Virginia Marriage Ballot Issue

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Yes, they do. Polygamy reinforces the notion that men are superior to women (which is explicitly illegal under the Constitution & who knows how many lower level laws), and incestuous couples produce genetically unhealthy offspring (this is a public health issue).

The argument that legalizing gay marriage is analagous to legalizing pedophilia, or polygamy, or incest, or bestiality, or whatever, is tired, and thoroughly false.

This is not about having children right? If it is that is easily defeated because gays cannot have children and procreate. If 10 women and 1 man agree and consent to all getting married, how is it any of your business what there reason is for it? No one is forcing 10 women to marry one man. Obviously I'm playing the devils advocate here.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte
those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

And I think the bigot label is overused. You obviously do not understand why someone would vote against gay marriage, as most of us do not understand why someone would vote for gay marriage. If I was voting against gay marriage because I hate gays then yes it would make me a bigot, but that is not my reason for voting against it (although it did not come up in my state, I would vote against it if it did).

I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

I absolutely understand why people would vote against gays being allowed to marry.

1. the bible tells them so
2. they want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage
3. they dont want Teh Ghey to spread
4. Some sort or "Nature" argument

all of the above = irrational. irrational fear breeds bigoted behavior.

as for polygamy and or incest. You and I had this discussion before, and you know why I would vote against it. The State cannot reasonably protect a minor, or a younger brother or sister from possible statutory rape, or coercion. These are things that we expect the State (any State) to enforce against.

so tell me, what are your personal reasons against gay marriage?

I'd say thats pretty irrational. If I said "The state cannot reasonably protect a young boy from being molested by his adopted gay parents" then you would label me a bigot, how is that statement any different when talking about incest, or even straight couples for that matter. You also know why I would vote against gay marriage, if you believe my views to be irrational then your reasons for voting against polygamy and incest would be just as irrational.

A view that is irrational to you might be completely rational to someone else. You calling them a bigot simply because you deem their view irrational makes you close minded and ignorant. I do not think that you are either, but those of you that throw out the "bigot" card any chance you get really make me wonder...

so now upholding state statutory rape laws is irrational??

your line of thinking flies against a whole slew of state laws.

instead of looking at this from the perspective of the people, look at this from the perspective of the State. Then you will begin to understand why such unions are not allowed.

and no I do forget why you are against gay marriage. I told you why I was against incest and polygamy, its only fair, it's your turn!!!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte
those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

And I think the bigot label is overused. You obviously do not understand why someone would vote against gay marriage, as most of us do not understand why someone would vote for gay marriage. If I was voting against gay marriage because I hate gays then yes it would make me a bigot, but that is not my reason for voting against it (although it did not come up in my state, I would vote against it if it did).

I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

I absolutely understand why people would vote against gays being allowed to marry.

1. the bible tells them so
2. they want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage
3. they dont want Teh Ghey to spread
4. Some sort or "Nature" argument

all of the above = irrational. irrational fear breeds bigoted behavior.

as for polygamy and or incest. You and I had this discussion before, and you know why I would vote against it. The State cannot reasonably protect a minor, or a younger brother or sister from possible statutory rape, or coercion. These are things that we expect the State (any State) to enforce against.

so tell me, what are your personal reasons against gay marriage?

I'd say thats pretty irrational. If I said "The state cannot reasonably protect a young boy from being molested by his adopted gay parents" then you would label me a bigot, how is that statement any different when talking about incest, or even straight couples for that matter. You also know why I would vote against gay marriage, if you believe my views to be irrational then your reasons for voting against polygamy and incest would be just as irrational.

A view that is irrational to you might be completely rational to someone else. You calling them a bigot simply because you deem their view irrational makes you close minded and ignorant. I do not think that you are either, but those of you that throw out the "bigot" card any chance you get really make me wonder...

so now upholding state statutory rape laws is irrational??

your line of thinking flies against a whole slew of state laws.

instead of looking at this from the perspective of the people, look at this from the perspective of the State. Then you will begin to understand why such unions are not allowed.

and no I do forget why you are against gay marriage. I told you why I was against incest and polygamy, its only fair, it's your turn!!!

I am against gay marriage for several reasons, sanctity of marriage and nature being the main ones. Sanctity of marriage - if you let anyone marry anyone/anything and as many of them as you like certainly does devalue marriage, just like letting a high school dropout into Harvard devalues a degree from Harvard (I was not equating the two, just throwing out an example). Nature - well, obviously they can't have kids. I keep hearing that marriage isn't about having kids, but that siblings shouldn't marry because they would have deformed children?? I thought it wasn't about having kids?

I wasn't saying that the statutory rape law is irrational, I was saying that being against a brother and sister getting married because you are worried about statutory rape is irrational. Well, just as rational/irrational as believe gays are more prone to molesting young boys.

Edit - you may not agree with my reasons against gay marriage just like I do not agree with your reasons for it, that does not make either of us a bigot. None of my reasons against gay marriage have anything to do with outlawing homosexuality, I don't really care what people do behind closed doors.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm


I'm talking about real rights for real people. You know - people that actually exist in the real world. As opposed to people that only exist in your stupid fantasy arguments against same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is pretty clear that laws against polygamy are not a violation of equality, in the sense that all heterosexuals get to marry the same number of people, i.e., one spouse. If there was a group of people that were allowed to marry up to ten spouses, and a group that only got to marry one spouse, then you would have a violation of principles of equality.

Ok, so, those that practice incest and polygamy aren't "real people" to you, and I'm the bigot, lol. Also, there is no law against being gay, all gays have the same marriage rights as straight people. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. The problem comes in because they do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as a polygamist does not want to marry just one person of the opposite sex.

Once again, I can understand why people are for gay marriage even though I do not agree with them, but you using the "equal rights for all" argument is not being honest.

Part of your problem is you seem to think that arguments in favor of equality mean everyone gets to do anything they want in the name of equality. In fact, it is not unreasonable to place limits on the circumstances where an individual may marry - when there are reasonable grounds to do so. It would be totally inappropriate to allow 10 year olds to marry on grounds of equality. We prevent young people from marrying, because as a society we consider minors are not capable of giving informed consent. Doing so is not incompatible with the general principle that citizens should be treated equally before the law.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Incest creates a much larger chance of a child being born with a birth defect therefore it DOES hurt somebody.

I can't think up a rational argument against polygamy.

What does this have to do with having children, a gay couple cannot even have a child.

It has to do with having kids because incest endangers the children of couples who practice incest.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm


I'm talking about real rights for real people. You know - people that actually exist in the real world. As opposed to people that only exist in your stupid fantasy arguments against same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is pretty clear that laws against polygamy are not a violation of equality, in the sense that all heterosexuals get to marry the same number of people, i.e., one spouse. If there was a group of people that were allowed to marry up to ten spouses, and a group that only got to marry one spouse, then you would have a violation of principles of equality.

Ok, so, those that practice incest and polygamy aren't "real people" to you, and I'm the bigot, lol. Also, there is no law against being gay, all gays have the same marriage rights as straight people. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. The problem comes in because they do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as a polygamist does not want to marry just one person of the opposite sex.

Once again, I can understand why people are for gay marriage even though I do not agree with them, but you using the "equal rights for all" argument is not being honest.

Part of your problem is you seem to think that arguments in favor of equality mean everyone gets to do anything they want in the name of equality. In fact, it is not unreasonable to place limits on the circumstances where an individual may marry - when there are reasonable grounds to do so. It would be totally inappropriate to allow 10 year olds to marry on grounds of equality. We prevent young people from marrying, because as a society we consider minors are not capable of giving informed consent. Doing so is not incompatible with the general principle that citizens should be treated equally before the law.

I didn't bring up that argument for that exact reason. I think you hit on the real reason that most people disagree on gay marriage, it has nothing to do with equality, its all about where to draw the line and set the standards for marriage. Just because you and I disagree on where to draw the line does not make either of us a bigot.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Incest creates a much larger chance of a child being born with a birth defect therefore it DOES hurt somebody.

I can't think up a rational argument against polygamy.

What does this have to do with having children, a gay couple cannot even have a child.

It has to do with having kids because incest endangers the children of couples who practice incest.

Who said that they are going to have kids? They can adopt just like gay people could right?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: JD50
I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

Incest creates a much larger chance of a child being born with a birth defect therefore it DOES hurt somebody.

I can't think up a rational argument against polygamy.

What does this have to do with having children, a gay couple cannot even have a child.

It has to do with having kids because incest endangers the children of couples who practice incest.

Who said that they are going to have kids? They can adopt just like gay people could right?

We would have to make a law banning them from having kids.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: JD50

I am against gay marriage for several reasons, sanctity of marriage and nature being the main ones. Sanctity of marriage -

Again, you simply don't get it: 'rites' are not the same thing as 'rights'. If you don't want to let gays get married in your Church, that's up to you. However, our Constitution specifically prohibits legislating religious beliefs.

Originally posted by: JD50
Nature - well, obviously they can't have kids. I keep hearing that marriage isn't about having kids, but that siblings shouldn't marry because they would have deformed children?? I thought it wasn't about having kids?

Neither can thousands of infertile couples. Last I checked there are still a few kids waiting for adoption.
Marriage isn't about having kids. The argument that incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to get married hinges on their potential for having unhealthy children. It's not a kids issue, it's a public health issue.

Originally posted by: JD50
Edit - you may not agree with my reasons against gay marriage just like I do not agree with your reasons for it, that does not make either of us a bigot.

If you can't make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on your religious or moral beliefs, you are imposing your views on others who do not share them. That makes you a religious bigot.

Again, make an argument against gay marriage that isn't 'values based'. You could easily make such an argument on purely economic grounds. That would make you selfish, but not a bigot.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm


I'm talking about real rights for real people. You know - people that actually exist in the real world. As opposed to people that only exist in your stupid fantasy arguments against same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is pretty clear that laws against polygamy are not a violation of equality, in the sense that all heterosexuals get to marry the same number of people, i.e., one spouse. If there was a group of people that were allowed to marry up to ten spouses, and a group that only got to marry one spouse, then you would have a violation of principles of equality.

Ok, so, those that practice incest and polygamy aren't "real people" to you, and I'm the bigot, lol. Also, there is no law against being gay, all gays have the same marriage rights as straight people. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. The problem comes in because they do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as a polygamist does not want to marry just one person of the opposite sex.

Once again, I can understand why people are for gay marriage even though I do not agree with them, but you using the "equal rights for all" argument is not being honest.

Actually, it is your comments on equality that are bogus Are you suggesting we should allow 5 year olds to marry in the name of equality? My own view is that it is quite reasonable to place limits on when an individual may marry, if the limits make sense. It makes sense to deny a 5 year old the right to marry, because a 5 year old can't possibly understand the ramifications of the act. You can make sane limits on who can marry - people older than e.g., 17 or 18 years old, people who aren't closely genetically related (siblings, parent/ child) - and still support the general principle of equal treatment for all citizens.

People wanting incestous marriage are "not real people" BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST! Prove me wrong - give a link to a *single* case of a brother/ sister or father/daughter couple who demand the right to marry. I've never heard of such a scenario. The reason people like you raise such bogus hypothetical scenarios is because you want to gross people out with the topic of incest. As for marriages between cousins, that is not illegal in all areas, in fact it is legal in many jurisdictions in the USA.

As for polygamous marriages - feel free to articulate the arguments. I don't have a position on the topic. I would point out that all people have the same opportunity to marry just one person. So outlawing polygamy doesn't violate principles of equality.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte
those that vote against gays being able to marry are exhibiting an irrational fear. It displays a lack of tolerance for people, different people.

I think the bigot label is justified.

And I think the bigot label is overused. You obviously do not understand why someone would vote against gay marriage, as most of us do not understand why someone would vote for gay marriage. If I was voting against gay marriage because I hate gays then yes it would make me a bigot, but that is not my reason for voting against it (although it did not come up in my state, I would vote against it if it did).

I am assuming that you would vote for polygamy and the marriage of siblings if it came up? It doesn't hurt anybody right?

I absolutely understand why people would vote against gays being allowed to marry.

1. the bible tells them so
2. they want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage
3. they dont want Teh Ghey to spread
4. Some sort or "Nature" argument

all of the above = irrational. irrational fear breeds bigoted behavior.

as for polygamy and or incest. You and I had this discussion before, and you know why I would vote against it. The State cannot reasonably protect a minor, or a younger brother or sister from possible statutory rape, or coercion. These are things that we expect the State (any State) to enforce against.

so tell me, what are your personal reasons against gay marriage?

I'd say thats pretty irrational. If I said "The state cannot reasonably protect a young boy from being molested by his adopted gay parents" then you would label me a bigot, how is that statement any different when talking about incest, or even straight couples for that matter. You also know why I would vote against gay marriage, if you believe my views to be irrational then your reasons for voting against polygamy and incest would be just as irrational.

A view that is irrational to you might be completely rational to someone else. You calling them a bigot simply because you deem their view irrational makes you close minded and ignorant. I do not think that you are either, but those of you that throw out the "bigot" card any chance you get really make me wonder...

so now upholding state statutory rape laws is irrational??

your line of thinking flies against a whole slew of state laws.

instead of looking at this from the perspective of the people, look at this from the perspective of the State. Then you will begin to understand why such unions are not allowed.

and no I do forget why you are against gay marriage. I told you why I was against incest and polygamy, its only fair, it's your turn!!!

I am against gay marriage for several reasons, sanctity of marriage and nature being the main ones. Sanctity of marriage - if you let anyone marry anyone/anything and as many of them as you like certainly does devalue marriage, just like letting a high school dropout into Harvard devalues a degree from Harvard (I was not equating the two, just throwing out an example). Nature - well, obviously they can't have kids. I keep hearing that marriage isn't about having kids, but that siblings shouldn't marry because they would have deformed children?? I thought it wasn't about having kids?

I wasn't saying that the statutory rape law is irrational, I was saying that being against a brother and sister getting married because you are worried about statutory rape is irrational. Well, just as rational/irrational as believe gays are more prone to molesting young boys.

Edit - you may not agree with my reasons against gay marriage just like I do not agree with your reasons for it, that does not make either of us a bigot. None of my reasons against gay marriage have anything to do with outlawing homosexuality, I don't really care what people do behind closed doors.

1.your Harvard example is flawed. A high school dropout would STILL have to QUALIFY in order to get into Harvard.

2. There are plenty of examples where homosexual behavior is exhibited in nature.

just my .02

as for States rationale for outlawing incestuous marriage and poligamy, it has to do with limiting the amount of liability exposure. In the event of a poligamist marriage, history has shown that poligamy and incest are closely tied (no pun intended) and that there is a propensity for statutory rape, and coercion in these relationships. If a state were to ratify a marriage knowing that these circumstances can possibly exist then it opens itself up to a world of liability. ALSO, since the State is expected to protect its citizens (minors included) from such circumstances it cannot knowingly and willfully ratify such unions where this threat exists.

which is different than the example given where a couple (gay or not) adopt a child because it is through the adoption process where the states interests are protected (through the protection of the interests of the adopted child.) Meaning, it is the duty of the social department of that State to do it's due dilligence in determining that a couple (gay or not) is fit for adoption. No such 'due dilligence' exists for ratifying a marriage, so the State has to set liabilty limits where it can. Poligamy and Incest get left out in the cold.

my spelling sucks, deal with it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: JD50

I am against gay marriage for several reasons, sanctity of marriage and nature being the main ones. Sanctity of marriage -

Again, you simply don't get it: 'rites' are not the same thing as 'rights'. If you don't want to let gays get married in your Church, that's up to you. However, our Constitution specifically prohibits legislating religious beliefs.

Originally posted by: JD50
Nature - well, obviously they can't have kids. I keep hearing that marriage isn't about having kids, but that siblings shouldn't marry because they would have deformed children?? I thought it wasn't about having kids?

Neither can thousands of infertile couples. Last I checked there are still a few kids waiting for adoption.
Marriage isn't about having kids. The argument that incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to get married hinges on their potential for having unhealthy children. It's not a kids issue, it's a public health issue.

Originally posted by: JD50
Edit - you may not agree with my reasons against gay marriage just like I do not agree with your reasons for it, that does not make either of us a bigot.

If you can't make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on your religious or moral beliefs, you are imposing your views on others who do not share them. That makes you a religious bigot.

Again, make an argument against gay marriage that isn't 'values based'. You could easily make such an argument on purely economic grounds. That would make you selfish, but not a bigot.

I never once mentioned religious reasons, yet somehow you still manage to call me a "religious bigot". And what in the world is this "rites" "rights" stuff you come up with? You say that marriage isn't about having kids then in the same paragraph you say that incestous couples shouldn't get married because they could have unhealthy children?

Aidenjm and orebyte have done a great job dropping the insults and debating the topic, unfortunately it looks like you are still stuck down at that level. I really enjoy the rare debates that go on here that do not involve insults, its people like you that turn people off from this board. Maybe you feel like a better person when you insult people, maybe it helps you reinforce your own views of being "open minded" and "tolerant" when you insult people that don't agree with you, I'm not really sure. You are completely intolerant of people that disagree with you, which is exhibited with your constant calls of bigotry, ignorance to those that may have been raised differently and have different values from your own.

Like I said, I enjoy debating people with differing opinions, but I will not debate people that cannot rise above childish insults, I have more respect for myself than that.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: JD50
Like I said, I enjoy debating people with differing opinions.

I'm glad you find people here that suffer fools more gladly than I.

When you invoke "sanctity of marriage", you're invoking religion - because marriage in a legalistic sense is plastic & can be redefined (like all of our laws) - no law is sanctimonious. See miscegenation. Since you're obviously not using marriage in a legal sense, you must be using it in a religion sense.

I don't know how else I can get you to understand this, since using the catchy 'rites' vs. 'rights' phrase flew right over your head, and you can't seem to get it through your thick frontal bone that children do not equal public health issues.

I've already said if you can come up with an argument against gay marriage that doesn't invoke appeals to a religiously-derived notion of sanctity of marriage, I will evaluate it with an open mind. You have not done so, probably because you don't even understand the foundation of your own position. All you can do is whine about me calling you a bigot, and hypocritically mealy-mouth ad hominems at me.