Listen to a Conservative Judge Brutally Destroy Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[zinfamous]

No, you can't have one without the other.

I think it depends on how you define freedom *from* religion.

I think certain militant atheists object to all public displays of religious symbols: shopping mall, actual church/temple/mosque lawn, whatever. If they see it; it's assaulting them.

I think this is stupid, and I think such people are stupid. I don't see that as cramming anything down my throat.

Further, I think certain militant fundies confuse the line between public/private/government. They think prayer in a public school or the ten commandments in front of a court house is no different than a Christmas tree at a mall.

I think this is stupid, and I think such people are stupid. They are very clearly different situations.

 

[justoh]

Again, as far as I know it's illegal. Impossible. Not allowed.

Oh. Why is that?

 

[soundforbjt]

No they didnt.

Or are you going to bring up the Nero castrated a man that looked like his dead wife and married him against all law and custom argument?

Before Nero's time and in places much less "civilized".

 

[Atreus21]

Oh. Why is that?

If government is not supposed to discriminate, I don't know why.

 

[nehalem256]

Before Nero's time and in places much less "civilized".

Such as?

 

[nehalem256]

I dunno. Maybe not if you're being pedantic about it. Is it actually expressly forbidden or just not possible to get recognized/performed/licensed?

Fun fact there used to be no explicit prohibition of same-sex marriage either:

The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Of course the court then ruled the were full of shit:

The couple appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a brief opinion issued on October 15, 1971, the state's highest court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Based on the common usage of the term "marriage" and gender-specific references elsewhere in the same chapter, the Court held that the statutes prohibited marriage between persons of the same sex

 

[justoh]

If government is not supposed to discriminate, I don't know why.

Ahh, okay, so either it's not illegal or they do discriminate. I wonder which.

 

[zinfamous]

If government is not supposed to discriminate, I don't know why.

Well, the government does discriminate on many issues. That is one necessary function.

Second, we have a long history (humanity, that is), of accumulated experience that tells us that inbreeding is bad.

For several reasons. First, the obvious:

You can further look to population genetics and various animal models as to what happens when you start allowing back-crossing and genetic bottlenecks all over the place. But, you know...go ahead with your strawman if you must. It is in no way related to gay marriages, but it is fun to watch you guys continuously swing through that same Wiffle ball.

Now, speaking of the US and the rest of post-revolutionary Europe: the modern world, some time ago, grew a fond distaste for Monarchies...for rather acceptable reasons.

I hate to stretch on this, but I suspect that this plays into the historical distrust for such family dynamics.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And those heirs would be?



So why is same-sex marriage illegal in Japan and China?

As usual, the boy and his toaster doesn't quite get it right.

Better question might be, how quickly is that changing?

Japan

"On March 27, 2009, it was reported that Japan has given the green light for its nationals to marry same-sex foreign partners in countries where same-sex marriages are legal. Japan does not allow same-sex marriages domestically and has so far also refused to issue a key document required for citizens to wed overseas if the applicant's intended spouse was of the same gender. Under the change, the justice ministry has instructed local authorities to issue the key certificate—which states a person is single and of legal age—for those who want to enter same-sex marriages.[1]

In June 2011, the deputy head abbot of Kyoto's Shunkō-in Zen temple announced that the temple would perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in the temple as part of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.[2]

Since May 15, 2012, the Tokyo Disney Resort has allowed symbolic (not government recognized) same-sex marriage ceremonies in its Cinderella's Castle hotel.[3] On March 3, 2013, its first same-sex marriage was held.[4] Koyuki Higashi married her partner, who was only identified by the name Hiroko.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Japan#History

Taiwan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Taiwan

China (not so much but changing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_China

 

[Victorian Gray]

You're a special kind of stupid. :\

Not so special. The internet is filled with 'nehalems'

 

[Atomic Playboy]

As usual, the boy and his toaster doesn't quite get it right.

Better question might be, how quickly is that changing?

Japan

"On March 27, 2009, it was reported that Japan has given the green light for its nationals to marry same-sex foreign partners in countries where same-sex marriages are legal. Japan does not allow same-sex marriages domestically and has so far also refused to issue a key document required for citizens to wed overseas if the applicant's intended spouse was of the same gender. Under the change, the justice ministry has instructed local authorities to issue the key certificate—which states a person is single and of legal age—for those who want to enter same-sex marriages.[1]

In June 2011, the deputy head abbot of Kyoto's Shunkō-in Zen temple announced that the temple would perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in the temple as part of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.[2]

Since May 15, 2012, the Tokyo Disney Resort has allowed symbolic (not government recognized) same-sex marriage ceremonies in its Cinderella's Castle hotel.[3] On March 3, 2013, its first same-sex marriage was held.[4] Koyuki Higashi married her partner, who was only identified by the name Hiroko.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Japan#History

Taiwan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Taiwan

China (not so much but changing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_China

That's all well and good, but you're refuting a point that does not matter. Who cares what Japan and China do? This is America. If you can't come up with better rationale for legislation than "well, some Asian countries do it," then the legislation probably isn't worth it.

 

[HumblePie]

Well apparently the first part isn't an issue either:



Wow amazing people can own things together without being married!

You really don't understand this concept do you?

2 people can live together and merge family assets. Both are considered heirs to their family material wealth. Over the course of time the various two parties amass a significant amount of wealth from their families through inheritance. After time, one of the two in the party dies. What happens if no will was written yet?

Well assuming they weren't married, the surviving family members of the person that died actually have claim to all the material wealth that person had previous to death. They would get the inheritance and not the person to which that person was "spending their life" with and wasn't married to.

The concept of marriage allows the person that died before having a Will created to have the marriage contract intrinsically have a Will clause to it. IE a person passing in a marriage passes their material wealth to their partner in the marriage instead of the wealth transferring to another family member.

Now what happens if the two people had adopted a child and both die unexpectedly? If the two people weren't married the adopted child would legally have zero claim on any material wealth either "parent" had before their death if neither parent had a Will yet drawn up. The material wealth of both parents would revert to the previous family associations.

Now if the two parents of an adopted child are married and died unexpectedly without a Will, the adopted child is considered their heir in that marriage relationship. THAT is how it suppose to work.

Notice in all my examples I specifically left out the gender of the two parties involved because it can apply to any case of gender match up.

Marriage allows certain legal consent and social acceptance for other contractual dealings based upon the married entity. Such as making medical decisions on behalf of the other person in the event of a sudden medical emergency that prevents one party of the marriage union from being able to make their own judgements. It allows the state to treat two people like one person when it comes to certain things like that.

This is why the concept of a marriage contract has transcended all of human history regardless of religious beliefs at the time or cultural attitudes. The concept of marriage for a pair of human people go far beyond anything that Christianity, Islam, Hindu, or even some of the currently practiced Mesopotamia religions out there can lay claim to.

 

[nehalem256]

That's all well and good, but you're refuting a point that does not matter. Who cares what Japan and China do? This is America. If you can't come up with better rationale for legislation than "well, some Asian countries do it," then the legislation probably isn't worth it.

Actually its a refutation of the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is Christian bigotry.

 

[nehalem256]

Well, the government does discriminate on many issues. That is one necessary function.

Second, we have a long history (humanity, that is), of accumulated experience that tells us that inbreeding is bad.

For several reasons. First, the obvious:

You can further look to population genetics and various animal models as to what happens when you start allowing back-crossing and genetic bottlenecks all over the place. But, you know...go ahead with your strawman if you must. It is in no way related to gay marriages, but it is fun to watch you guys continuously swing through that same Wiffle ball.

Now, speaking of the US and the rest of post-revolutionary Europe: the modern world, some time ago, grew a fond distaste for Monarchies...for rather acceptable reasons.

I hate to stretch on this, but I suspect that this plays into the historical distrust for such family dynamics.

So on the one hand same-sex marriage should be legal because marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

But on the other hand incest marriage should be illegal because they will procreate a bunch of retard babies.

Yep, that is totally consistent.

 

[HumblePie]

Actually its a refutation of the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is Christian bigotry.

Who said it was only Christian bigotry? My my, someone has a big head.

 

[HumblePie]

So on the one hand same-sex marriage should be legal because marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

But on the other hand incest marriage should be illegal because they will procreate a bunch of retard babies.

Yep, that is totally consistent.

Child defects from direct sibling coupling is blown way out of proportion in most religious teachings. On average, it may increase the chances of a recessive trait birth defect by an additional 2%-7% depending on the various scientific research studies into this area. The main reason for this in human versus any other animal on this planet is due to how close in genetics all humans are too each other. We are all from the same small group of ancestor that had to do a bit of inbreeding.

In fact, sibling couplings and marriages were the norm for many cultures for a LONG time. Why? It keeps all the wealth and power in the "family" that way. Many "noble" or ruling class families wanted the power to stay with the family. When the heir to the power marries their sibling, the power can't be spread to another family. This goes far back into human history.

So strictly speaking, I have no problem with siblings marrying each other either. I would hope they would take proper precautions if they decide to have children though to prevent any possible birth defects such as proper medical screenings that would rule them out for bad recessive genetic defects that could show up in their offspring.

However, the real reason for why incest is so highly taboo isn't the slight increase with certain families to increase recessive genetic birth defects. It is because what I already mentioned previously. No one likes it when one family hogs all the power or wealth.

 

[nehalem256]

You really don't understand this concept do you?

2 people can live together and merge family assets. Both are considered heirs to their family material wealth. Over the course of time the various two parties amass a significant amount of wealth from their families through inheritance. After time, one of the two in the party dies. What happens if no will was written yet?

Well assuming they weren't married, the surviving family members of the person that died actually have claim to all the material wealth that person had previous to death. They would get the inheritance and not the person to which that person was "spending their life" with and wasn't married to.

The concept of marriage allows the person that died before having a Will created to have the marriage contract intrinsically have a Will clause to it. IE a person passing in a marriage passes their material wealth to their partner in the marriage instead of the wealth transferring to another family member.

So you are saying there is already explicitly a contract that allows you to pass your estate to anyone you want.

So what exact purpose is marriage serving exactly?

Now what happens if the two people had adopted a child and both die unexpectedly? If the two people weren't married the adopted child would legally have zero claim on any material wealth either "parent" had before their death if neither parent had a Will yet drawn up. The material wealth of both parents would revert to the previous family associations.

Now if the two parents of an adopted child are married and died unexpectedly without a Will, the adopted child is considered their heir in that marriage relationship. THAT is how it suppose to work.

This is obviously false. If a single person adopts a child and dies the adopted child inherits their estate. So if 2 unmarried people both adopt the same child and then subsequently both die the adopted child would inherit their estates.

Such as making medical decisions on behalf of the other person in the event of a sudden medical emergency that prevents one party of the marriage union from being able to make their own judgements. It allows the state to treat two people like one person when it comes to certain things like that.

And guess what there is a contract to enable someone to make medical decisions for you as well!

And besides historical tradition you mind explaining to me why there should be any connection between the person inheriting your estate and the person making medical decisions for you?

Marriage allows certain legal consent and social acceptance for other contractual dealings based upon the married entity.

Ah okay there you are onto something. Of course there isn't a right to social acceptance of your relationship.

This is why the concept of a marriage contract has transcended all of human history regardless of religious beliefs at the time or cultural attitudes. The concept of marriage for a pair of human people go far beyond anything that Christianity, Islam, Hindu, or even some of the currently practiced Mesopotamia religions out there can lay claim to.

Bullshit. Marriage has essentially exclusive been between people of the opposite sex.

 

[HumblePie]

So you are saying there is already explicitly a contract that allows you to pass your estate to anyone you want.

So what exact purpose is marriage serving exactly?

Are you seriously this dense? A person has to create a will to pass on their material wealth to someone other than a family member that is regarded as closest kin. A marriage contract automatically makes the person associated in the marriage contract now the next closest kin. So that the person doesn't have to a will if they don't want to. Also, some people die before they get around to making a will out. A marriage contract again allows for a smooth transition of material wealth when that happens.

This is obviously false. If a single person adopts a child and dies the adopted child inherits their estate. So if 2 unmarried people both adopt the same child and then subsequently both die the adopted child would inherit their estates.

Oh so wrong. If the adopted child is not part of a will in the event both parents die, the estate assets by law transfers to the kin that is next closet to each parent. That isn't the adopted child that has no blood relationship in most societies.

And guess what there is a contract to enable someone to make medical decisions for you as well!

And besides historical tradition you mind explaining to me why there should be any connection between the person inheriting your estate and the person making medical decisions for you?

Serious again are you this dense? Just because there are other ways to get the contractual authorization needed, doesn't mean everyone has the foresight to do it and to do it for everything they may eventually need a contract drawn up for. That is the purpose of a marriage. It's a broad scope contract. It is one and done.

Bullshit. Marriage has essentially exclusive been between people of the opposite sex.

Bullshit, you have no idea about human history do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

Rome changed when religious bigotry came about that was against state recognized same sex unions.

There are even caveman drawings depicting same sex couplings. Wow, you can't be this completely naive can you? Same sex couplings aren't even a human only thing. Many other animals on this planet do same sex couplings as well. It's not always the norm for many animals types, but it does happen.

 

[zinfamous]

So on the one hand same-sex marriage should be legal because marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

But on the other hand incest marriage should be illegal because they will procreate a bunch of retard babies.

Yep, that is totally consistent.

You are the one bringing the two unrelated issues together as if they are of equal value considerations.

They are not.

You can't invent the discussion then argue that they contradict. They contradict because they aren't related.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think you are confusing modern liberal marriage for traditional historical marriage.

*head assplodes* Given what was just talked about this makes no sense lol

 

[soulcougher73]

If government is not supposed to discriminate, I don't know why.

So you're saying you WANT government to discriminate against gays, but to NOT discriminate when you want to marry your sister?

 

[zinfamous]

So you're saying you WANT government to discriminate against gays, but to NOT discriminate when you want to marry your sister?

no, he's pulling a Texashiker: either only the people I want to marry can marry, or EVERYONE should marry WHATEVER the hell they want to marry!

sisters, brothers, multiple sisters and brothers, electric toothbrushes, fainting goats, whatever.

 

[werepossum]

Conservatives are actually protecting homosexuals from having the government meddle in their love lives. Sounds like smaller government to me!

Nope. To get the same level of protection afforded by marriage, gays must go before government several times, and inevitably there are gaps for some couples and indeed, some for all couples. Two single persons generally cannot adopt the same child, for instance. These multiple governmental transactions as well as disputes arising from the gaps make government bigger.

Those of you against gay marriage, why aren't you out there arguing against and trying to help stop divorce? The divorce rate has made a mockery of what you claim to hold marriage as, yet it seems only when homosexuals want equality regarding it do you mobilize. It's almost like it isn't a marriage issue at all so much as it is bigotry and what your preachers tell you are against.

For same-sex marriage to make logical sense, you just have to believe marriage is a ceremony where two people declare their love for one another in front of their friends and family.

I imagine either because they can't imagine themselves getting divorced any more than they can imagine themselves gay, or because they secretly think there's some chance they will want a divorce in the future and do not want done to themselves the same infringement they support for others.

Then why should marrying a sibling, or all of your siblings, be illegal?

I think to maximize individual liberty, government should start with the idea that marriage between any two or more individuals should be legal. From that standpoint, government should look at each possible coupling and see if there are any compelling societal needs which can only be satisfied by infringing that freedom.

Marrying children, for example. Children cannot give informed consent, so marrying a child is out. Same with the mentally incompetent. Same with animals and inanimate objects. Marrying a sibling is a little more tricky. Are there legitimate concerns about inbreeding that should make this illegal? Maybe - but that's a completely separate issue from same sex marriage. Marrying more than one partner is similar in that we have to look at issues not raised by hetero or homo marriage, with property and liability but especially with children. Doesn't mean they should or should not be legal, but it does mean they should be evaluated on their own merits.

I'm fine with government discriminating when it has a compelling reason; civilization necessarily requires surrendering some freedom in return for opportunity and/or security. I'm not fine with government discriminating just because we've always done it that way, or because it offends the majority, or because it doesn't affect many people.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you seriously this dense? A person has to create a will to pass on their material wealth to someone other than a family member that is regarded as closest kin. A marriage contract automatically makes the person associated in the marriage contract now the next closest kin. So that the person doesn't have to a will if they don't want to. Also, some people die before they get around to making a will out. A marriage contract again allows for a smooth transition of material wealth when that happens.

So in order to have some inherit your estate you either sign contract A or contract B. So what advantage is there to create contract B if contract A already covers it?

Oh so wrong. If the adopted child is not part of a will in the event both parents die, the estate assets by law transfers to the kin that is next closet to each parent. That isn't the adopted child that has no blood relationship in most societies.

WTF? What society are you talking about?

Serious again are you this dense? Just because there are other ways to get the contractual authorization needed, doesn't mean everyone has the foresight to do it and to do it for everything they may eventually need a contract drawn up for. That is the purpose of a marriage. It's a broad scope contract. It is one and done.

And beyond historical tradition why should the person you are banging be the one to make medical decisions for you and inherit your estate?

This is a serious question.

Bullshit, you have no idea about human history do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Are you going to go with the transphobic argument?

In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley

Also note it doesn't say it was marriage.

Or ah the Nero argument!

In 67, Nero ordered a young freedman, Sporus, to be castrated and then married him.[64][65][66][67] According to Dion Cassius, Sporus bore an uncanny resemblance to Sabina, and Nero even called him by his dead wife's name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

Rome changed when religious bigotry came about that was against state recognized same sex unions.

There are even caveman drawings depicting same sex couplings. Wow, you can't be this completely naive can you? Same sex couplings aren't even a human only thing. Many other animals on this planet do same sex couplings as well. It's not always the norm for many animals types, but it does happen.

Someone drew a picture of 2 dudes banging in a cave. Therefore gay marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

You are the one bringing the two unrelated issues together as if they are of equal value considerations.

They are not.

You can't invent the discussion then argue that they contradict. They contradict because they aren't related.

We are talking about equal rights for sexual minorities.

How the fuck are they not related and of equal value?

I mean other than the fact that one makes you uncomfortable?