Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 3:57:00 PM (view original):
It's good to know that in the United States of JRDmerica, the states should not be trusted to be responsible enough to make their own laws.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/14/2012 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/14/2012 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2012 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/14/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I think Mike is looking for a more fundemental argument about right and wrong.

Actually, if you've read the last 15 pages, you'd know what I'm after.

We're told incest is wrong.  Always have been told that.
We were told homosexuality was wrong(some people still say it's wrong).   Times have changed. 

What's the difference?

I'm not concerned with what some people consider right and wrong.  Incest is illegal, homosexuality isn't, therefore the arguments for/against incestual marriage are not the same as the arguments for/against same sex marriage.

Are you bothered by the all one way attitudes of the partys involved?

The left seems to believe that this is the defining moral issue of our time and anyone opposing them is another Hitler.

The right seems to think that this is the defining moral issue of our time and anyone opposing them is another Stalin.

Wouldnt the logical answer to be to leave it to the states and try not to dwell on their solutions too much?

I think this is an important issue.  And leaving it to the states is problematic.  We left the decision on interracial marriage up to the states and while many repealed (often times court ordered) the bans after WWII, there were several hold outs (especially in the south) and it took a supreme court ruling in 1967 to get the last of the bans overturned.

This is very different than a racial issue.

Gays are generally accepted into society and in fact are thriving.

This isnt another stick on a huge pile, this is one specific issue.

Either you stand up for the Republic or you move towards a tyranical Central Government.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/13/2012 7:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/13/2012 12:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/12/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/11/2012 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 9:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Sorry, I'm not up on the sodomy laws.   Let's get back to immorality.  Many people think incest is immoral.  Many people think homosexuality is immoral.  Why is one legal?

Maybe morality isn't the only criteria for legality

If gengxcon and hissis, both consenting adults, are willing to risk pregnancy/deformed babies, how is that different than two dudes, consenting adults, willing to risk AIDS?

Do you actually want to sign your name to such a dumb question? I'll answer if you like, but I'll give you chance to take it back first, considering how multi-layered with stupidity that question is.

Sure.  I'll lay out a scenario for you.  You tell me the problem.

Your mother puts you in a trash can when you're an infant because you're an annoying bastard.   The trashman finds you and raises you as his own.  He never mentions finding you in a smelly trash can.

25 years later, you meet a girl.   You date, you fall in love.   Turns out, your mother and father decided to try to make a better baby after you were discarded.   You're now dating, and nailing, your sister.     Incest is illegal.  

What's the difference between you and your sis in this situation and two dudes in love, morally speaking?

That didn't even make sense. How many mulligans do I have to give you?

Sure it did.   You're screwing your sister, you had planned on getting married and it's illegal.  

Explain, in 500 words or less, how that situation is different than two men wishing to be married.    And "The law says it's illegal" isn't going to cut it. 

Hello?

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/14/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/13/2012 7:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/13/2012 12:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/12/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/11/2012 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 9:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Sorry, I'm not up on the sodomy laws.   Let's get back to immorality.  Many people think incest is immoral.  Many people think homosexuality is immoral.  Why is one legal?

Maybe morality isn't the only criteria for legality

If gengxcon and hissis, both consenting adults, are willing to risk pregnancy/deformed babies, how is that different than two dudes, consenting adults, willing to risk AIDS?

Do you actually want to sign your name to such a dumb question? I'll answer if you like, but I'll give you chance to take it back first, considering how multi-layered with stupidity that question is.

Sure.  I'll lay out a scenario for you.  You tell me the problem.

Your mother puts you in a trash can when you're an infant because you're an annoying bastard.   The trashman finds you and raises you as his own.  He never mentions finding you in a smelly trash can.

25 years later, you meet a girl.   You date, you fall in love.   Turns out, your mother and father decided to try to make a better baby after you were discarded.   You're now dating, and nailing, your sister.     Incest is illegal.  

What's the difference between you and your sis in this situation and two dudes in love, morally speaking?

That didn't even make sense. How many mulligans do I have to give you?

Sure it did.   You're screwing your sister, you had planned on getting married and it's illegal.  

Explain, in 500 words or less, how that situation is different than two men wishing to be married.    And "The law says it's illegal" isn't going to cut it. 

Hello?

This still makes no sense. Can anyone translate from Mike to English? Tec? Padna? Anyone?

I'll take that as "I don't like the question.   Two strangers who meet and fall in love would be the same as two strangers who meet and fall in love from a moral standpoint(assuming you don't object to homosexuality) so I'd going to pretend I don't understand." 

We're done here.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 3:57:00 PM (view original):
It's good to know that in the United States of JRDmerica, the states should not be trusted to be responsible enough to make their own laws.

I never said that.

States are trusted to make thousands and thousands of laws.

Just not this one.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 3:57:00 PM (view original):
It's good to know that in the United States of JRDmerica, the states should not be trusted to be responsible enough to make their own laws.

I never said that.

States are trusted to make thousands and thousands of laws.

Just not this one.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

Why not this one?  

Who decides which laws states can make and cannot make themselves?  You?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2012 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Not really.  SSM is illegal in some states.   Incest is illegal.  Seems pretty similar.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 3:57:00 PM (view original):
It's good to know that in the United States of JRDmerica, the states should not be trusted to be responsible enough to make their own laws.

I never said that.

States are trusted to make thousands and thousands of laws.

Just not this one.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

Why not this one?  

Who decides which laws states can make and cannot make themselves?  You?

Laws that restrict the rights of groups without passing the compelling interest test violate the 14th amendment of the constitution.  States aren't allowed to pass laws that violate the constitution*. 

*But they still do it, and then it goes to court, and then it gets overturned.  When I say aren't allowed to, I mean in the sense that they shouldn't.

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed, "for want of a substantial question," an appeal by two men who unsuccessfully challenged Minnesota's marriage statutes in state court. Because the case, Baker v. Nelson, came to the Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal established Baker v. Nelson as a binding precedent.^[3]

One federal appellate court has upheld a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage: the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. The Eighth Circuit, citing Baker v. Nelson, affirmed the constitutionality under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause of Nebraska's constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and states that unions of two people in a same-sex relationship as marriage or similar to marriage shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska, and reversing a ruling by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska that a prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.^[4]

Posted by caesari on 5/14/2012 5:39:00 PM (view original):
I don't get what's so hard about Mike's question, jr? Why is that so hard to answer?