One year of legalized LGBTQ marriage!

[Bat-mite]

I believe most, if not all states, still do not allow siblings and first cousins to marry. Is this a double standard? Shouldn't marriage equality include incest?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I believe most, if not all states, still do not allow siblings and first cousins to marry. Is this a double standard? Shouldn't marriage equality include incest?

I think that has to do with the health risk of genetic inbreeding.

 

[CZ Brat]

I believe most, if not all states, still do not allow siblings and first cousins to marry. Is this a double standard? Shouldn't marriage equality include incest?

In-breeding has genetic consequences. Same sex marriage does not have this issue. Which brings up a good question.

If two gay or lesbian siblings/1st cousin's wanted to marry, should they be allowed. After all, the ban on incest is to avoid in-bred off-spring. And since gay or lesbian couples can't have off-spring with each other.....

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

We've seen the Polygamy Card, and the Incest Card. How long until someone plays the Man-on-Dog card? :wink:

 

[CoyoteNumber2]

Though no one has chimed in with an opposing view, I assume it is because they are not wanting to stir things up, and not because there aren't people here with opposing views on TRF.

Don't worry, bill2654 will be here any minute.

 

[Bat-mite]

How about hetero siblings where one or both parties agree to undergo a sterility procedure? Or, just abort. In fact, they could get pregnant as often as they want, and just get a federally funded abortion every time. I can't see any reason to prevent them from marrying. I think this should be the next big civil rights push!

 

[SecretSquirrel]

I support marriage equality, the LGBTQ community has as much right to be miserable as anyone else.

 

[boatgeek]

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Fed to tinker around in marriage - one way or the other. The Congress stayed away right up until they wanted an income tax, and all the voter constituencies that went with that. Having created the "married, filing jointly" constituency, they have no grounds to deny that to anyone who wishes to claim it. States, on the other hand....
Marriage licenses being issued by the States and not the Fed goes back to the founding of the religious Colonies - which the constitution of the Republic did not force them to cease and desist - meaning each state can choose how they implement the protection/projection of civil rights.
When the SC decided to tell the states to cease choosing to whom they would issue licenses the SC came to the right decision for the wrong reasons. They should have voided "married filing jointly" because it favored some states over others, and refused to create a federal mandate to abrogate the constitutions and laws of the various states that did treat everyone equally when it came to race, sex and everything else except creed.

I know. I'm not a lawyer and some smart-ass is going to tell me that because of some ruling here or there the current stare decisis (sp?) is xy and z. To which I say- "I'm an engineer. Screw your rulings. Go back to original concepts and prove your point or get off my bridge."

I think the problem the SC faced with the decision was that the benefits of legally recognized marriage are pretty broad. It's not just income taxes, it's hospital visitation, inheritance, and another 100-200 things. It's a lot easier for them to strike down a couple of laws than to go through and say that all of these other things have to be changed. It's also a lot less likely to lead to unintended consequences or missed changes that they should have made. To come back to rocketry and engineering, let's say that you discover that your 2-cell LiPo doesn't have enough juice for your flights. You can add another cell in series and risk unintended consequences down the line due to changed voltage, or just add another 2-pack in parallel. I know what I'd choose.

PS Many places (including here in Seattle) now abbreviate it as LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ because otherwise the acronym gets ridiculously long as more groups want to get added.

PPS Going back to first principles (I'm an engineer too), when my daughter was about 4 years old, we were going to visit old friends who are gay. She hadn't really had any contact with the gay community before that. In the car, we said that she might see men who were in love with men, and she should talk to us afterwards if she had any questions. She looked at us blankly and asked, "If they love each other, why does it matter?" I'm glad the SC came around to that point of view.

 

[TALON]

CzTeacherMan is retaliating against the "Self Defense" thread started by Ted Macklin. Eventually both will get locked. It is each individual's responsibility not to get him/her/itself banned.

I agree, that this is a retaliatory thread. But as long as no one attacks/ threaten anyone else, in the spirit of free speech, CZ can post this, as long as the mods let us, until they decide otherwise, which they have a right to do what they want.

 

[CZ Brat]

I just realized...
This thread is a battle of the CZs

 

[djs]

I just realized...
This thread is a battle of the CZs

You know- you two aren't too far apart from each other. I propose a drag race.. vmaxes at dawn!

 

[ColumbiaNX01]

In the good book (The Bible) it states marriage is between man and woman, NOT man and man or female and female. If you can show me in the Bible where it says same sex marriage is good then okay then. But guess what you cant because that is not in there. Those people can do whatever they want to do. They can be "pretend" to be married and play house if they want, but at the end of the day in the eyes of GOD they are not married. So states and the government can pass laws to legalize gay marriege but at the end of the day its not really "real"

 

[boatgeek]

How about hetero siblings where one or both parties agree to undergo a sterility procedure? Or, just abort. In fact, they could get pregnant as often as they want, and just get a federally funded abortion every time. I can't see any reason to prevent them from marrying. I think this should be the next big civil rights push!

It's an interesting question. For same-sex marriage between two people, it's an easy equal protection argument. You should treat everyone the same. Since nobody is allowed to have a marriage with more than one person under federal or state law, then it's a harder equal protection argument. And think of the paperwork that would need to be changed!

Note that the "federally funded abortion" doesn't exist (see: Hyde Amendment).

 

[CZ Brat]

You know- you two aren't too far apart from each other. I propose a drag race.. vmaxes at dawn!

Geographically; No.
Ideologically; Yes.

 

[NAR29996]

I support marriage equality, the LGBTQ community has as much right to be miserable as anyone else.

OK, we have a winner.

Lock the thread. :kill:

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

In the good book (The Bible) it states marriage is between man and woman, NOT man and man or female and female. If you can show me in the Bible where it says same sex marriage is good then okay then. But guess what you cant because that is not in there. Those people can do whatever they want to do. They can be "pretend" to be married and play house if they want, but at the end of the day in the eyes of GOD they are not married. So states and the government can pass laws to legalize gay marriege but at the end of the day its not really "real"

I don't think they really care if it is considered "real" by someone else's religious standards. What they cared about was legality and equal protection under the law, which is now what they have.

 

[CZ Brat]

It's an interesting question. For same-sex marriage between two people, it's an easy equal protection argument. You should treat everyone the same. Since nobody is allowed to have a marriage with more than one person under federal or state law, then it's a harder equal protection argument. And think of the paperwork that would need to be changed!

Note that the "federally funded abortion" doesn't exist (see: Hyde Amendment).

Traditional definition of marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. To say we can change the genders in the traditional definition of marriage, but consider it morally repugnant and illegal to change the traditional quantities is hypocritical BS.

Throughout history, there is more legal and religious precedent for Polygamy than same-sex marriage. In fact, same-sex marriage was un-heard of 30-50 years ago.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Don't worry, bill2654 will be here any minute.

Cool! it's been a year since he sent me those profanity-laced PMs! How the time flies...

 

[TALON]

I just realized...
This thread is a battle of the CZs

:lol:here is the perfect weapon for a CZ Battle, a CZ Scorpion! :surprised:

 

[CZ Brat]

:lol:here is the perfect weapon for a CZ Battle, a CZ Scorpion! :surprised:View attachment 295627

Oh brother. Here comes the 2nd amendment battle.

 

[TALON]

Oh brother. Here comes the 2nd amendment battle.

Hey wait, the Scorpion self identified as a IPad

 

[Charles_McG]

With a great sense of trepidation for using the ultra-dangerous 'reply' button, I'm offering up a post written by J Michael Straczynski (of B5).

And while I'm at it: reposting this note from 2012, since it's relevant to the marriage-minded post below.

The interesting thing about watching the debate about same-sex marriage, especially the declaration by many that marriage has always been a Christian family tradition, is that so many of these folks seem not to have an actual grasp of church history.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that same-sex marriages were routinely conducted by the Catholic Church for nearly three hundred years, from the 10th to the 12th centuries under what was variously termed “the Office of Same-Sex Union” or the “Order for Uniting Two Men,” what’s more compelling is what the Church felt about marriage between a man and woman for the first nine hundred years of its existence.

Basically, they were against it. Marriage created issues of property that could potentially be inherited by offspring rather than granted to the church or seized by lords in the absence of an heir. Marriage was considered by many of Christendom’s brightest lights to be something vile and repugnant. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (160-225 AD), one of the most regarded Christian writers of his age, often derided marriage, saying that it “consists essentially in fornication.” Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, the Bishop of Carthage, believed that marriage and childbirth was no longer necessary since the world was now full and ready for Christ’s return.

Consequently, for over eight hundred years the Church refused to have anything to do with marriage. It refused to allow marriages to take place on church grounds and prohibited members of the clergy from taking part in marriage ceremonies outside church grounds. They were to be performed strictly according to local customs without Church recognition, sanction or involvement.

It was only during the late 9th century that the Catholic Church, under pressure from followers, finally began to recognize marriage as a sacrament to be included in the list of other church rituals. But even then, it was considered a second-rate “lesser sacrament,” a poor cousin to the other, more important sacraments such as Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Orders. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1547 that marriage was finally accorded equal status with the other sacraments. (Ironically, many of the arguments raised at Trent against including marriage with the other sacraments were similar to the arguments being made against same-sex marriage today.)

So the next time you hear someone talking about marriage between a man and woman being a Christian tradition, after you mention the same-sex marriages of the 10th-12 centuries, remind them that conventional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman, was derided, ignored, prohibited, diminished or dismissed by the church for ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN YEARS.

Then sit back and enjoy the ruffled-feather symphony, knowing that history and the facts are on your side.

 

[dhkaiser]

I am all for gay marriage, why should we straights be the only ones to suffer???

 

[H_Rocket]

One of my younger brothers is in a committed gay relationship. We went on a family cruise a few years ago and we we put with a table of about six older ladies from South Carolina. He felt it important to mention his relationship - to make sure there was no potential for discord. He did so and the response from one was what I consider one of the best ever. All she said was "So?"

To me this was perfect. Basically she said in one word that what he did in his life was not anything she had any position on. His personal life was his alone.

I really wish people could just allow others to live their lives as they like.

 

[CZ Brat]

I am all for gay marriage, why should we straights be the only ones to suffer???

I just came to an epiphany. My opposition to gay marriage isn't prejudicial. It's an altruistic concern for my fellow human beings to protect them from suffering in marriage.

 

[watermelonman]

I am amazed by how the GOP adopted traditional marriage and got all its constituents on board. The prior generation may or may not like gay marriage, but the notion of small government and personal freedom was far, far greater. Until the GOP needed a boost, that is, and aligned itself with borderline unconstitutional levels of Christianity within policymaking.

The two ruling parties in this country play us like fiddles.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

CzTeacherMan is retaliating against the "Self Defense" thread started by Ted Macklin. Eventually both will get locked. It is each individual's responsibility not to get him/her/itself banned.

Retaliation is not what I'm doing. I simply realized that people are using TRF Watering Hole as their own personal political sphere, so I'm joining in. I've held back for two years because I thought politics was forbidden. Turns out, I'm wrong! So, whew, I get to have a place to espouse my politics, too! Thank goodness. There are so few places on the internet to do that.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

I support marriage equality, the LGBTQ community has as much right to be miserable as anyone else.

Ha! 😉

 

[ColumbiaNX01]

I always figured this forum was full of red blooded Americans that were good ol' boys. I am learning its not, its filled with tree hugger, equality crap folks. Its sad. What ever happened to the good ol' days when a place like this was like a 1950's mens locker room.

 

[Nathan]

I wonder if they talk about rocketry on the LBGTQ forum