control
Wait, what?

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Interracial marriage still involves a man and a woman uniting them with any children that come from that conjugal union.
Yeah, I think you'll find the arguments at the time don't quite agree with you.

BTW, you only rebutted one of my three examples, if that was your intent.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 09:11 AM
 
Texas Woman Denied Driver's License over Same-Sex Marriage
After Connie Wilson married her partner of nine years in California last year, she took her wife’s last name, Wilson, which now appears on both her California driver’s license and her Social Security card, in addition to all of the couple’s financial and medical records.

This summer, the couple relocated to the Houston area with their three children for work. With her California driver’s license nearing expiration, Wilson took her documents to a DPS office in Katy last week to obtain a Texas driver’s license. When a DPS employee noticed that Wilson’s name didn’t match her birth certificate, she produced the couple’s California marriage license identifying her spouse as Aimee Wilson.

“Her only words to me were, ‘Is this same-[sex]?'” Connie Wilson recalled. “I remember hesitating for probably 10 seconds. I didn’t know how to answer. I didn’t want to lie, but I knew I was in trouble because I wasn’t going to be able to get a license.”

“She immediately told me, ‘You can’t use this to get your license. This doesn’t validate your last name. Do you have anything else?’” Wilson said. “She told me I would never get a license with my current name, that the name doesn’t belong to me.”
She legally changed her name. It's on her SS card. Get over it, Texas.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 10:24 AM
 
Today’s orders: Same-sex marriage petitions denied : SCOTUSblog
Most notably, the Court denied review of all seven of the petitions arising from challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. This means that the lower-court decisions striking down bans in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia should go into effect shortly, clearing the way for same-sex marriages in those states and any other state with similar bans in those circuits.
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...24389670158336
Practically, today SCOTUS recognized a right to SSM. Implausible that later it will undo marriages, absent a big change in Ct’s membership.
This is a pretty big f'n deal.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 10:45 AM
 
Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Appeals From 5 States
The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — should be able to get married in short order. Those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court's review.

That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.
Tipping point!

Two other appeals courts, in Cincinnati and San Francisco, could issue decisions any time in same-sex marriage cases. Judges in the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit who are weighing pro-gay marriage rulings in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, appeared more likely to rule in favor of state bans than did the 9th Circuit judges in San Francisco, who are considering Idaho and Nevada restrictions on marriage.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 11:07 AM
 
The largest hurdle will be the states, like TN, who have outlined in their constitutions that holy matrimony can only be between a man and a woman, and only banned the establishment of same-sex civil unions by state law. Essentially, the toothless* law is offered up as a sacrificial lamb (they knew it would eventually get struck down) leaving the constitutional block intact. What needs to happen now is a referendum on the matter in the next major election, which if passed would put the amendment up for a vote again, likely with a different outcome.


*There aren't even any real penalties for breaking the law, except to nullify the union, and even that can be overridden by simply filing your CU in another state.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 05:24 PM
 
Gay Marriage Bans in Idaho, Nevada Struck Down - ABC News
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada, saying bans on the practice in those states violate same-sex couples' equal protection rights.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling that laws that treat people differently based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional unless there is a compelling government interest.
He rejected the argument that same-sex marriages will devalue traditional marriage, leading to more out-of-wedlock births.
You know else leads to out-of-wedlock births? Unconstitutionally limiting abortion.

"This proposition reflects a crass and callous view of parental love and the parental bond that is not worthy of response," Reinhardt wrote. "We reject it out of hand."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:41 PM
 
He rejected the argument that same-sex marriages will devalue traditional marriage, leading to more out-of-wedlock births.
Oh, for the love of...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,