The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

**blah3** · 03-30-2015, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

thats not changing because of gay marriage. its a completely different debate to talk about incest because as you say, it could be gay or straight.

What's not changing because of gay marriage?
The switch to gay marriage as a right is firmly based on the idea that marriage is not aligned with procreation. If that is the standard, then the redefinition of marriage based as a right is shifted to a 'loving' relationship'. Loving can include family members, and multiple members. Thereby making it a right for those to marry as well, if indeed there is a right for homosexuals to marry.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-30-2015, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

personally I dont care... the 1 man/1 woman crowd seems to be the ones that care and are drawing the lines and considering gays on the same level as incest, which is ridiculous to me.

So forget incest.

Do you agree it's discrimination to not allow multiple people into one marriage?

**HoustonRaven** · 03-30-2015, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Protected class is something I have a whole nother problem with. But wouldn't Scalia's statement apply to same-sex marriage as well?

Depends on which precedent you agree with -- the older state cases that blah linked (which are in lower courts) or SCOTUS's ruling on DOMA.

**HoustonRaven** · 03-30-2015, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

So forget incest.

Do you agree it's discrimination to not allow multiple people into one marriage?

It's discrimination in so much as the Boy Scouts exclude girls (vice versa for boys in the girl scouts), rest rooms are off limits to the opposite sex or the Mason's not allowing women.

Just because someone is discriminated by the dictionary definition doesn't mean they're discriminated against from a legal standpoint.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-30-2015, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Depends on which precedent you agree with -- the older state cases that blah linked (which are in lower courts) or SCOTUS's ruling on DOMA.

I don't follow it that closely to know the difference. I'm just saying his statement seems to be accurate to same sex marriage when it was not legal.

Which I think proves my point about marriage, and government as a whole. When you get government involved with something it just gets messy. They shouldn't be able to say who get can married or not. Marriage is more of a religious thing anyway, stay out of that, and regulate civil unions if you feel the need to monitor contracts two people (or more) enter in to.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-30-2015, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

It's discrimination in so much as the Boy Scouts exclude girls (vice versa for boys in the girl scouts), rest rooms are off limits to the opposite sex or the Mason's not allowing women.

Just because someone is discriminated by the dictionary definition doesn't mean they're discriminated against from a legal standpoint.

Again playing devils advocate - wouldn't that apply to same sex marriage?

**Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch** · 03-30-2015, 04:20 PM

You all must be very bored today to have jumped into this moebius strip of an argument. I haven't read anything here that I haven't read a hundred times, or heard a hundred times when I've talked to friends, co-workers, or family on the subject. It's commendable that for the most part this conversation has been limited to discussions of the topic on hand, and not devolved into personal attacks. Kudos.

If we're playing devil's advocate, should a heterosexual couple unable to have children be rejected from getting a marriage license?

**NCRAVEN** · 03-30-2015, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch

You all must be very bored today to have jumped into this moebius strip of an argument. I haven't read anything here that I haven't read a hundred times, or heard a hundred times when I've talked to friends, co-workers, or family on the subject. It's commendable that for the most part this conversation has been limited to discussions of the topic on hand, and not devolved into personal attacks. Kudos.

If we're playing devil's advocate, should a heterosexual couple unable to have children be rejected from getting a marriage license?

Well... if they follow the old rule of no sex before marriage, they wouldn't know that before hand :)

Seriously though, I don't think that anyone is saying marriage is only for kids. Just in the past that is why the states have made marriage between and a man and a woman, and that is why they had an interest to get involved. To answer your question since we're playing devils advocate, no I don't think they should be rejected - while they may not be able to have kids together, maybe they could with help.

**Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch** · 03-30-2015, 04:48 PM

Like through means of adoption?

**NCRAVEN** · 03-30-2015, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch

Like through means of adoption?

That's one, but not what I was thinking. IUI, In ventro, surrogate etc. was what was in my mind.

**Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch** · 03-30-2015, 05:00 PM

Couldn't gay couples use a surrogate, or adoption as a means of having children?

**I Touchdown There** · 03-30-2015, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ngata_Ate_My_Lunch

You all must be very bored today to have jumped into this moebius strip of an argument. I haven't read anything here that I haven't read a hundred times, or heard a hundred times when I've talked to friends, co-workers, or family on the subject. It's commendable that for the most part this conversation has been limited to discussions of the topic on hand, and not devolved into personal attacks. Kudos.

If we're playing devil's advocate, should a heterosexual couple unable to have children be rejected from getting a marriage license?

I hope not! My husband and I don't even know if we want kids.