Federal judge strikes down Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage

[nehalem256]

You're leaving out the implied obligations and benefits.

The court clearly rejected the idea of implied obligations.

and encouraging procreation wasn't logical either since opposite-sex couples aren't required to say they'll produce offspring in order to get a marriage license.

Sharing finances and property (^ including inheritance), tax benefits, social recognition, ect.

Again, the court only spoke to what it isn't, not what it is.

So your argument is that marriage is nothing more than granting special benefits to certain couples. Sounds like you are saying that marriage is nothing more than discrimination. Discrimination to which there is no rational basis.

Nehalem, put aside the hyperbole for a minute and answer me one honest question:

What do you actually fear will happen if gay marriage becomes legal?

Same-sex marriage is yet another step in turning marriage into nothing more than a benefit granting circle-jerk devoid of any civilizational purpose.

 

[nehalem256]

The reason for marriages transcend all cultures across the world back through human history. The main reason is to allow social recognition of inheritance in practically every culture.

So when someone dies, their shit goes to the people with fighting over it. Nothing more and nothing less for the origins of marriage with humans regardless of cultural historical time frame.

Of course recent adaptations have sought to add a "spiritual" blessing and thus divine connection to what is a marriage. Especially in areas in the past with the social order of humans was dominated by a religious group for recognition of legal bindings of any form.

Marriage does and always shall have a purpose in regards to inheritance in humans. Unless we figure out how to live forever.

So why is there such a lack of same-sex marriage in history?:hmm:

 

[Daverino]

So why is there such a lack of same-sex marriage in history?:hmm:

For the same reason there is such a lack of inter-racial, inter-faith or equal-partner marriage in history. We've been pretty much social barbarians in America until the last 40-50 years. Sad thing is that much of the world is even worse than we are.

 

[nehalem256]

For the same reason there is such a lack of inter-racial, inter-faith or equal-partner marriage in history. We've been pretty much social barbarians in America until the last 40-50 years. Sad thing is that much of the world is even worse than we are.

I would think that there reason there was such a lack of inter-racial and inter-faith marriage is because most people married someone who lived near them and was therefore, for obvious reasons, of the same race and faith. Or is an extension as a means of keeping the "bloodline" pure.

You want me to explain why the same thing doesn't apply to sex?

 

[MrPickins]

The court clearly rejected the idea of implied obligations.



So your argument is that marriage is nothing more than granting special benefits to certain couples. Sounds like you are saying that marriage is nothing more than discrimination. Discrimination to which there is no rational basis.



Same-sex marriage is yet another step in turning marriage into nothing more than a benefit granting circle-jerk devoid of any civilizational purpose.

Just to be clear, you don't think love or the desire to form a recognized union with another person serve any 'civilizational' purposes?

Seriously, though. Give me your worst case scenario (realistic... lets avoid hyperbole) for, lets say, 50 years after gay marriage is confirmed to be legal nationwide.

 

[nageov3t]

Seriously, though. Give me your worst case scenario (realistic... lets avoid hyperbole) for, lets say, 50 years after gay marriage is confirmed to be legal nationwide.

obviously, once gays devalue marriage, no one will ever get married again.

the clear result of which is that straights will stop having sex and making babies, because heavens knows no one has sex without getting married first.

 

[nehalem256]

Just to be clear, you don't think love or the desire to form a recognized union with another person serve any 'civilizational' purposes?

A man can love his dog; yet they can't get married. A man can love his sister; yet they can't get married.

"Desire to form a recognized union" is more of a definition of what marriage is. Not a reason for it to exist. You don't see the government issuing BFF certificates. Why should relationships between 2 people who have sex receive special recognition?

Seriously, though. Give me your worst case scenario (realistic... lets avoid hyperbole) for, lets say, 50 years after gay marriage is confirmed to be legal nationwide.

Part of the problem is that gay marriage is less of a causative agent and more of a symptom. I would expect to see a further erosion of support for marriage, more having children out of wedlock, etc.

 

[nehalem256]

obviously, once gays devalue marriage, no one will ever get married again.

the clear result of which is that straights will stop having sex and making babies, because heavens knows no one has sex without getting married first.

Actually, the problem is they will continue having sex and making babies. Resulting in children being born out of wedlock. I hope I don't need to detail why that is bad for society.

 

[MrPickins]

A man can love his dog; yet they can't get married. A man can love his sister; yet they can't get married.

Dog can't enter into a contract. Incest is directly harmful to society.

Cut the hyperbole.

"Desire to form a recognized union" is more of a definition of what marriage is. Not a reason for it to exist. You don't see the government issuing BFF certificates. Why should relationships between 2 people who have sex receive special recognition?

Now who is devaluing marriage?

Part of the problem is that gay marriage is less of a causative agent and more of a symptom. I would expect to see a further erosion of support for marriage, more having children out of wedlock, etc.

You need to provide some proof of causation here, otherwise you're just guessing.

The real issue with people having children out of wedlock lies with straight people. Not gays.

 

[MrPickins]

Actually, the problem is they will continue having sex and making babies. Resulting in children being born out of wedlock. I hope I don't need to detail why that is bad for society.

You still need to explain why illegitimate children and gay marriage are related.

Classic red herring.


Also, even if they were linked by causality, I feel the harm to society caused by government sanctioned inequality is much worse than that caused by children being born out of wedlock.

 

[nehalem256]

Dog can't enter into a contract. Incest is directly harmful to society.

Cut the hyperbole.

Incest is only harmful to society if you see a connection between procreation and marriage. Of course if you do I don't see how can find same-sex marriage to be a logical concept.

Now who is devaluing marriage?

How exactly am I devaluing marriage? Because I am saying it is about more than selfishness?

You need to provide some proof of causation here, otherwise you're just guessing.

The real issue with people having children out of wedlock lies with straight people. Not gays.

You still need to explain why illegitimate children and gay marriage are related.

Gay marriage inherently says procreation and marriage are disconnected. If there is no connection between procreation and marriage why would straight people wait to have children only inside marriage?

 

[Texashiker]

Dog can't enter into a contract.

To use the same argument that gays use, how is sex with a dog harming you?

Please tell me exactly how someone having sex with their dog in the privacy of their home affects you in anyway.

 

[nehalem256]

Also, even if they were linked by causality, I feel the harm to society caused by government sanctioned inequality is much worse than that caused by children being born out of wedlock.

Marriage is inherently government sanctioned inequality.

 

[MrPickins]

To use the same argument that gays use, how is sex with a dog harming you?

Please tell me exactly how someone having sex with their dog in the privacy of their home affects you in anyway.

GTFO with this tripe.

We're talking about a contact between two human beings. If you can't follow the conversation, don't participate.

 

[Retro Rob]

Dog can't enter into a contract. Incest is directly harmful to society.

Please, don't think I am defending him, but he isn't arguing from the point of harm...I think he's arguing from equality.

This is a word you guys freely throw around, so the natural question would be: "Do you think we're equal if you can marry who you want, but I cannot marry who I want?".

True, I find incest quite ridiculous and harmful, and animal marriage as simply stupid, but this is an issue in the name of equality, not harm.

 

[Texashiker]

GTFO with this tripe.

We're talking about a contact between two human beings. If you can't follow the conversation, don't participate.

You are the one who mentioned dogs.

 

[MrPickins]

Marriage is inherently government sanctioned inequality.

Not if everyone has the right to get married.

That's like saying driver's licenses are government sanctioned inequality...

 

[MrPickins]

You are the one who mentioned dogs.

In the context of entering a contract.

Again, if you can't follow along don't try.

 

[MrPickins]

True, I find incest quite ridiculous and harmful, and animal marriage as simply stupid, but this is an issue in the name of equality, not harm.

He can argue however he wants, I'm just pointing out why his arguments make no sense when you look at the overall picture.

 

[Texashiker]

In the context of entering a contract.

When do you have to enter into a contract with your property?

An animal is your property, so no contract is needed.

 

[MrPickins]

When do you have to enter into a contract with your property?

An animal is your property, so no contract is needed.

<sigh>

Just stop.

We already know you're dumb. No need to prove it repeatedly.

 

[nehalem256]

Not if everyone has the right to get married.

That's like saying driver's licenses are government sanctioned inequality...

DLs say who is and is not allow to drive on public roads. Seems like inequality to me.

Of course there is a rational basis for only allowing capable people to drive. What rational reason is there for giving benefits to people in certain relationships?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Please, don't think I am defending him, but he isn't arguing from the point of harm...I think he's arguing from equality.

This is a word you guys freely throw around, so the natural question would be: "Do you think we're equal if you can marry who you want, but I cannot marry who I want?".

True, I find incest quite ridiculous and harmful, and animal marriage as simply stupid, but this is an issue in the name of equality, not harm.

The thing that you seem to be glossing over is that we're speaking about marriage in the terms of a legally binding contract recognized by the government, not just equality in terms of the relationship being recognized. Animals, objects and children cannot legally enter into a contract, so right off the bat we can eliminate them from the conversation. You may think a relationship with an animal or toaster deserves the same recognition, but in the eyes of the law, those things can't enter into legal contracts, so you could never actually "marry" them in the eyes of the government. If you're talking about marriage from a purely ceremonial standpoint, marry all the toasters you want, just don't expect the court to grant your estate to an appliance in the event you die without a will.

Incest is a sticky wicket. On the one hand, I don't honestly care if two people who are closely related have a sexual relationship. But most places in the country have made it a crime for people to reproduce if they're within a certain degree of relation from each other, and approving marriage for those people could be seen as a tacit endorsement of their right to reproduce; even though reproduction isn't required for marriage, the contract of marriage does include stipulations for offspring produced from the assumed sexual relationship of the people entered in that contract. If you're talking about the legal recognition for a sexual relationship where reproduction between the partners is considered a crime, you've entered into a very strange place indeed; OK, you're allowed to have sex, but if you accidentally get pregnant, it's off to jail! That's an odd scenario, no? I don't really have a solution, but I think it's safe to say that it's an infinitesimal percentage of the population that has a vested interest in this, so we can probably skip it for now and let the academics figure out the logistics.

 

[Texashiker]

<sigh>

Just stop.

We already know you're dumb. No need to prove it repeatedly.

You are the one who brought up dogs.

Please tell us how someone having sex with a dog is going to affect you?

 

[MrPickins]

You are the one who brought up dogs.

Please tell us how someone having sex with a dog is going to affect you?

For the last time, I'm discussing marriage, not your red herring.

I will be ignoring this line of reasoning as it is not pertinent to this discussion.

Also, Nehalem brought up that argument. Learn to follow a discussion.