A Fair Comprimise

[SanctiSpiritus]

So we should pass laws to prohibit acts that you believe to be sinful? All of them?

I believe what the Lord believes. Heaven will not be ours if we pick and choose the teachings we only like. Don't you agree?

 

[beechy]

I believe what the Lord believes. Heaven will not be ours if we pick and choose the teachings we only like. Don't you agree?

How do you feel about greed?

 

[OdwinOddball]

lol. Your ilk have been trying to crumble the moral foundation of human life since the beginning of time.


sodom and gomorrah come to mind....

No, no, that would be the moral foundation of Christian Life. Lets keep the derogatory comments straight shall we?

And you didn't answer his question.

As to Sodom and Gomorrah, it would behoove you to reread your Bible and learn what was the actual sin that caused God to destroy the cities in the story.

Hint, it wasn't Sodomy...

 

[SimplyMe]

The same people need to learn: to read. When did I say that I want to dictate the lives of others? When did I say that anyone was my enemy? I didn't.

You said that you want to dictate the lives of others when you want to control the choice of who they marry. It doesn't matter if you are offended by their choice or that you find it morally offensive, none of these reasons gives you the right to "dictate the lives of others".

I support states rights because it works best. You are STILL ignoring that if the majority of the U.S. was opposed to it (actually the majority is, when it comes to homosexual marriage) the majority, if the Federal government had the real say, could keep homosexuals from marrying.

It's fine that you support state's rights. OTOH, we live in a Federal Republic and the US Constitution has precedenceover the rights of the states. The Constitution currently says that all people are equal under the law. To deny a group equal protection or a natural right requires a compelling reason. Without a compelling reason, as there does not appear to be with homosexual marriage, the federal government cannot deny equal protection.

The only objections I have seen all stem from your Bible. Well guess what, your Bible is NOT the law of the land. To enact Biblical law as national law when such laws have no reason beyond religious, is against the 1st Amendment of the Constituion.

There are more arguments then just that but, fyi, your morals aren't the law of the land either.

That is true that neither of your morals are the law of the land. It takes the morals the majority chooses, except it protects the minority so that they also receive equal protection of law. To deny that equal protection, in cases such as pedophilia, polygamy, etc., a compelling reason for denial of rights must be shown (as they have in these instances). It is part of why the slippery slope arguments about homosexual marriage are so poor. Even if homosexual marriage becomes legal nationally, the compelling reasons preventing pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy will all still exist.

DAMN RIGHT!

WRONG!!!

You certainly have the right to not approve. And you can certianly vote for legsilation that tries to push your morality on others. However, your little tirade here shows your true colors. its not about your rights, its about other people doing something you don't personally like and that doesn't affect you.

If you don't like Homosexuality, homosexual sex, or homosexual marriage, dont participate. But denying other people the chance for the happiness you and I take for granted is not at all what this country is about.

Despite what some Christians seem to think today, America is not, never was, and never will be a Christian Theocracy enforcing Christian laws.

So, logically, you must be for incestual marriage being legalized too, right?

Perhaps you could show me on this thread where people are arguing for incestual marriage. Instead, I believe it has been pointed out that the courts have ruled that the government has a compelling reason (reasons that aren't based on the Bible) for denying close family relatives from marrying.

No, I don't think that it should be limited only in specific states, but that allowing the states to decide is a greater assurance for you to have someplace that will accept it. See, if everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the decision was left to the states, you'd have someplace to go where you'd be accepted and recognized. If everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the Federal government decided, you would have no place to go where you'd be accepted and recognized.

Can you see why I'm for states rights? It is a greater assurance that you can live the way that you want to.

So why are you arguing that states should have the ability to discriminate without cause? Perhaps we should allow slavery again in the Southern states since, after all, they would not be slaves if they moved to the northern states? Was Missouri's Mormon Extermination Order valid since Mormon's could live in the other 49 states? After all, isn't Mormonism a dangerous lifestyle that will keep people from going to heaven?

If you don't feel these cases are justifiable, than at what point does discrimination by an individual state become acceptable?

Ones that are not the norm. The norm has always been one man one woman. It was put to a vote to end incestual marriage, was it not? It was put to a vote to end polygamy, was it not?

Actually, this is not true. In the Old Testament (and in the cultures of the time) polygamy was the norm. There have been homosexual marriages throughout history. As for Polygamy, it was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court that the state had sufficient reasons to deny them, not the voters.

It's really a question of whether the Federal gov or States will decide. One or the other will decide. I'm for states because, say, if all but CA are opposed to giving you certain rights and the Fed government decides, you can't get those rights anywhere in America. But if states decide, there will be at least one place where you can.

I would suggest reading the background and case of Loving v. Virginia.

In any case where states decide and no one will permit it, the Fed gov won't either, but in cases where the Fed gov won't permit it some states would, hence states choice allows more rights and liberties.

Another part of the problem, however, is that it's not merely a decision of the states; there are federal marriage benefits as well. Part of the problem is that gay couples married in Massachusetts cannot get their marriages recognized by the federal government.

You see him not wanting to accept your morals as forcing his on you, but if you force him to accept your morals isn't that really forcing yours on him?

Wrong. As shown in that post, just because something is made legal does not force it on another person. What you are trying to suggest would be the same as saying that the KKK is being discriminated against because they are being "forced" to accept things against their beliefs (Blacks and other minorities having equal rights).

A Civil Liberty that is not recognized must be put to a vote before it is.

False. To give examples, there were no votes prior to Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, or Loving v. Virginia.

I don't think it's that simple. Marriages happened in the United States for years, but were against the norm and were THEN put to a vote to be banned. This happened with beastiality. This happened with incest. This happened with polygamy. This happened with major age differences (such as a 5 year old being wed to an adult). People don't think that these things are right: they were banned. Any grounds besides that were just better excuses than "we don't think it's right".

Actually, it is that simple. As explained above, the courts must find to uphold a law that denies equal opportunity that the state must have a compelling reason. And, as mentioned above, in the case of polygamy the reasons the State gave were ruled to be compelling.

So, why is it consenting adults? Why can't children marry adults? Why can't people marry beasts? Why can't there be incestual marriage? Why? Because you don't think it is right.

The easy answer is because in these cases the state has a compelling interest in banning them. In the case of children and beasts it largely comes down to their not being able to give informed consent. In the case of incestuous marriages, it is primarily because it is typically because unhealthy emotionally and the high likelihood of abuse. While the chance of diseased children resulting from incestuous marriages is also a factor, it is a lesser factor; there are states that will allow cousins to marry provided that they can prove they will not have children.

And the Constitution doesn't permit gay marriage any more than it does any other kind of marriage. but, what I really want to ask is from where do you draw consenting adults, or is that just something that "sounds right" to you?

As a matter of law, it's when evidence suggests that people can make an informed and knowledgeable choice.

Quite simply put, that's an opinion. Different people have different views of marriage. Some say it's between a man and a woman, some between two consenting adults, other differ, but it's all really a matter of opinion, isn't it? What right do I have to say marriage is between an adult male and an adult woman? What right do you have to say that it is between two consenting adults, and not between an adult and a child?

The key phrase here is "consenting adults". They are the ones that can make informed and knowledgeable choices. If it could be proven that 8 year-olds could make informed choices about marriage, then it's possible the marriage age would be lowered.

Per you definition, we are all given equal protection if any adult can marry any adult (even under incest). Per my definition, any adult male can marry any adult woman (and of course vice versa).

False, as mentioned above, the courts have consistently found that there are compelling reasons for banning incest.

My definition still holds for homosexuals - a homosexual man can marry any woman he likes per my definition. That is equality of law if the law defines marriage as unity between a male adult and a female adult.

I just want to say to be very careful. If the definition I gave is not equality of law, then neither is yours. [/font]

So, if a law would passed that only allowed worship in Mormon churches, then you would still have freedom of religion, correct? After all, you would have the same right to worship as everyone else.

 

[Spherical Time]

lol. Your ilk have been trying to crumble the moral foundation of human life since the beginning of time.

sodom and gomorrah come to mind....

Atheists have been around since the beginning of time? Are you implying that there are one or more Gods that are atheists? That's an interesting proposition.

Anyway, aside from the fact that sodom and gomorrah wasn't about gay sex, I don't accept your premise that there is a moral foundation of human life.

And even if I did, I wouldn't be trying to crumble it. "lol" What an odd idea.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The forefathers feared unrestrained democracy and majority rule. That is why in every section of the constitution there are checks and balances.

 

[elman]

I believe what the Lord believes. Heaven will not be ours if we pick and choose the teachings we only like. Don't you agree?

You presume to know what the Lord believes. Do you see this test against the pickers and choosers in Matt 25:31 and following?

 

[TooCurious]

JGG and SimplyMe have articulated the case far better than I could have done (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JGG again.), but I will add my agreement to their points.

Marriage is a contractual agreement that requires informed consent. Neither a child nor an animal can enter into contractual agreements, nor can either give informed consent. Your slope isn't nearly as slippery as you seem to think it is.

As SimplyMe said, a compelling reason must be presented in order to deny a right to an individual or group. Compelling reasons have been found to prohibit incest and polygamy, which can be found in the case law on the subjects. There is no compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage. "Tradition" is not a compelling reason. Personal distaste is not a compelling reason. Religion is not a compelling reason.

It is abhorrent to suggest that someone must move to a different state or country in order to have full access to his or her rights. Please remember, not everyone has the desire or the means to uproot and relocate. Nor should someone be obligated to leave his home, his family and friends, his job, etc., just to gain access to his inalienable rights. Again, I say this is as wrong as it is ridiculous. If your state outlawed Christianity, would you be content to move halfway across the country to find a state where religious freedom was permitted, or would you object to the denial of your rights at home?

 

[NateBlack]

JGG and SimplyMe have articulated the case far better than I could have done (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JGG again.), but I will add my agreement to their points.

Marriage is a contractual agreement that requires informed consent. Neither a child nor an animal can enter into contractual agreements, nor can either give informed consent. Your slope isn't nearly as slippery as you seem to think it is.

As SimplyMe said, a compelling reason must be presented in order to deny a right to an individual or group. Compelling reasons have been found to prohibit incest and polygamy, which can be found in the case law on the subjects. There is no compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage. "Tradition" is not a compelling reason. Personal distaste is not a compelling reason. Religion is not a compelling reason.

It is abhorrent to suggest that someone must move to a different state or country in order to have full access to his or her rights. Please remember, not everyone has the desire or the means to uproot and relocate. Nor should someone be obligated to leave his home, his family and friends, his job, etc., just to gain access to his inalienable rights. Again, I say this is as wrong as it is ridiculous. If your state outlawed Christianity, would you be content to move halfway across the country to find a state where religious freedom was permitted, or would you object to the denial of your rights at home?

Perfect!

 

[wanderingone]

No, I don't think that it should be limited only in specific states, but that allowing the states to decide is a greater assurance for you to have someplace that will accept it.

You don't understand... there's no reason for me to care if other people accept it. You don't have to accept my marriage, you just don't have a right to limit my access to individual freedoms to avoid looking at my multi ethnic family.

See, if everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the decision was left to the states, you'd have someplace to go where you'd be accepted and recognized. If everywhere in the nation was opposed to interracial marriage except for California and the Federal government decided, you would have no place to go where you'd be accepted and recognized.

so in other words because noplace else but California (in your scenario) will "accept" and "recognize" my marriage I shouldn't want the federal government to recognize my rights because people won't accept it anyway? you don't understand the difference? The difference is your personal distaste for my choice of a partner won't effect who my next of kin is in the face of an emergency, you won't have the right to deny my husband his benefits as a surviving spouse in any state. I don't have to live only where I'm "wanted" I can live where I choose, and be assured some bigot down the block doesn't get to take that right away unless I personally decide I'd rather not live near a bigot.

Can you see why I'm for states rights? It is a greater assurance that you can live the way that you want to.

No its greater reasurrance than you can restrict my right to live the way I want to.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

States rights is a wonderfull idea, and for many subejcts of the law it should be the standard idea. However when it comes to individual rights, there must be a national standard. We tried state law for slavery, it contributed to starting the civil war. Blacks were free in some states, but could be re-enslaved if they entered others.

Gay marriage is no different. If a marriage is recognized in one state, but not in another, then when the married couple visits a non marriage state, they lose all rights and priveleges granted to them by their marriage.

No, civil rights are not something you can break down by state.

Like I said, people lobbied for exactly the same thing when it came to Interracial Marriage. The arguments as a whole are very similar. The majority of America did not support Interracial marriage, and they didnt support it for Biblical reasons more often than not. But then just like now, the majority cannot dictate the rights of the minority.

It's discrimination, you cannot deny that. I don't care what your reason for it, it IS discrimination, and discrimination is not allowed in this country.


As to Incest, though I do not personally approve, I cannot say definatively that it should be illegal. The high risks to children born of such a union gives some creedence to keeping it illegal. At least here we have a tangible reason to oppose it, and not just one pulled from a 2000 year old book who's meaning is debated even amongst its followers.

1. You're right about slavery, but you forgot to mention that our system was designed that way: it wasn't just by chance that there were as many slave states as free states. Popular sovereignty, for slavery, was a new idea just before the civil war.
2. I'm interested to see what "Biblical reasons" they could have had against interracial marriage, I have never heard any.
3. So, you oppose incestual marriage based on the risk to children, thus barring marriage based on procreation... You can see the errors in this very quickly, can't you. The dangers of a union are less likely to be able to be controlled or regulated if the union is not recognized: if lovers are denied marriage they will still have sex. This is the case with homosexuality as well, is it not?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You said that you want to dictate the lives of others when you want to control the choice of who they marry. It doesn't matter if you are offended by their choice or that you find it morally offensive, none of these reasons gives you the right to "dictate the lives of others".

I have no doubt that you do too. What's your opinion on incest? On beastiality? On polygamy? On child marriages? On child-adult marriages?

It's fine that you support state's rights. OTOH, we live in a Federal Republic and the US Constitution has precedenceover the rights of the states. The Constitution currently says that all people are equal under the law. To deny a group equal protection or a natural right requires a compelling reason. Without a compelling reason, as there does not appear to be with homosexual marriage, the federal government cannot deny equal protection.

Federal Republic? Yes, it's a Republic, and the state's permitted the federal government certain powers and, I quote "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". The state's have the right to leave the Union at any time and, ask any lawyer, the states can abolish the Federal government but the Federal government can't abolish the states. It may help to understand what a state is. Texas is a state. France is a state. California is a state, Brittany is a province of France.

That is true that neither of your morals are the law of the land. It takes the morals the majority chooses, except it protects the minority so that they also receive equal protection of law. To deny that equal protection, in cases such as pedophilia, polygamy, etc., a compelling reason for denial of rights must be shown (as they have in these instances). It is part of why the slippery slope arguments about homosexual marriage are so poor. Even if homosexual marriage becomes legal nationally, the compelling reasons preventing pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy will all still exist.

So, by your own words, the argument for homosexual marriage is good and the argument for accepting other new forms are bad. Well then it's decided.

WRONG!!!

Right? Wrong? Left?

Perhaps you could show me on this thread where people are arguing for incestual marriage. Instead, I believe it has been pointed out that the courts have ruled that the government has a compelling reason (reasons that aren't based on the Bible) for denying close family relatives from marrying.

I love how freely you like to use the word compelling. "But denying other people the chance for the happiness you and I take for granted is not at all what this country is about." So, what's so compelling against ALL incestual marriage? If you are to ban marriage based on procreational danger then you establish procreation as central to marriage - cross out homosexual marriage. But, of course, there are other safe ways. Sperm donors? Or we could try condoms? Birth control? How about getting fixed, that's a new fad. The grounds to ban incestual marriage are as slippery as homosexual and, at it's center, it creates procreation as CENTRAL to marriage, thus defeating homosexual marriage as well.

So why are you arguing that states should have the ability to discriminate without cause? Perhaps we should allow slavery again in the Southern states since, after all, they would not be slaves if they moved to the northern states? Was Missouri's Mormon Extermination Order valid since Mormon's could live in the other 49 states? After all, isn't Mormonism a dangerous lifestyle that will keep people from going to heaven?

Slavery is different because creating slavery again would TAKE AWAY rights that people have, not CREATE rights. As I say, there is a big difference between denying a man a right and denying a man his right. So is the extermination, esp. of citizens. So, I say yet again, there is a big difference between denying a man a right and denying a man his right!

If you don't feel these cases are justifiable, than at what point does discrimination by an individual state become acceptable?

I don't know. You seem to be for particular discrimination without any grounds that won't kill your argument for homosexual marriage.

Actually, this is not true. In the Old Testament (and in the cultures of the time) polygamy was the norm. There have been homosexual marriages throughout history. As for Polygamy, it was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court that the state had sufficient reasons to deny them, not the voters.

My bad - rather than "putting it to a vote" I still think it should be to the sates. But, I'd like you to give me the oldest example of a homosexual marriage you can, followed by the next two oldest.

Another part of the problem, however, is that it's not merely a decision of the states; there are federal marriage benefits as well. Part of the problem is that gay couples married in Massachusetts cannot get their marriages recognized by the federal government.

I know this, and it is a problem. It may make sense, then to ask why such marriage benefits are in place. What is the purpose?

Wrong. As shown in that post, just because something is made legal does not force it on another person. What you are trying to suggest would be the same as saying that the KKK is being discriminated against because they are being "forced" to accept things against their beliefs (Blacks and other minorities having equal rights).

That is not what I said. You said that he's trying to push his morals on you, and I'm saying that you push yours on him.

Actually, it is that simple. As explained above, the courts must find to uphold a law that denies equal opportunity that the state must have a compelling reason. And, as mentioned above, in the case of polygamy the reasons the State gave were ruled to be compelling.

There reasons held before the prominence of birth control (and homosexuality). Their grounds hold nothing to homosexual siblings, and little against heterosexual couples.

And i cede, it's a matter of what is considered to be compelling... Did you know that Biblical evidence was once considered compelling in court of law?

The easy answer is because in these cases the state has a compelling interest in banning them. In the case of children and beasts it largely comes down to their not being able to give informed consent. In the case of incestuous marriages, it is primarily because it is typically because unhealthy emotionally and the high likelihood of abuse. While the chance of diseased children resulting from incestuous marriages is also a factor, it is a lesser factor; there are states that will allow cousins to marry provided that they can prove they will not have children.

"In the case of incestuous marriages, it is primarily because it is typically because unhealthy emotionally and the high likelihood of abuse." - Many say the same thing about homosexuality. I want to point out that what is "unhealthy" is, basically, what is against the norm.

As a matter of law, it's when evidence suggests that people can make an informed and knowledgeable choice.

And so who is to say that it is adults? Actually, when you say two consenting adults, legally you are saying two people above the age of 21.

What is "informed and knowledgeable" is subjective, as is so much and, when you pull Aristotle, the foundations in this argument.

The key phrase here is "consenting adults". They are the ones that can make informed and knowledgeable choices. If it could be proven that 8 year-olds could make informed choices about marriage, then it's possible the marriage age would be lowered.

Prove to me that when a person turns 21 years of age he is, suddenly, informed and knowledgeable.

False, as mentioned above, the courts have consistently found that there are compelling reasons for banning incest.

Again, that was before the prominence of American birth control and homosexuality.

So, if a law would passed that only allowed worship in Mormon churches, then you would still have freedom of religion, correct? After all, you would have the same right to worship as everyone else.

I'm in the same boat as you, only you won't admit it. You consistently say that the court has found what is deemed compelling reason to ban incestual marriage and polygamy, but when was the last ruling? I'm sure that it did not make accounts for the modern prominence of birth control or homosexuality.

fyi, incestual marriage is said to be banned because of the the higher chance of abnormalities in offspring, polygamy because husband could not support so many families... Again, the center is procreation, isn't it? If you are to ban MARRIAGE on grounds of procreation then you must, if we are equal under law, ban marriage where people cannot procreate. Or, of course, you could just regulate. It's not a nice alternative, but a better one than denying them the equal right to marry which is fought so ardently for homosexuals.

 

[SimplyMe]

You said that you want to dictate the lives of others when you want to control the choice of who they marry. It doesn't matter if you are offended by their choice or that you find it morally offensive, none of these reasons gives you the right to "dictate the lives of others".

I have no doubt that you do too. What's your opinion on incest? On beastiality? On polygamy? On child marriages? On child-adult marriages?

I'm sorry you have no doubt that I do what? That I don't think we should legislate on the basis of what we find offensive? If I believed we should legislate based on offense, I'd be against much of free speech instead of believing that, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As for incest, bestiality, polygamy, and child marriages, each of these must stand or fall on their own merits and really aren't a part of this debate other than as part of a slippery slope argument.

Federal Republic? Yes, it's a Republic, and the state's permitted the federal government certain powers and, I quote "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". The state's have the right to leave the Union at any time and, ask any lawyer, the states can abolish the Federal government but the Federal government can't abolish the states. It may help to understand what a state is. Texas is a state. France is a state. California is a state, Brittany is a province of France.

Yes, it is a Federal Republic. As for whether or not the states can leave the US, there is a war that claims otherwise but I don't see why it matters in terms of this debate, just something to throw the discussion off topic.

So, by your own words, the argument for homosexual marriage is good and the argument for accepting other new forms are bad. Well then it's decided.

Actually, no. In my own words there is no basis for denying homosexual marriage in this country based on the Constitution. As for the others, the courts have determined that it is constitutional to deny these "other forms".

Right? Wrong? Left?

Obfuscation.

I love how freely you like to use the word compelling.

Just be glad I didn't use the word "scrutiny" (as in strict scrutiny, or intermediate scrutiny) and "rational basis review".

"But denying other people the chance for the happiness you and I take for granted is not at all what this country is about." So, what's so compelling against ALL incestual marriage? If you are to ban marriage based on procreational danger then you establish procreation as central to marriage - cross out homosexual marriage. But, of course, there are other safe ways. Sperm donors? Or we could try condoms? Birth control? How about getting fixed, that's a new fad. The grounds to ban incestual marriage are as slippery as homosexual and, at it's center, it creates procreation as CENTRAL to marriage, thus defeating homosexual marriage as well.

Actually, I didn't use procreation as a reason to deny it. I even mentioned that there are states that allow cousins (a form of incest) to marry provided they prove they are infertile. What I further claimed is that the courts have ruled that incest can be banned based on Constitutional tests. If you wish to change the law you can take it up with the courts.

Slavery is different because creating slavery again would TAKE AWAY rights that people have, not CREATE rights.

Untrue, it has already been established that the freedom to marry is a basic civil right and protected by the Constitution. (see Loving v. Virginia)

As I say, there is a big difference between denying a man a right and denying a man his right. So is the extermination, esp. of citizens. So, I say yet again, there is a big difference between denying a man a right and denying a man his right!

Except since marriage has already been established as a basic civil right, there is no difference to denying man marriage and denying a man his right to marriage unless it meets one of the tests above (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis test).

I don't know. You seem to be for particular discrimination without any grounds that won't kill your argument for homosexual marriage.

Weren't my arguments, I simply was stating what courts have determined.

My bad - rather than "putting it to a vote" I still think it should be to the sates. But, I'd like you to give me the oldest example of a homosexual marriage you can, followed by the next two oldest.

Which again begs the question, what "basic civil rights" should we allow the states to vote on to deny? As for the oldest examples of homosexual marriage, you have to go back before the time of Christ. You can start researching it here.

Another part of the problem, however, is that it's not merely a decision of the states; there are federal marriage benefits as well. Part of the problem is that gay couples married in Massachusetts cannot get their marriages recognized by the federal government.

I know this, and it is a problem. It may make sense, then to ask why such marriage benefits are in place. What is the purpose?

You are not clear here, the purpose of marriage benefits or the purpose of Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage? As for Massachusetts, the reason is to proved the many benefits that Massachusetts offers married couples, such as giving partners the rights to have hospital visitation and right to medical information and survival benefits.

That is not what I said. You said that he's trying to push his morals on you, and I'm saying that you push yours on him.

How am I trying to push my morals on him by simply allowing others their basic civil rights?

Actually, it is that simple. As explained above, the courts must find to uphold a law that denies equal opportunity that the state must have a compelling reason. And, as mentioned above, in the case of polygamy the reasons the State gave were ruled to be compelling.

There reasons held before the prominence of birth control (and homosexuality). Their grounds hold nothing to homosexual siblings, and little against heterosexual couples.

The courts to this point have disagreed with you.

And i cede, it's a matter of what is considered to be compelling... Did you know that Biblical evidence was once considered compelling in court of law?

And courts once ruled that slavery was constitutional. I don't see where that bit of trivia matters in today's society.

"In the case of incestuous marriages, it is primarily because it is typically because unhealthy emotionally and the high likelihood of abuse." - Many say the same thing about homosexuality. I want to point out that what is "unhealthy" is, basically, what is against the norm.

The difference is that studies exist that claim emotional problems with incest, the same studies do not exist for homosexuality. The difference is not what people say but what can be proven in court.

And so who is to say that it is adults? Actually, when you say two consenting adults, legally you are saying two people above the age of 21.

What is "informed and knowledgeable" is subjective, as is so much and, when you pull Aristotle, the foundations in this argument.

Actually, it is the legislature in the various states that decide the age of consent, not my decision. I believe that most states currently put the age of consent for sex and marriage to be about 16, not 21.

Prove to me that when a person turns 21 years of age he is, suddenly, informed and knowledgeable.

I'll agree that in many ways the age of consent laws are arbitrary but I've not seen a better solution proposed. Feel free to take up this issue with your congressman or senator or challenge these laws in court.

Again, that was before the prominence of American birth control and homosexuality.

I'm in the same boat as you, only you won't admit it. You consistently say that the court has found what is deemed compelling reason to ban incestual marriage and polygamy, but when was the last ruling? I'm sure that it did not make accounts for the modern prominence of birth control or homosexuality.

Acutally, you are wrong. The last court case for incest was Frank v. Muth from the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of appeals and dated June 22, 2005. Also in 2005, a federal judge in Utah ruled bans on polygamy constitutional. A Utah state court also ruled polygamy illegal, that case has been appealed to the Utah Supreme court.

fyi, incestual marriage is said to be banned because of the the higher chance of abnormalities in offspring, polygamy because husband could not support so many families... Again, the center is procreation, isn't it? If you are to ban MARRIAGE on grounds of procreation then you must, if we are equal under law, ban marriage where people cannot procreate. Or, of course, you could just regulate. It's not a nice alternative, but a better one than denying them the equal right to marry which is fought so ardently for homosexuals.

Except that is not what I argued. If you wish to start a thread that argues for incestuous marriage, be my guest; in response to my post it is a Straw Man.