Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

I don't make exceptions for them. I acknowledge they're gaming the system as well. But the difference is that we can't tell if they're capable of procreation without a very invasive, costly, inefficient and ultimately ineffective process. A process which if we engaged in would make providing subsidies too costly.

But we don't need to do that with homosexuals. We know, unequivocally, that homosexuals cannot have a child within the confines of their marriage. They must go outside of their marriage to accomplish that. Therefore there's ZERO reason for us to provide them benefits because of their marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

So preserving marriage for children is important, but only when it is cheap. Ok.

Tests for sterility are not that expensive. A woman who has had her ovaries removed due to cancer obviously can't have children. You are making exceptions for these people. The exceptions have nothing to do with procreation.

 

Sounds good to me. I'm not the one who is running from a vote.

I say let's take a vote and see how accurate your numbers truly are.

People act far different in a voting booth when they're alone than they do on the phone when they might have someone they're talking to think they're a bigot.

 

So you are in favor of the judicial branch as long as they rule in ways you personally agree with. I doubt you'd have a huge problem with their rulings if they were in favor of your own opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

So start a movement for a constitutional amendment...that would overrule the judges right? If you really are part of a massive majority, then this should not be a problem.

I am not seeing a huge push for such an amendment at the moment.

 

Two states voted for it in 2012. More will follow. You're losing.

 

That's correct. ANYTIME society subsidizes something it is because they are attempting to either inhibit or promote a behavior. The reason they do so is because the benefit of promoting that behavior is worth more to society than society is paying into the system.

If society has to pay too much to determine who does or does not qualify it could easily make the subsidies too expensive to justify society paying for it.

But you can't know that without invasive medical tests.

Furthermore to claim that it's not expensive is absurd. Democrats claim a one time $5 or $10 charge for an ID is too expensive. And you claim that a $100 (at least) medical visit to a doctors office every month or so isn't too expensive? Not to mention this STILL doesn't resolve the issue.

Let's say I want the benefits from getting married, I pay for the fertility test and now we get married but I have no intention of having a child. You're still going to have a large amount of people gaming the system and the cost associated with finding out who is and who is not fertile would make the entire process not feasible.

So you'd increase costs while not really accomplishing anything.

- - - Updated - - -

And how many states voted against it?

Like I said. Let's take a vote and decide it once and for all.

 

None of this is relevant. If procreation was a requirement of marriage you'd have an argument. It's not, which is why you keep losing in court after court.

Can't ban one couple because they can't procreate but allow another who also can't procreate. That is Violation of equal protection and due process

 

I don't have a problem with judicial activism. That's fine with me. I'm just pointing out that you people don't have a majority like you want to claim you do. If you did, you wouldn't need judicial activism. Which btw is exactly what the 6th Circuit Judge said the other day. (and he's going to push it to the supreme court)

We don't need a constitutional amendment because the constitution does not provide protection for sexual orientation. And we won't need to address the constitution until the Supreme Court rules in favor of Federal Rights over State rights. Which they're not going to do.

You know what the beautiful thing about judicial activism is? All that's required to reverse it is more judicial activism from the other side.

And when this goes to the Supreme Court and the Conservative Judges rule in favor of State rights... again... that judicial activism will overturn all of the lower courts.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure you can. Otherwise you couldn't deny people who have been to a mental institute the right to bear arms if you're going to allow other people who have mental problems the right to bear arms as well.

Your argument would only work if we forced every single person who was going to get a gun to get a mental evaluation from a psychiatrist.

 

Why didn't the Supreme Court take the case this month and overrule the appellate court?

I've asked you this at least a dozen times and you have yet to answer.

 

See? There's that desperation. Deep down you see the trend. You see you're losing. You see that attitudes are shifting so you want to "settle it" before it's too late. I'm sorry progress is so scary for you.

 

This argument has been addressed. You have a terrible habit of making false analogies.

 

So you believe the government should be involved in social engineering.

If this issue is so important that you are ok giving money to specific people based on whether or not they can produce children, then I think the invasive medical tests are appropriate.

If a woman already has a medical record of having her ovaries removed, then no test is necessary, right?

Why does it need to be every month? I am only saying it should be done at the time they get married.

Not to mention this STILL doesn't resolve the issue.

Using that logic, there is nothing at all stopping homos from simply marrying lesbians to game the system. Your solution does not actually solve the problem you claim exists.

Just as limiting marriage only to heteros is not actually accomplishing anything. People who do not conform to your standards are still able to get married. And in fact have. LOTS of hetero-married men are (and were) gay.

 

I answered you several times.

They were waiting for a disagreement in the lower courts before they ruled.

And that disagreement is about to come in the 6th Circuit in Ohio.

- - - Updated - - -

WTH are you talking about? What desperation?

We've won something like 31 out of 35 votes.

If anyone is desperate it's the homosexuals who know they can't win this in the court of public opinion and so they're going to try to win it in the actual courts.

- - - Updated - - -

Why can we deny one right to a group of people without requiring the rest of the populace to prove they don't have that same problem.

But we can't deny another right to a group of people without requiring the rest of the populace to prove they dont' have that same problem?

 

They don't need a disagreement. There is nothing stopping them from taking any of the cases the appellate courts have ruled on.

They are not going to overturn them. Or they would have done so.

 

Then it is kind of hypocritical to complain about other people's judicial activism.

I don't agree, but even if that was true...so what? You just admitted you don't have a problem with judicial activism. That you don't have a problem with judges using their power to change laws. That is what judicial activism is.

The Constitution is not dependent on majority approval. It is the supreme law of the land. It overrides everything else. If a large enough majority wants a change, they can make it happen, via an amendment.

It does not have to provide it explicitly. According to the judicial branch, it is implied. This is the flip side of judicial activism...it's a two edged sword.

An Amendment could remove any possibility of "mis-interpretation" from the judicial branch. It is the Final Solution if you consider judicial branch to be the problem. The catch is that you will need a large majority agreeing with you that such a law is needed.

They already have...they can refuse to hear the case. That means they are agreeing with whatever the lower court ruled (or that they do not consider the issue important enough to merit their time).

I agree. Thats why I generally don't support it. I did not support it in this case either.

 

Supporters of equal rights for homosexuals are winning in the court of public approval. Years of polling trends clearly show this.

It doesn't matter how many votes you won in the past, what matters are the most recent and future election cycles. The anti-homosexual side used to win all of the court cases too.

Your failure is inevitable.

 

No I'm a capitalist. I don't believe we should be providing subsidies to ANYBODY. But if you're going to take money out of my pocket that I use to provide for my family, you better have a damn good reason for doing so. And while I may not agree with why we provide heterosexual's marriage subsidies, I can at least understand why. But homosexuals have no reason WHATSOEVER as to why they should be able to steal money out of my pocket.

Why would they be appropriate when we've been doing it for 200 years without an issue? At least until the homosexuals started complaining.

Okay but first of all you've still had to engage in a severe invasion of privacy by giving the government access to medical records. Not only that but we'd have to create an entire bureaucracy to deal with that.

And second of all you've only addressed something like 2% of the population. So we've spent an inordinate amount of money to fix a problem that probably wasn't costing us as much as we spent fixing it.

Because what if they have a medical issue 2 weeks afterwards and they're no longer fertile? So we've, again, spent an inordinate amount of money (100 per test per person) to fix something which could become an issue again immediately after the test.

That's right. If they want to marry a lesbian they can do so. Absolutely. They would have the potential to procreate within their marriage. If they choose not to, we can't force them.

Of course it is. You keep a couple who is INCAPABLE of procreating in and of themselves from receiving a ridiculous amount of money in the form of marriage benefits. And we do so with ZERO cost.

- - - Updated - - -

Then let's put it to a vote. All your polls don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) if you're too scared to put it to a vote.

 

No it's not. I'm not complaining about the judicial activism. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have the support you think you do which is why you rely upon judicial activism. And furthermore, judicial activism is the EASIEST method to reverse.

And that's the route that we'll take if it were to go to the Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of gay marriage. But that's not going to happen.

Actually it's only implied through INTERPRETATION. Which means all it takes is for another Supreme Court to reject that interpretation.

Absolutely it could. But we don't need to do so because the Supreme Court has not ruled in favor of gay-marriage and they will not do so.

No, that's not true at all. It means they want disagreement in the lower courts to address the issue. If they were going to agree with the lower courts they would have already done so. But they didn't because they're waiting for disagreement so that they can agree with the side of State rights. Just like they did with the DOMA decision.

Don't worry. The Supreme Court will fix it.

 

Why should I be scared? It is being put to a vote and your side is losing. Your continued denial will not change reality.

 

31 out of 35. When you get to 15% of our wins in votes, then come talk to me.

Until then, you better keep relying upon your judicial activism because you're going to lose in public opinion.

Hell, you're going to lose in the Supreme Court. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

False analogy. Ability to procreate is not a condition or requirement of marriage.

 

And not having a clean mental bill of health is not a requirement for having the right to bear arms as evidenced by the fact that we don't require everyone to get a clean bill of health from a psychiatrist. But we still deny people who have been to mental institutes the right to bear arms don't we.

 

False analogy.

If you are committed to a mental institution you lose the right to bear arms. If you can't procreate you don't lose the right to marriage.

 

And if you engage in a homosexual relationship which is bereft of the ability to procreate in and of themselves, then you lose the right to marriage of that person.

Your logic is a failure.