Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

We're not discussing discrimination based upon gender. We're discussing discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

 

Of course it's an argument. It's a constitutional argument and its winning.

Why can't you show me?

False analogy.

there is no commonality. I've showed you specifically how and why there is no commonality.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is based on gender.

 

Blah blah blah when you can put forth a cogent argument you let me know.

 

Wrong. Nowhere is "sexual orientation" an issue when applying for a marriage license. It isn't asked.

When licenses were denied, it was based upon gender.

 

Show me the difference between discrimination in marriage based upon gender and then show me discrimination in marriage based upon sexual orientation.

Here, I'll start.

Discrimination based upon sexual orientation: We allow people to enter into a heterosexual relationship in marriage (male and female) but we do not allow people to enter into a homosexual relationship in marriage (male and male or female and female).

Discrimination based upon gender: We allow female and female to marry but we do not allow male and male to marry.

Please provide your examples.

 

When a couple decide to enter into a marriage contract, they apply for a license.

Neither is asked about sexual orientation or whether either might even have one.

Neither is either asked about whether they intend to engage in sexual behaviour, or the specific nature of what that might be.

You just want to turn thumbs up or down based upon the type of crotches they happen to have.

That is gender discrimination.

 

Okay and what is marriage discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

 

I accept your concession.

 

You have to earn my concession. The only concession you've got is that I refuse to argue with someone who doesn't make an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, you're incorrect, they don't ask for your sex either.

http://www.sciway.net/facts/marriagelicense.html

 

I did.

I've made an argument. I've detailed specifically how and why your argument is invalid. I've shown you court after court agreeing with me. I've shwon you the Supreme Court upholding my argument.

 

No you haven't.

 

I have no idea, because I am not aware of any bureaucrats asking about sexual orientation when couples apply for a license.

Discrimination in marriage contracts based upon the gender of the applicants is the issue.

 

False. The reason you can't provide it is because you are FALSELY attributing discrimination based upon sexual orientation to discrimination based upon gender or sex.

A marriage license does not ask your sex or your sexual orientation.

However, discrimination based upon sex would be saying that homosexual males can get married to one another but not homosexual females. That's discrimination because of their sex. We allow one sex to get married to their own but not another.

However, if we are discriminating based upon the fact that we ONLY allow the heterosexual paradigm in marriage (male and female) and not the homosexual paradigm... that is discrimination based upon sexual orientation. NOT gender.

 

Except I did.

 

aha!

Monty python!

 

Of course its discrimination based on sex. That's like saying bans on interracial marriage aren't based on race.

No, but in 18 states, it limits its application based on those characteristics. A ban on interracial marriages still allows all blacks and all whites to marry, just not with eachother. A ban on same-sex marriages still allows all men and all women to marry, just not with eachother.

It's gender discrimination. Sexual orientation is a gender-based distinction.

 

No you didn't.

 

We honestly don't need to hear more about your stunning and laughable interpretation of Kennedy's DOMA decision.

 

Why not allow people to marry themselves? Objects? Animals? Now that gays can marry nothing is ridiculous about those ideas.

 

Depends on how you're defining "marriage".

If you're referring to state-sanctioned marriages, then I would ask why the state needs to be involved with marriages in the first place.

If you're referring to private contracts between consenting individuals, then I would say as long as they are not imposing the costs of their relationship on others in some way, then there is no reason to prohibit it.

It's also worth noting that incestuous relationships are so marginal as to be hardly worth consideration. Evolutionary biology (that is, inborn revulsion to incest) is an adequate deterrent to such relationships becoming socially sanctioned or prevalent.

 

Well because marriage is a contract between two individuals.

Can inanimate objects consent to a legal union?

Can animals consent to a legal union?

 

Marriage used to be between a man and a woman and that was changed. So why not change it to include individuals marrying themselves?

Yes

Yes

 

Good satire sir.

 

stunning and laughable?

Feldman sided with the state, which had argued that the nation's high court, in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, recognized the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage.

"Although opinions about same-sex marriage will understandably vary among the states, and other states in free and open debate will and have chosen differently, that does not mandate that Louisiana has overstepped its sovereign authority," he wrote.

...

Feldman said the Supreme Court decision "correctly discredited" the Defense of Marriage Act's effect on New York law legalizing same-sex unions. But, he also noted language in the decision outlining the states' historic authority to recognize and define marriage.

He also said that neither the Supreme Court, nor the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, have defined gay people as a protected class in discrimination cases.

---------------------------------------------

And that argument is the EXACT same argument I've made. And I made mine before he made his.

With the decision in Louisiana, Puerto Rico and the one coming in Ohio... this WILL go to the Supreme Court. And you will lose.

 

It's not satire. It's the argument that's going to be made by those perverts.

http://www.vice.com/read/apparently-animals-consent-to-sex-in-the-beastiality-brothel

Historical precedent or not, critics of heterospecies relationships say it’s impossible for animals to give consent for a sexual relationship, so human-animal intimacy is at least coercive, but more often abusive. What do you say to that?
While it's not too difficult to see that pulling the skin from a still-living cow is harmful to her—something that happens hundreds of times a day in torture farms, 100 percent legal in the USA—it's not at all clear that equating sexual intimacy with abuse has any scientific or empirical basis.

People say any sexual interaction between a human and a non-human is "always abusive" because non-humans are unable to consent to being passive participants in a sexual act. But the zoophobic hate-law passed in Washington State in 2006 came about as a direct result of an interaction in which the humans were passive. People say non-humans cannot make their own choices about their own sexual activities. But a mare who prefers not to mate with a given stallion does just fine telling him "no" with her hooves. That's called "female mate preference," and it's an essential part of mammalian life.

If animals cannot consent to sexual intimacy with humans, then they cannot consent to such activity with anyone else, which means we live in a world of unrelenting, unpunished, unacknowledged rape. Which is obviously silly. It's profoundly insulting to the integrity and autonomy of sentient, self-aware, adult non-humans.