Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages

[Skjellyfetti]

I would be fine with it as long as they didn't have sex and reproduce and if it was completely consensual.

Ewwww...

Yeah. I agree. But, it's not really my concern.

[89Hen]

Typical lib intolerance to opposing views...

My opinion isn't trying to deny someone's liberty and freedom.

Maybe this one, but certainly you have some that would unless you are OK with ALL drugs being legal, ALL guns being legal, ALL ages being consentual, etc...

[Chizzang]

My opinion isn't trying to deny someone's liberty and freedom.

Maybe this one, but certainly you have some that would unless you are OK with ALL drugs being legal, ALL guns being legal, ALL ages being consentual, etc...

What's the constitution say on that ^

[dbackjon]

My opinion isn't trying to deny someone's liberty and freedom.

Maybe this one, but certainly you have some that would unless you are OK with ALL drugs being legal, ALL guns being legal, ALL ages being consentual, etc...

And the reach of the year goes to 89Hen, especially with the last comment. Unless you are arguing that toddlers, etc have the mental capabilities to enter into contracts.

[houndawg]

My opinion isn't trying to deny someone's liberty and freedom.

Maybe this one, but certainly you have some that would unless you are OK with ALL drugs being legal, ALL guns being legal, ALL ages being consentual, etc...

ALL drugs are legal in Portugal now and their "drug problem" is among the smallest in Europe.

[Cap'n Cat]

My opinion isn't trying to deny someone's liberty and freedom.

Maybe this one, but certainly you have some that would unless you are OK with ALL drugs being legal, ALL guns being legal, ALL ages being consentual, etc...

[Chizzang]

come on you guys... play along with 89Hen
lets' do the constitution thing he likes to do

[89Hen]

Maybe this one, but certainly you have some that would unless you are OK with ALL drugs being legal, ALL guns being legal, ALL ages being consentual, etc...

And the reach of the year goes to 89Hen, especially with the last comment. Unless you are arguing that toddlers, etc have the mental capabilities to enter into contracts.

That would be your reach Jon.

I'm arguing that people impose their beliefs/limits on denying somebody else something all the time. It's only when they don't agree with somebody else's limits that they become upset. We pretty much all agree that a toddler does not have the mental capacity. But does everyone agree that the age for marriage should be 17 or 18? That voting should be 18? That drinking should be 21? We impose somewhat arbitrary generalizations every day. I recognize that. It would seem a lot of you here don't.

[dbackjon]

And the reach of the year goes to 89Hen, especially with the last comment. Unless you are arguing that toddlers, etc have the mental capabilities to enter into contracts.

That would be your reach Jon.

I'm arguing that people impose their beliefs/limits on denying somebody else something all the time. It's only when they don't agree with somebody else's limits that they become upset. We pretty much all agree that a toddler does not have the mental capacity. But does everyone agree that the age for marriage should be 17 or 18? That voting should be 18? That drinking should be 21? We impose somewhat arbitrary generalizations every day. I recognize that. It would seem a lot of you here don't.

We all recognize it. If you had said "Age of Consent" instead of going all JSO and asking for ALL Ages that would make a difference.

Age of Consent is a completely different argument than the other two (and gay rights). My basic view is that to take away rights you must prove harm to society would occur if you granted those rights. This is why gay equality is winning - you can not prove ONE SINGLE bit of harm to society by it.

You can show harm with your two examples. So then you have to decide at what level does taking away rights benefit society more than harming an individual.

[89Hen]

My basic view is that to take away rights you must prove harm to society would occur if you granted those rights. This is why gay equality is winning - you can not prove ONE SINGLE bit of harm to society by it.

You can show harm with your two examples. So then you have to decide at what level does taking away rights benefit society more than harming an individual.

Would there be harm to society for siblings to marry?

[dbackjon]

My basic view is that to take away rights you must prove harm to society would occur if you granted those rights. This is why gay equality is winning - you can not prove ONE SINGLE bit of harm to society by it.

You can show harm with your two examples. So then you have to decide at what level does taking away rights benefit society more than harming an individual.

Would there be harm to society for siblings to marry?

If they reproduced, yes. Scientifically proven that incest is bad from a reproductive standpoint.

[89Hen]

Would there be harm to society for siblings to marry?

If they reproduced, yes. Scientifically proven that incest is bad from a reproductive standpoint.

Non starter. You don't have to be married to reproduce.

[Skjellyfetti]

If they reproduced, yes. Scientifically proven that incest is bad from a reproductive standpoint.

Non starter. You don't have to be married to reproduce.

Which is why it's illegal to have sex with your biological sibling.

[89Hen]

Non starter. You don't have to be married to reproduce.

Which is why it's illegal to have sex with your biological sibling.

No. It's illegal because a vast majority of people find this behavior immoral. Surely you don't think sex always leads to procreation.

[Skjellyfetti]

No. It's illegal because a vast majority of people find this behavior immoral. Surely you don't think sex always leads to procreation.

It's not just that people find the behavior immoral. It's that the behavior leads to genetic bottlenecking and birth defects.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand?

[89Hen]

No. It's illegal because a vast majority of people find this behavior immoral. Surely you don't think sex always leads to procreation.

It's not just that people find the behavior immoral. It's that the behavior leads to genetic bottlenecking and birth defects.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand?

Chart on AIDS cases...

[CID1990]

My basic view is that to take away rights you must prove harm to society would occur if you granted those rights. This is why gay equality is winning - you can not prove ONE SINGLE bit of harm to society by it.

You can show harm with your two examples. So then you have to decide at what level does taking away rights benefit society more than harming an individual.

Would there be harm to society for siblings to marry?

Well it doesn't seem to have adversely affected this forum

[Skjellyfetti]

Chart on AIDS cases...

Point?

The VAST majority of those people are suffering from the effects of their OWN choices.

Why can't you see the difference here?

[JohnStOnge]

Just scanning I can see that, once again, people are erroneously thinking that a society opting not to recognize a particular type of relationship as "marriage" is taking somebody's liberty away or denying a right.

I don't know what it's going to take to make you people see that it's not. But let's try again:

If we were to say you can't have a homosexual relationship with someone you want to have a homosexual relationship with that would be taking your liberty away. It would also be denying you and the person who consents to do that with you your right to do what you want as long as you don't directly and definitely harm someone else against their will.

Saying "we won't recognize your homosexual relationship as 'marriage''' is not. You have a right to have a homosexual relationship. The people around you have a right to opt not to recognize that relationship as "marriage" just like they have a right to opt not to recognize various other combinations as "marriage."

It's very simple. Don't see why people can't grasp it.

[kalm]

Just scanning I can see that, once again, people are erroneously thinking that a society opting not to recognize a particular type of relationship as "marriage" is taking somebody's liberty away or denying a right.

I don't know what it's going to take to make you people see that it's not. But let's try again:

If we were to say you can't have a homosexual relationship with someone you want to have a homosexual relationship with that would be taking your liberty away.

Saying "we won't recognize your homosexual relationship as 'marriage' is not. You have a right to have a homosexual relationship. The people around you have a right to opt not to recognize that relationship as marriage.

It's very simple. Don't see why people can't grasp it.

But what if I want recognize it? What if I want for gay partners to have visitation rights etc. But my state forbids it because it's full of closeted fundies who think a different but natural lifestyle is yucky.

Theocratic thought police...

[Skjellyfetti]

Just scanning I can see that, once again, people are erroneously thinking that a society opting not to recognize a particular type of relationship as "marriage" is taking somebody's liberty away or denying a right.

I don't know what it's going to take to make you people see that it's not. But let's try again:

If we were to say you can't have a homosexual relationship with someone you want to have a homosexual relationship with that would be taking your liberty away.

Saying "we won't recognize your homosexual relationship as 'marriage' is not. You have a right to have a homosexual relationship. The people around you have a right to opt not to recognize that relationship as marriage.

It's very simple. Don't see why people can't grasp it.

What you are missing are the benefits associated with marriage.

Yes, I believe churches should be allowed to deny marriages to homosexuals. People can be free to not recognize gay marriage as legitimate. I really don't care.

But, I do not believe that the government (either state or federal) should deny the equal benefits of marriage to a homosexual couple that wishes to be married.

[JohnStOnge]

But what if I want recognize it? What if I want for gay partners to have visitation rights etc. But my state forbids it.

Issues like that can be addressed through means other than calling a homosexual relationship "marriage." You and I both know that all the issues of that nature could be addressed and the "homosexual movement" would not be satisfied. You could set it up so that a person could designate someone to have visitation rights in situations like that. You could set it up so that a person could designate someone to receive all of the benefits a spouse enjoys. You could set it up so that the tax benefits would be the same.

But people in the "homosexual movement" would not be satisfied because that's not really what they're after. They want to institutionalize a lie. They want to institutionalize the lie that a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship; that being homosexual is just part of normal variation like having blue eyes vs. having brown eyes. So on and so forth.

And it's not true. It's just not.

But it won't be the first lie this culture has institutionalized and it won't be the last.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's an example of the practical impact of the lie, though:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california- ... e-therapy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So if you're a parent and you want to give your kid treatment to try to get them away from homosexuality you are prohibited from doing it.

And that's a problem I saw long ago. Part of this whole thing is establishing the lie that there is nothing "off" about homosexuality, that a person is born that way, that there is no way to change or prevent it, and that we should not even look for ways to change or prevent it.

That outlook is pretty close to self-evidently not true. We know that from identical twin studies. We are, or should be, almost completely positive that while genetics is a factor in homosexuality it is not an absolute determinant. It is clear that the environment plays a role in at least a large proportion of cases and it's possible that it plays a role in all of them.

But "homosexual movement" people don't even want us to look at that.

It's a disorder and we should be looking for ways to eliminate it. But we're in a situation where we are in cultural denial about it even being a disorder. And we've got the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association facilitating the denial.

[kalm]

But what if I want recognize it? What if I want for gay partners to have visitation rights etc. But my state forbids it.

Issues like that can be addressed through means other than calling a homosexual relationship "marriage." You and I both know that all the issues of that nature could be addressed and the "homosexual movement" would not be satisfied. You could set it up so that a person could designate someone to have visitation rights in situations like that. You could set it up so that a person could designate someone to receive all of the benefits a spouse enjoys. You could set it up so that the tax benefits would be the same.

But people in the "homosexual movement" would not be satisfied because that's not really what they're after. They want to institutionalize a lie. They want to institutionalize the lie that a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship; that being homosexual is just part of normal variation like having blue eyes vs. having brown eyes. So on and so forth.

And it's not true. It's just not.

But it won't be the first lie this culture has institutionalized and it won't be the last.

Sorry John. The thought police don't own the word "marriage".

[JohnStOnge]

Sorry John. The thought police don't own the word "marriage".

I'm not getting the "thought police" reference. Nobody's saying homosexuals can't think whatever they want to think about their relationships.

If there's any "thought police" aspect here it's no the part of the homosexual marriage supporters. They want to force other people to recognize their relationships as having a certain status and think about them in a certain way. They want to force other people to accept what homosexuals do as "normal." So on and so forth. It's ALL about compulsion. If it were not they wouldn't be using the courts when they fail to prevail through the political process.