Drawing a Line In the Sand

Adoption, surrogate mothers, and in vitro fertilization wouldnt involve my dog. Just like when a gay couple gets a child through Adoption, surrogate mothers, and in vitro fertilization, at most only one is biologically related to the child and the other, except for the case of adoption, has no relation to the child and has no obligation to support the child, married or not.

 

___Okay.___

 

Yes he is. I should have said
My brother can, soooooo whats your point?
instead of just
My brother can?

 

Okay. Got it.

 

Ah, you didnt have one. Just a need to respond.

 

Stick with the topic.

 

Oh thats (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rich! The competency of my brother brought up by you is somehow relevant, and me asking what the (*)(*)(*)(*) that has to do with the topic, is off topic.

 

Amen to that!

Yep. People 'go there' and don't even see their own irrational animus. Promotion of slippery-slope discussions are typically self-serving and originate from those with very closed minds.

That is the truth.

 

__Problem?__

 

of course. assuming he's reached the age of majority

 

Leading us in a big pointless circle back to where we began.

 

the difference being, your brother can consent, your dog can't.


put down the shovel, you're up to your neck.

 

Just cant remove your focus from the irrelevancy, can you.

Adoption, surrogate mothers, and in vitro fertilization would allow my BROTHER and I to have children. Not sure what you think is so special about gays.

 

Thats not what your beloved Federal Court decisions held. Thats not what they have in the 6 states with gay marriage.

 

In any of those 6 states, are you aware of any concerted effort to make incest legal?

 

really? those decisions say ONLY homosexuals should be allowed to marry?

are any other groups making legal challenges? incestual couples? polygamist couples?



put down the shovel, it's over your head now.

 

Constitutional rights arent allocated based upon who makes a concerted effort to gain them.

 

Nice theory, be great if it worked.

 

Where the right of same-sex couples to enjoy equal recognition of their marriages exists, it very much depended on their concerted effort to persuade the court or legislative bodies to adopt their position. In the case of the courts, their rulings apply to the case before them, and may by extension apply to people who are similarly situated.

One more time, since you still don't seem to get it: People wishing to have multiple spouses legally recognized are not similarly situated to a couple who are only seeking to marry each other. Likewise, it is debatable whether people who already have a familial relationship are similar situated to unrelated persons for whom legal marriage establishes their kinship.

The notion that a court decision recognizing the marriage rights of same-sex couples somehow created special rights just for gay people is ludicrous. The courts are not in the business of legislating; they're limited to the facts of the case before them. It's therefore ridiculous to demand that a court dealing with the case of unrelated persons of the same sex should have issued a ruling requiring the recognition of polygamous marriages.

It just doesn't work that way, and you know it.

As for the actions of legislatures, it's equally ridiculous to demand that their failure to broaden the legal recognition of marriage to polygamous or incestuous couples somehow created special rights for gay people.

For starters, it applies to any pair of unrelated, unmarried, competent adults of the same sex - not just gay people. To pretend that the law somehow favors only gay couples is dishonest. The only argument one might make is that unrelated, unmarried, competent adults who wish to marry are treated 'special' in comparison to other types of couples - just as the law has always treated them with the exception of the gender restriction.

By your own argument, if this is unfair to polygamous, incestuous, bestial, etc. couples because they still lack recognition, then it has been equally so while the gender restriction was still in place - and not something created by removing the gender restriction. This serves to illustrate just how disingenuous your argument is. I don't think anyone here believes that you really want polygamous, etc. marriages recognized. You're bringing them up merely because you can't make a case against same-sex couples marrying based on anything about their actual situation, so you have to introduce these other red herrings to throw people off.

 

The most recent california case only held that denying homosexuals marriage was a denial of constitutional rights. Using the theory that marriage was limited to heterosexuals, motivated by an animus towards homosexuals, as opposed to the heterosexuals potential of procreation. Without a showing of animus towards siblings, the prohibition against brothers marrying wouldnt be unconstitutional using their theory.

 

False framing. Showing the role of animus in the law's adoption was merely informative that the law's purpose was to unduly discriminate against the class of people petitioning for relief. It is not the sole basis for determining whether or not a law is unconsitutional, but one factor of many. A very (*)(*)(*)(*)ing factor one might argue, but not the only one. It doesn't even begin to rise to the level of being a "theory" that can be applied to every other class of people seeking marriage rights.

Might incestuous couples be able to argue that the sole purpose of the law preventing their marriages from legal recognition is based on animus? Maybe, maybe not - and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not same-sex couples' marriages are recognized.

You're acting as if the issue of animus is something new in evaluating a law's constitutionality, as if it's use in the case brought by same-sex couples somehow determines the fate of any other group seeking marriage recognition. It's nothing new, and cases brought by same-sex couples don't necessarily set a precedent that other groups can latch onto, since they lack similar situation. They're going to have to prove the merits of their individual cases with respect to the law.

You can stop with "the sky is falling!" act. It's not credible.

 

I should have said constitutional rights SHOULDNT BE allocated based upon who makes a concerted effort to gain them. And you are right in this case they were. Marriage isnt extended to "same-sex" couples, and instead only to GLBT couples. Siblings arent similiarly situated because they have not been excluded because of animus towards siblings. Platonic marriages arent annuled because of animus towards people in platonic relationships. The divorced mother and widowed grandmother down the street raising the family together for 10 years arent excluded from marriage because of animus towards intergenerational families. Only the gays have been situated, excluded from marriage for 235 years of our nations history because of animus towards homosexuals. Which of course, all is absurd.
Marriage hasnt been limited to heterosexual couples for thousands of years of human civilization because of animus towards homosexuals. ITS THE BIOLOGY OF PROCREATION. This judicial fiction that marriage has no relation to procreation is just that, a fiction.

 

The judicial opinion is that not every marriage must have a relation to procreation and if certain couples can enter marriages that have no relation to procreation then there is no compelling interest in denying the contract to other similarly situated couples especially when the underlying reason is to demonstrate and maintain animus to a politically unpopular group.

 

Nonsense.

And on and on and on. Its not about "same-sex marriage". It is "gay marriage". Only gays are similiarly situated.