QUESTION: Same-Sex compared to Same-blood marriage

No because it doesn't.

 

You're rationalizing rather than making a cogent and objective observation concerning the fall out of not having specific restrictions on marriage.

This can be solved quite easily by you. Give a reason why same sex unions should not be restricted that can't be applied to consanguineous marital relationships.

 

And you say I can't read....

http://www.politicalforum.com/4735343-post47.html

 

Because same sex couples have been proven in discovery and "as a class" to be similarly situated to opposite couples. Their relationships bring the participants the same degree of benefit and offer the rest of us the same degree of potential provable harm.

The same can not be said of incestuous couples "as a class". If they want the restrictions lifted they will have to answer to their own specific objections.

Recognition of one does not automatically lead to another as I've been saying all along.

That said I believe that anyone should be entitled to have their day in court. Their first hurdle is to provide a compelling reason for their relationships to be made legal rather than illegal.

 

Why don't you give a reason why same sex couples should be restricted that has any direct connection to consanguineous marital relationships beyond concepts of personal morality and appeals to tradition?

 

What does that even mean? "Proven in discovery?" Are you attempting to refer to some legal happening? Please cite this event. And "similarly situated"--what does that mean? That they are two different couples that want the same thing? What specifically are you saying?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, hoping that this "class" thing is something that will prove unique to gay couples, but you're going to have to make a more specific claim.

Again--what exactly are you saying?

Is "their" gay couples, and "the rest of us" everybody else?

The objections are the same objections--it's just people feel stronger about incest than they do about homosexuality because everyone has a gay uncle, but few have a daddy-lover.

The legal arguments will absolutely--there is no distinction at all. That's why I'm asking you to consider the two issues jointly so that you can see that the possible reality of same-sex marriage leads to justifying the validity of incestuous marriage.

Their fundamental right to marry! The 14th amendment, the 5th amendment--the SAME things the gay-marriage proponents claim gives them rights

 

Prop 8 although Walker's ruling implied it was hardly necessary as the proposition couldn't even
survive a rational basis test.

It's the legal standard by which classes are compared when one class has access to a contract or service and the other doesn't

That's not enough, the group that seeks to satisfy similar situation must prove that they are substantially similarly situated to another group that has access to a contract or service which they are denied and which can, in practice, be applied to them in exactly the same way it can to the presently satisfying class.

For instance polygamous couples don't satisfy, not because they are naughty polygamists but because the contract, as it stands, simply cannot be applied across a group in the same manner it can be a couple regardless of that couple's gender make up. The fundamental nature of the contract would need to be changed in order to suit their needs. Gay or straight, it can stay the same.

What I just said. Are you really saying the concept of similar situation is new to you?

Refer to Prop 8 or Romer V Evans (or even the overturning of prop 22). The final determination is yet to be reached if your talking full Federal recognition but it's well on the way.

No, they are part of society it's just that up till now society has not seen fit to consider their existence for the purpose of family law. They are perennial "legal children" for goodness sake! They only need to be identified as a class for what they are denied, not what they are afforded.

Pure opinion and not supported by any attempt at rationale of comparison.

And I'm saying that marriage leads to justifying the validity of incestuous marriage if you want to follow that line of thinking.

Your kind of making my point for me.

 

Yes it does...You were lamenting that it wasn't fair that a heterosexual had women to marry other than his daughter. That is tacitly supporting incest.

 

I wasn't "lamenting" or tacitly supporting anything. I was pointing out that, as a heterosexual, he has choices that a homosexual doesn't. Neither can marry their offspring (because it's illegal) but beyond that, only one retains the "option" of marrying someone of the appropriate sexual orientation.

 

Ok then but...so what?

 

Marriage is not between humans and animals. That's just a slippery slope the anti gay marriage crowd pull out of their hat when they have no other argument.

 

Isn't that what you are doing by seeking gay people the right to marry?

 

There's no reason why a homosexual shouldn't be able to marry another homosexual.

 

I support any relationship formed by consenting adults. If they want to call it marriage, let them, that's their decision and it should not concern anyone but them.

 

Why cant anyone marry anyone?

 

That's a very interesting question. If they really want to and if they freely consent I can't see a reason.

What I can't see is how anyone can blame gay people for them reaching that conclusion as if it's all gay people's fault.

 

LOL I agree.

 

Not unlike asking if people who support allowing blacks or women to become a judge or surgeon support allowing a mother to operate on her son or a daughter to judge a case in which her father is a defendant.

Well, as you've already mentioned, it's not uncommon for the law to discriminate. The potential influence (conscious and otherwise) of siblings or parents over a child is a real concern in establishing consent and the laws of inheritance can become seriously entangled already with parent child inheritance and spousal inheritance, more so if those lines crossed. Our constitution does not prohibit discrimination or restricting access to legal institutions to address these or other concerns. It's not like we were denying a couple legal rights because of their race, religion, or sex. Even so, the law does allow some consanguineous marriage and I'd personally be willing to hear your arguments if you feel strongly enough that some further relaxation of existing laws should occur. What argument are you asking us to support?

 

Anyone can marry anyone it's just that a marriage license is civilly limited to a man and woman because society holds male/female coupling as most contributory.

 

What "society holds" is no basis to infringe on contracts where it does not concern them, which in this case it doesn't.

 

The civil marriage contract is between a man and a woman. Trying to change that is an infringement.

 

So the civil marriage contract is unethical.

An infringement on what? You realize the law changes all the time?

 

How is it unethical?

There is no need to change the law with regard to civil marriage licenses.

 

Because it is preventing a private contract that is entirely valid, that of civil union, to be recognized and to be recognized no differently to any other civil union.

Yes there is where it discriminates. In my opinion, the state should not regulate the concept of marriage in any way.

 

Anyone can create a civil union which is a legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage.

The State does not regulate marriage, it grants marriage licenses to men and women who want to commit to each other. You can marry whomever you want but, if it is someone of the same sex, the State will not grant a marriage license because you wouldn't qualify.

An analogy is say.......a contractor's license. One must qualify according to State standards otherwise, no license. The unqualified have no 'right' to get a license without specific qualifications.