Gay Marriage

[b.k. barunt]

Someone rang for a "homophobe"? I'm not afraid of them, but to be perfectly honest, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man gives me the creeps. Ew.


Honibaz

[jay_a2j]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

[captain.crazy]

Someone rang for a "homophobe"? I'm not afraid of them, but to be perfectly honest, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man gives me the creeps. Ew.


Honibaz

Now Now... be fair and let the states handle the issue of Marriage. That way, if you are creeped out by homosexuality, you can move to a state where gay marriage isn't allowed... If you like it, move to a state where it is allowed. Its not that difficult.

[thegreekdog]

Let me throw this one out there for the Sultan of Surreal...

If gay marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment (there's been no Supreme Court interpretation to that effect... but let's assume there has), if the right to have sexual intercourse with consenting adult males and females without government intervention is protected by the 14th Amendment (there has been a Supreme Court interpretation to that effect), then, riddle me this Sultan:

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

[Neoteny]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

That's ridiculous.

[john9blue]

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

I'm not Sultan, but it's because (as far as I know) homosexuality is a genetic trait. Bestiality and polygamy aren't.

[b.k. barunt]

How about bestiality and polygamy? Someone already asked the question and it went unanswered. How about necrophilia? If i want to stop off after work for a cold one, why should the government be able to stop me?

Damn. Fast posted.
A genetic trait? WTF?? They've been trying to prove that for years and just can't seem to replicate those damn experiments - you have something new?


Honibaz

[Neoteny]

Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

Necrophilia is a medical concern. Come on, now, guys. Let's think this through.

[thegreekdog]

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

I'm not Sultan, but it's because (as far as I know) homosexuality is a genetic trait. Bestiality and polygamy aren't.

That may be true, I honestly don't know. Homosexual sex is protected by the 14th Amendment because the Supreme Court determined that people have a right to privacy in their bedrooms. My question is that if the 14th Amendment extends to gay marriage, why doesn't it extent to sex with animals or sex with multiple people or marrying multiple people. On the polygamy issue, why isn't the right to marry multiple people (14th Amendment) combined with the right to practice one's religion (1st Amendment) equal the right to polygamy?

The answers to these and other questions is that the American public is not ready to make bestiality a right or polygamy a right because those things are "ewww, gross." Similarly, 50 years ago, the reason that the American people were not ready to make homosexual sex a right was because it was "ewww, gross." The moral of the story - If the 14th Amendment protects certain kinds of sexual intercourse and/or marriage, it should protect all kinds of sexual intercourse and/or marriage.

[b.k. barunt]

Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

Necrophilia is a medical concern. Come on, now, guys. Let's think this through.

Yeah, lets. Homosexuality is often harmful to humans. Besides the AIDs thing, taking it in the booty all the time has gotta hurt.
As to the necrophilia, i'd do a dead woman before i'd do a live man - call me a sentimental old fool.


Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

Hell, if we're on the "health" kick, having heterosexual sex can be harmful. That's not the point.

At some point in its jurisprudence, the US Supreme Court said that certain sexual acts were proteced under the Constitution... while certain others are not. Saying that homosexual sex is protected but polygamy, bestiality, et. al. are not is both illogical and inconsistent.

[captain.crazy]

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

I'm not Sultan, but it's because (as far as I know) homosexuality is a genetic trait. Bestiality and polygamy aren't.

That may be true, I honestly don't know. Homosexual sex is protected by the 14th Amendment because the Supreme Court determined that people have a right to privacy in their bedrooms. My question is that if the 14th Amendment extends to gay marriage, why doesn't it extent to sex with animals or sex with multiple people or marrying multiple people. On the polygamy issue, why isn't the right to marry multiple people (14th Amendment) combined with the right to practice one's religion (1st Amendment) equal the right to polygamy?

The answers to these and other questions is that the American public is not ready to make bestiality a right or polygamy a right because those things are "ewww, gross." Similarly, 50 years ago, the reason that the American people were not ready to make homosexual sex a right was because it was "ewww, gross." The moral of the story - If the 14th Amendment protects certain kinds of sexual intercourse and/or marriage, it should protect all kinds of sexual intercourse and/or marriage.

I think that's bull shit. Marriage is handled at the state level. Abortion should also be handled at the states level. Show me where in the constitution that Marriage is guaranteed as a civil liberty and I will eat my hat.

I am not saying that I am against it... but it is ewww gross... but I am saying that our Country aught not be homogenized (no pun intended) to the point that everything is the same all across the land. That shit drives people crazy. Let each state exercise its own sovereignty and let the Federal Government f*ck off and die!

[Neoteny]

Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

Necrophilia is a medical concern. Come on, now, guys. Let's think this through.

Yeah, lets. Homosexuality is often harmful to humans. Besides the AIDs thing, taking it in the booty all the time has gotta hurt.
As to the necrophilia, i'd do a dead woman before i'd do a live man - call me a sentimental old fool.


Honibaz

Hey, don't think your freakiness is any better than someone else's. Your preferences are your own. Necrofuck all you like, some guys like it in the ass. AIDS is not a direct result of homosexuality, it's a direct result from having sex with someone with HIV. Don't pretend it's anything different. Gay men are aware of the risks for the most part. Having sex with a dead woman sounds like a great way to get MRSA on your cock. Good luck with that.

[dewey316]

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

I'm not Sultan, but it's because (as far as I know) homosexuality is a genetic trait.

How about a study to back up a statement like that?

Also, what the heck does the 14th have in this argument? The only ruling I am aware of that has anything to do with homosexuality, is Lawrence V Texas. In that case, the majority's opinion specificly outlined that the ruling in that case DID NOT extend to marriage rights. I think this was already addressed in the other thread though.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Let me throw this one out there for the Sultan of Surreal...

If gay marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment (there's been no Supreme Court interpretation to that effect... but let's assume there has), if the right to have sexual intercourse with consenting adult males and females without government intervention is protected by the 14th Amendment (there has been a Supreme Court interpretation to that effect), then, riddle me this Sultan:

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

oh great this old canard

here's the deal. animals by their nature are not legally competent to give consent, much less enter into a legal contract. they are not even sentient. this is basically the same reasoning behind the conservative hand-wringing about "first gay marriage then PEDOPHILES WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE" which is equally absurd, because children lack the competence to enter into a legal contract that two grown adults do.

Polygamy. There is no violation of the equal protection clause in specifying that a certain contract can only be between 2 people, and plenty of contracts only allow for two participants by their very nature. While I personally don't see the problem with consenting adults practicing polygamy, it would require an actual redefinition of marriage and wouldn't be approached from a 14th amendment standpoint.

hope this helps

[b.k. barunt]

Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

Necrophilia is a medical concern. Come on, now, guys. Let's think this through.

Yeah, lets. Homosexuality is often harmful to humans. Besides the AIDs thing, taking it in the booty all the time has gotta hurt.
As to the necrophilia, i'd do a dead woman before i'd do a live man - call me a sentimental old fool.


Honibaz

Hey, don't think your freakiness is any better than someone else's. Your preferences are your own. Necrofuck all you like, some guys like it in the ass. AIDS is not a direct result of homosexuality, it's a direct result from having sex with someone with HIV. Don't pretend it's anything different. Gay men are aware of the risks for the most part. Having sex with a dead woman sounds like a great way to get MRSA on your cock. Good luck with that.

Well thankfully i haven't had to make that choice, but if it came to that, i'd have to also risk the MRSA.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I think that's bull shit. Marriage is handled at the state level. Abortion should also be handled at the states level. Show me where in the constitution that Marriage is guaranteed as a civil liberty and I will eat my hat.

The supreme court seems to think the constitution guarantees marriage. From the Loving V. Virginia majority opinion:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Also your "eewwww gross" point, while a fascinating insight to your (doubtlessly many) insecurities, is not exactly a very cogent legal argument as such

[Neoteny]

[quote="b.k. barunt]Well thankfully i haven't had to make that choice, but if it came to that, i'd have to also risk the MRSA.[/quote]

chuckle chuckle

[b.k. barunt]

Ok, how about if i'm diagnosed as having a viable multiple personality disorder - can i marry myself? Whythehell not?


Honibaz

[john9blue]

Ok, how about if i'm diagnosed as having a viable multiple personality disorder - can i marry myself? Whythehell not?


Honibaz

Cuz that just doesn't... it's not... you can't... didn't you ever take biology?

[SultanOfSurreal]

Ok, how about if i'm diagnosed as having a viable multiple personality disorder - can i marry myself? Whythehell not?

the long answer is that you can't enter into a legal contract with yourself. the short answer is shut uuuuuuup

[john9blue]

Ok, how about if i'm diagnosed as having a viable multiple personality disorder - can i marry myself? Whythehell not?

the long answer is that you can't enter into a legal contract with yourself. the short answer is shut uuuuuuup

The really short answer is...

[thegreekdog]

Let me throw this one out there for the Sultan of Surreal...

If gay marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment (there's been no Supreme Court interpretation to that effect... but let's assume there has), if the right to have sexual intercourse with consenting adult males and females without government intervention is protected by the 14th Amendment (there has been a Supreme Court interpretation to that effect), then, riddle me this Sultan:

Why isn't bestiality protected by the 14th Amendment? Why isn't polygamy protected by the 14th Amendment (and the 1st amendment for that matter)?

oh great this old canard

here's the deal. animals by their nature are not legally competent to give consent, much less enter into a legal contract. they are not even sentient. this is basically the same reasoning behind the conservative hand-wringing about "first gay marriage then PEDOPHILES WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE" which is equally absurd, because children lack the competence to enter into a legal contract that two grown adults do.

Polygamy. There is no violation of the equal protection clause in specifying that a certain contract can only be between 2 people, and plenty of contracts only allow for two participants by their very nature. While I personally don't see the problem with consenting adults practicing polygamy, it would require an actual redefinition of marriage and wouldn't be approached from a 14th amendment standpoint.

hope this helps

Hmm... well, first of all, you misunderstand my motivations and you mislabel me as a conservative. On social issues, I'm as liberal as one gets. As long as you're not hurting someone else, do whatever the hell you want.

Second, there is nothing in the actual language of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing any of the rights to marriage, the rights to enter into contracts, or any of the other things that the Supreme Court has, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, deemed to be rights under the 14th Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Based entirely on Supreme Court precedent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment, there are certain rights, such as those enumerated in Lawrence v. Texas, that are covered by the 14th Amendment. It is illogical, unreasonable, and inconsistent not to extend the 14th Amendment to polygamy when the Supreme Court has extended the 14th Amendment to the right to marriage. Similarly, it is illogical, unreasonable, and inconsistent not to extend the 14th Amendment to bestiality when the Supreme Court has extended the 14th Amendment to the right to anal sex between consenting males.

Finally, I don't know what a "canard" is, but I'm not using these propositions as an argument against the right to gay marriage. I'm saying, if one thinks there is a right to gay marriage somewhere in the Constitution, why is there not a right to polygamy in the Constitution? If you're against polygamy being a right, you're no better than someone who is against homosexual marriage being a right.

[b.k. barunt]

Ok, how about if i'm diagnosed as having a viable multiple personality disorder - can i marry myself? Whythehell not?

the long answer is that you can't enter into a legal contract with yourself. the short answer is shut uuuuuuup

The really short answer is...

Well, both of you are obviously schizophobic.
Oh, and a canard is a duck.


Honibaz

[Neoteny]

Also, a wing.