Same sex marriage legal impact

[SCFinfan]

It is not a slippery slope. I am saying you are intellectually compelled to strike down laws against (or in this case enshrine as constitutionally required) unions between blood related family members if you do the same for same-sex couples.

If all marriage is, is "two adults, consenting to be in a relationship which they call marriage, and which the state puts it stamp on and gives legal status and benefits to" (which is pretty much how you'd have to define it to include same-sex couples) then you cannot exclude incestuous unions from marrying. It is impossible. Just because you balk at it doesn't mean it is not there.

Explain to me how you'd do retain such laws (or exclude those those unions from being constitutionally required), without referencing some ancient, irrational religious taboo, and I'll be quite impressed.

[Spider-Dan]

Every nation that God has blessed started out following Him and slowly became more liberal and hip turning their back on Him.  Once they passed a certain point He allowed their enemies to destroy them. Obviously our country is no different.

You mean like when the Roman Empire enjoyed centuries of domination, then fell under the blade shortly after the emperor converted to Christianity?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Marriage is between to consenting adults that are not related to each other by 3 degrees of sanguinary.

Nice short definitions.

[Dave Gray]

Explain to me how you'd do retain such laws (or exclude those those unions from being constitutionally required), without referencing some ancient, irrational religious taboo, and I'll be quite impressed.

The argument to differentiate homosexual marriage between incestuous marriage is based on the concepts of child abuse, primarily.  ...That incest leads to children that are largely retarded in some fashion.  So, the laws would be similar to those that prevent mothers from consuming mass amounts of alcohol while pregnant.


I'm not arguing for (or against) incestuous marriages, because quite frankly, I don't have to.  When there is a group rallying for those rights, then I will have that discussion.  But I don't think it pertains to gay marriage at all.  The reasons that they are (or should be) allowed or disallowed are different.

[SCFinfan]

Marriage is between to consenting adults that are not related to each other by 3 degrees of sanguinary.

Nice short definitions.

Ok, well, why that exception? You can't constitutionally enshrine religious bigotry, as you've said. So why still ban incestuous unions from marrying?

[Spider-Dan]

It is not a slippery slope. I am saying you are intellectually compelled to strike down laws against (or in this case enshrine as constitutionally required) unions between blood related family members if you do the same for same-sex couples.

Incestuous sex is already outlawed.
Gay sex is constitutionally protected.

Apples to apples, please.

[SCFinfan]

The argument to differentiate homosexual marriage between incestuous marriage is based on the concepts of child abuse, primarily.  ...That incest leads to children that are largely retarded in some fashion.  So, the laws would be similar to those that prevent mothers from consuming mass amounts of alcohol while pregnant.

Women are allowed to drink alcohol in small quantities during childbirth. Coffee too. If we're gonna start criminalizing everything that "MIGHT" end up with someone getting hurt or being born retarded, Dave, we might as well keep the ban on marijuana,  start a ban on coffee drinking, start a band on using certain aerosols, etc. Now there's a slippery slope, if I've ever heard of one.

ADDENDUM
I would also like to say that you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face here. you're an advocate of the use of contraceptives and abortion, right? But, apparently, incestuous couples can't use them to stop from procreation? Why not? You can avoid conception, and therefore the state has no interest in "stopping child abuse."

Your religion is showing, Dave.

[SCFinfan]

Incestuous sex is already outlawed.
Gay sex is constitutionally protected.

Neither gay marriage nor incestuous marriage are, as of yet, federally constitutionally protected. Your logic is fine, but irrelelvant in this context.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Ok, well, why that exception? You can't constitutionally enshrine religious bigotry, as you've said. So why still ban incestuous unions from marrying?

Almost all incestuous relationships come about from an abuse by one family member on another and state has an compelling interest in protecting children from child abuse and rape.
   

[SCFinfan]

Almost all incestuous relationships come about from an abuse by one family member on another and state has an compelling interest in protecting children from child abuse and rape.
   

But not all. A lot of gay relationships come from the domination of a minor by an older man. But that is not a good reason for banning them.

Your religion is showing, hoodie.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Neither gay marriage nor incestuous marriage are, as of yet, federally constitutionally protected. Your logic is fine, but irrelelvant in this context.

The sames reasons that constitution protects homosexual activity but doesn't protect incest, apply to why we can have marriages for one and not the other. 

[SCFinfan]

The sames reasons that constitution protects homosexual activity but doesn't protect incest, apply to why we can have marriages for one and not the other. 

Well, if they do, go ahead and state what those reasons are then.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But not all. A lot of gay relationships come from the domination of a minor by an older man. But that is not a good reason for banning them.

Your religion is showing, hoodie.

No my knowledge of sociology is showing.  As is your lack of. 

[SCFinfan]

Ah. An insult. Glorious. Well, looks like I've lost! Time to crawl back to my irrational bible and keep on being the irrational religious bigot I am! [/sarcasm]

[Spider-Dan]

Well, if they do, go ahead and state what those reasons are then.

Not sure why you are playing dumb on this, but I guess I'll spell it out:

The Supreme Court has determined that homosexual activity is protected under the Constitution.  They have made no such finding with regard to incestuous sexual activity.  Therefore, any comparison between homosexual marriage and incestuous marriage is inherently flawed; one is the expression of a constitutionally-protected relationship, while the other is an expression of one that is outlawed.