[QUOTE=Daseal;1030650]Is the chance of children with flippers a valid reason?[/QUOTE]

Pretty much my thoughts. Although flippers would actually be cool. Especially if they joined the swim team.
Seriously though birth defects or a chance there of would be an issue.

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=firstdown;1031163]Ok, I realize some here think I'm actually serious.LOL[/quote]

You know what they do in Mississippi on Halloween? Pump kin.

[QUOTE=dmek25;1013424]he also said the we dont need the voting rights act. that was for when there was racism in the south. now a days the south is no more racist then me. what an out of touch douche[/QUOTE]

Not to stray off topic but racism is, unfortunately, very alive still. The things that come out of the mouths of people i think i know on a regular basis make me want to live on another planet. I live in New Jersey too. I can only imagine what bubbles beneath the surface in the south.

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=punch it in;1031177]Not to stray off topic but racism is, unfortunately, very alive still. The things that come out of the mouths of people i think i know on a regular basis make me want to live on another planet. I live in New Jersey too. [B]I can only imagine what bubbles beneath the surface in the south.[/B][/quote]

Racism in the South is not like it used to be. But compared to the north, it is more direct and not hidden when it happens.

Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[QUOTE=Lotus;1031178]Racism in the South is not like it used to be. But compared to the north, it is more direct and not hidden when it happens.[/QUOTE]
Yes - i meant that there are so many people - north and south- that are racist "inside", but i am sure it is worse in the south. More "closet racists".
Edit: bubbles beneath the surface of individuals

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=punch it in;1031174]Pretty much my thoughts. Although flippers would actually be cool. Especially if they joined the swim team.
Seriously though birth defects or a chance there of would be an issue.[/quote]

Yup, again, however, if consenting adults decide that their love is worth the risk, who are you to deny them their rights? If two individuals (unrelated) are likely to have unhealthy children, are they denied the right to marry? Nope. In fact, two unrelated people who are medically [I]certain[/I] to have a child with birth defects can get married - as long as they are mentally/legally capable of granting consent. Why can't two consenting adults who are only [I]likely[/I] have a child with birth defects get married.

Further, by simply aborting any fetus which exhibits birth defects, they completely avoid the possible unhealthy ramifications. Very simply, through modern science, we can remove any of the traditional health related objections to such a contract.

Other than a majority of people finding it repulsive, explain to me why two or more consenting adults cannot enter into a marriage contract (an agreement to provide lifelong mutual support). How is the prohibition of incestuous or polygamous marriage, b/c we find it repulsive anything other than another attempt "to disparage and to injure" a group of people through marriage laws. Under the logic of the DOMA ruling, doesn't it logically follow that by "[I]treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others[/I] [a statute prohibiting incestuous/polygamous marriages] is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." ?? [If it is a State law it would be the 14th Amendment].

Quoted language is from the majority opinion in the DOMA ruling.

Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1031184]Yup, again, however, if consenting adults decide that their love is worth the risk, who are you to deny them their rights? If two individuals (unrelated) are likely to have unhealthy children, are they denied the right to marry? Nope. In fact, two unrelated people who are medically [I]certain[/I] to have a child with birth defects can get married - as long as they are mentally/legally capable of granting consent. Why can't two consenting adults who are only [I]likely[/I] have a child with birth defects get married.

Further, by simply aborting any fetus which exhibits birth defects, they completely avoid the possible unhealthy ramifications. Very simply, through modern science, we can remove any of the traditional health related objections to such a contract.

Other than a majority of people finding it repulsive, explain to me why two or more consenting adults cannot enter into a marriage contract (an agreement to provide lifelong mutual support). How is the prohibition of incestuous or polygamous marriage, b/c we find it repulsive anything other than another attempt "to disparage and to injure" a group of people through marriage laws. Under the logic of the DOMA ruling, doesn't it logically follow that by "[I]treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others[/I] [a statute prohibiting incestuous/polygamous marriages] is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." ?? [If it is a State law it would be the 14th Amendment].

Quoted language is from the majority opinion in the DOMA ruling.[/QUOTE]

I guess at the end of the day having sex with my daughter when she comes of age is so far removed from the world of righteousness and her being a lesbian is not. Im not one to easily dismiss something as wrong, and am extremely open minded. If it makes you happy is a beautiful law to live by. There is always a line though and insest crosses it imo.
Give me an example of two unrelated people who are likely to have unhealthy children?
In most cases those people would be advised by doctors and there is some discretion used, but darryl, his brother darryl, and his other brother darryl are throwing caution to the wind and probably dont take regular visits for consultation on such life decisions.
Edit: polygamy imo is fine. I have no issues with it at all. If u are single and dating a couple of girls that are aware and not bothered by it than why not live together happily ever after?

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

One could make the argument that no known society in human history has tolerated incest. For sure, societies define what "incest" means differently. But anthropologists tell us that every society has some sort of incest taboo. Perhaps for Darwinian reasons, being human through history is fairly synonymous with incest avoidance.

The same argument cannot be made at all for homosexuality, either now or in the past. Some societies have even institutionalized it in religious and/or coming of age rituals.

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=Lotus;1031175]You know what they do in Mississippi on Halloween? Pump kin.[/quote]

I thought that was West Virginia.

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=Giantone;1031155]No , not in anyone's mind.

I will admit someone else said this but I do agree with it .


"
[B]Equal civil rights and gay marriage help to promote a stable community whereas polygamy and incest do not.[/B]

The short answer:
No. To promote stability in a community, defending a [B]stabilizing factor such as gay marriage [/B]does not require one to also defend the unstable practices of polygamy and incest.[/quote]

How does gay marriage make for a stable community?

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=firstdown;1031280]How does gay marriage make for a stable community?[/quote]


The exact same way a heterosexual marriage would ,why would it not ?

[QUOTE=Giantone;1031406]The exact same way a heterosexual marriage would ,why would it not ?[/QUOTE]

I dont think he was saying gay marriage "doesnt" make for a stable society. Just how "does" it? How does heterosexual marriage make for one either?
Are single people any less stable than married ones?

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=firstdown;1031280]How does gay marriage make for a stable community?[/quote]

How are gay couples any less (or more) stable than a heterosexual couple? Do the laws of physics change when they are together? Is it like putting extra neutrons into a atom making it unstable?

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=firstdown;1031280]How does gay marriage make for a stable community?[/quote]

equality

Re: Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement
 

[quote=punch it in;1031628]I dont think he was saying gay marriage "doesnt" make for a stable society. Just how "does" it? How does heterosexual marriage make for one either?
Are single people any less stable than married ones?[/quote]

Leaving the tag of gay or straight off of it, marriage is a stabilizing force in society for several reasons.

1) Married couples tend to be stationary. A single person can uproot fairly quickly from a community, and move to another one. Single people can be far more transient, simply because if he/she decides it's time to go, they can go. Married couples often create dual entanglements, that would just by inertia keep them in a community even if one partner gets a yearning to move.

2) Marriage usually leads to children, and a vested interest in a safe community for them. Singles (not single parents but "singles") again may just up and move if a neighborhood gets rougher, rather than staying and working to fix the problem. Not that couples with kids won't up and move, just that it's not the first solution because of the layers of complexities attached to it.

3) Couples with 2 jobs in an area are less likely to shift out of a community for one better job else where, but a single person given even a slightly better opportunity may pack up and leave.

I am sure there are more examples. And to be clear, stability isnt speaking of mental stability, but communal stability where neighborhoods can evolve and grow based on the knowledge that the people in it have a vested interest in its ongoing growth, security, and success.

In that sense, any partnership that leads to roots being planted can lead to greater stability, and back to the outlier idea of incestual couples, if that couple's background isn't known, then the argument of increased stability applies to them just as any other couple, but if it is known then that communal stability might be lessened if people are outraged and want to leave. Likewise, if a gay couple is in a neighborhood that accepts them (which i would hope more and more are becoming) then the argument of increased stability applies, but if the neighborhood doesn't accept them, it can add instability.