Same sex marriage; A look at CP's gradual acceptance

[MrMastodonFarm]

Due to a cyst and risk of ovarian cancer (I think can't remember all the details) in her 20s one of my sisters had her ovaries removed. She got married a couple years back, should that not be allowed?

Anyone using Religious angle, and the idea that a gay person shouldn't marry due to not being able to have babies needs to get over that. The word marriage isn't owned by Muslims or Christians or any Religion. So too damn bad for you.

And honestly for the most tired I think that's a tired old excuse that people use to replace what they'd really want to say, gay people are icky and I don't like them.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

The fact that homosexual couples can't have children in the most natural of ways is a signal for me at least that marriage is between a man and woman.

My brothers wife could not have children due to medical reasons.

[Roast Beef]

My wife can't have children due to medical reasons. Is my marriage a sham?

[RougeUnderoos]

I can't have children because women don't like me. Is my loneliness part of god's plan?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by chemgear

What about men or women who happen to be sterile? Or the elderly? Post menopausal women?

Religious texts aren't meant to account for anomalies. There isn't really an answer for your question.

[WCW Nitro]

For all the comments about heterosexual couples not having the ability to have children, the ability to have children naturally is only part of the reason to my opposition. The other part is like I have mentioned that in my view if you are for same-sex marriage, you should have no moral qualms about 2 sisters/brothers or whatever getting married. So, it's this combination that forms my opposition,

[Minnie]

By Jessica Eaves Mathews:

I say this with sincere love to my many friends who are passionate fundamentalist Christians who believe that the SCOTUS’s decision yesterday on marriage equality is an abomination to themselves and to God: As a lawyer, I need to attempt to set the record straight.

Our country was created by our founding fathers very deliberately to prevent the establishment of a national religion from our governance. The Church - Catholic or Anglican - was central to almost every other country in the world historically, especially England from which our founding fathers separated. It was critical to our founding fathers that one central religion NOT be declared and NOT be incorporated into our Constitution or governance. They understood that an establishment of a national religion would ultimately abridge the very rights they believed were fundamental and were meant to be recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights and ultimately the Constitution.

Religion-based loss of basic rights had been their experience in England and they wanted to prevent that here.

The fact is that this decision yesterday was a LEGAL decision about the scope of our Constitutional rights as humans and US citizens. It was not about religion, religious beliefs or religious freedom. It is about equal rights, just as the decision in this country to give women the vote and the decision to abolish slavery were about equal rights. Any decision regarding the scope of a constitutional right (whether passed by Congress or interpreted by the SCOTUS) is a legal decision, not one based in religion or morality.

Rights are not and should not be up for a popular vote or up to the states to determine. Rights are absolute and cannot be dependent upon anything other than the fact that the person is a human being and is a citizen of the US. If those two conditions are met, YOUR belief system about what is MORALLY or spiritually right or wrong does not matter and should not. You should be glad that is the case, because it would be just as easy for another religion to take over and curtail your rights as a Christian (something that has happened throughout history).

In fact, one religious party believing they know the truth for all humans is how terrible oppression starts - that is how Naziism started, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klu Klux Klan, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS - the most destructive, hateful, murderous periods of human history have arisen directly out of one religious group (ironically, most of these examples were lead by Christians) believing their religion and religious beliefs were THE truth, and therefore they had the right to take away the rights (and lives) of those who lived or believed differently than them.

Our founding fathers wanted to prevent that outcome. So does our current Supreme Court. THAT is the law of the land and I could not be more grateful to be an American than when human rights are protected. I don’t have to agree with you to believe with all my heart and soul that YOUR rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be protected against oppression or prejudice. LGBT US citizens deserve exactly the same treatment. God Bless America.

p.s. Those railing against the decision of marriage equality as a basic constitutional right are confusing the idea of constitutional (i.e human) rights with certain types of behavior (the stuff they call "sin"). But human rights are inherent in all human beings and US citizens - not doled out based on who is behaving "well" and who isn't. All US citizens should have the equal right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, regardless of the "sins" they commit. The only behavior that should curtail your constitutional rights is if you commit a crime (a felony) and are convicted. But even then, criminals can still marry, have kids, own property, work and live in our communities. The only things they can't do is vote and carry firearms. If committing a sin was a barrier to receiving basic constitutional rights in this country, we would all be in big trouble, not just the LGBT community.

I see many comments around the Internet about how alarming the SCOTUS' decision in OBERGEFELL v. HODGES is because it redefines marriage, something the judiciary should not be allowed to do.

As a lawyer, I again need to attempt to set the record straight on this: Marriage has ALREADY been redefined many times in our country (and by the Supreme Court).

It used to be a business contract and arranged, where women had no rights and were considered property of their husbands. As women gained their own constitutional footing, marriage and its many benefits (like land ownership, money, taxes, freedom to make decisions for your own person, etc...) had to be redefined and was redefined by the Supreme Court through interpretation of the US Constitution.

It used to be believed fervently that interracial marriage was a sin (recall there was a time in our not too distant past when African Americans were not even considered "persons" under the Constitution - a belief held-close and perpetuated even by some members of the Christian church in the US - this only began to change after it was first changed by the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court had to make a ruling to change the definition of marriage to include interracial marriage. This is no different.

Justice Kennedy explains it eloquently, so I will share his words from various points in the SCOTUS opinion:

“The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.

For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. See N. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17 (2000); S. Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005). As the role and status of women changed, the institution further evolved. Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765). As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned. See Brief for Historians of Marriage et al. as Amici Curiae 16–19. These and other developments in the institution of marriage over the past centuries were not mere superficial changes. Rather, they worked deep transformations in its structure, affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential. See generally N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage; H. Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000).”
*******
“Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is ‘one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’”
*******
"Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory “to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.” Zablocki, supra, at 386.”
******
And I love this passage - for those of you who feel passionately that same-sex marriage is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God, there is a message for you in the SCOTUS's opinion:

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons."

[Acey]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

if you are for same-sex marriage, you should have no moral qualms about 2 sisters/brothers or whatever getting married.

This is my exact position, in fact. Marry whoever you want. My only issue with a brother/sister marriage is the aforementioned medical problems if they were to have a child, which isn't so much a marriage issue as it is a child welfare issue.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Acey

This is my exact position, in fact. Marry whoever you want. My only issue with a brother/sister marriage is the aforementioned medical problems if they were to have a child, which isn't so much a marriage issue as it is a child welfare issue.

But many ppl would be opposed to 2 sisters getting married where the issue of medical child problems does not arise.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

For all the comments about heterosexual couples not having the ability to have children, the ability to have children naturally is only part of the reason to my opposition. The other part is like I have mentioned that in my view if you are for same-sex marriage, you should have no moral qualms about 2 sisters/brothers or whatever getting married. So, it's this combination that forms my opposition,

So two bull #### reasons, got it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

But many ppl would be opposed to 2 sisters getting married where the issue of medical child problems does not arise.

Are people really worried about the sisters who want to get married? This is a concern of yours? Sisters getting married? Do you know, or have you ever met, sisters who want to marry?

If so, you must hang in some pretty wild circles, and I'm surprised something as benign as gay marriage is something you are against.

We are not wondering what could happen anymore. Same-sex marriage has been legal for Canada for 10 years. We heard all of this before, including the faux concern about the guy who will want to marry his mom, or the woman who wants to marry a Christmas ham.

It didn't happen. It hasn't. It won't. And on the odd chance that suddenly there is a significant portion of society who want to marry their sister, then let them fight it out.

You are arguing against marriage equality based on bizarre hypotheticals.

[KelVarnsen]

This thread sure has gone the way flameswin planned...

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Are people really worried about the sisters who want to get married? This is a concern of yours? Sisters getting married? Do you know, or have you ever met, sisters who want to marry?

If so, you must hang in some pretty wild circles, and I'm surprised something as benign as gay marriage is something you are against.

We are not wondering what could happen anymore. Same-sex marriage has been legal for Canada for 10 years. We heard all of this before, including the faux concern about the guy who will want to marry his mom, or the woman who wants to marry a Christmas ham.

It didn't happen. It hasn't. It won't. And on the odd chance that suddenly there is a significant portion of society who want to marry their sister, then let them fight it out.

You are arguing against marriage equality based on bizarre hypotheticals.

I agree completely with you, and I have mentioned many times that no, I don't foresee a huge demand of siblings wanting to get married. But the stance against this is a moral one, and I don't think numbers should dictate your moral position on an issue. My only point is this, if you are for same-sex marriage, you should in theory have no problem with 2 sisters or brothers getting married since in both cases it does not affect your personal life. This does not mean that I think it will lead us down a road where millions are demanding the legalizing of this type of marriage.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

But many ppl would be opposed to 2 sisters getting married where the issue of medical child problems does not arise.

Can we stop talking about spawns of satan for a second? Children are a completely separate thing that don't have anything to do with marriage.

No, I wouldn't be opposed to sisters getting married because who gives a fata. Marry who you want to marry. Coincidentally, no matter who you're married to or plan to marry, do not intentionally procreate knowing said children are likely to have problems.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

This thread sure has gone the way flameswin planned...

Sliver cant start every thread.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I agree completely with you, and I have mentioned many times that no, I don't foresee a huge demand of siblings wanting to get married. But the stance against this is a moral one, and I don't think numbers should dictate your moral position on an issue. My only point is this, if you are for same-sex marriage, you should in theory have no problem with 2 sisters or brothers getting married since in both cases it does not affect your personal life. This does not mean that I think it will lead us down a road where millions are demanding the legalizing of this type of marriage.

Well really, if we're trying to go back to traditional, original marriage in the Bible, if we go back to Adam and Eve and their children--well yeah, by that standard we should definitely allow siblings to be married, because if the creation account from the Bible is to be believed, the entire human race started with one couple, and that one couple gave birth to children, and presumably those children would've had to get married to each other and give birth to their own children, who would've had to then marry either siblings or cousins for quite a few generations.

So I mean, if we really want to get traditional and go the way the Bible says, pretty much anything is fair game. Sibling marriage, cousin marriage, marriage between a man and a woman (and a bunch of concubines) or a man and like 700 women (Solomon), etc, etc, etc.

Even in the Bible alone, the "definition" of marriage changes throughout. If a man is to "leave his father and mother and stick with his wife" why is he allowed to have a bunch of concubines? Why was he allowed to marry a bunch of other women?

And I'm just curious, since you're so worried about the sanctity of marriage--how adamantly against divorce are you? Should it be illegal save for cases of obvious and documented adultery?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

The other part is like I have mentioned that in my view if you are for same-sex marriage, you should have no moral qualms about 2 sisters/brothers or whatever getting married. So, it's this combination that forms my opposition,

I don't understand this point of view. The US was perfectly able to draw an arbitrary line in the sand right after male/female marriage. That lasted for decades in some states even though it was illegal. If you would have your way, that line would still be there. Why can't the line exist now as it did before except just a little further down the road? Let the incest groups raise millions of dollars, invest countless hours and lobby for their own change. The slippery slope isn't a real thing. It's an imaginary prop.

However, at the point where the incest people get their case heard in court, they will run into the one logical dilemma that blows the whole argument up. The "incest lobby" is not being denied a right. They are free to marry according to their sexual orientation and are not limited by any fundamental human condition. There is no compelling evidence that attraction to siblings is genetic in nature. Rights obviously have limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre claiming free speech just as you can't marry a relative, an animal or more than one person.

Actually I think relatives should be allowed to get married. The genetic risk is really pretty low, higher with closer relations, but very low with cousins for example. And the number of incestuous couples will always be incredibly low compared to the general population. So there's not much risk for the population in general. But if it came down to it, all good. Marry your cousin. I get it. I've got wicked hot cousins.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

For all the comments about heterosexual couples not having the ability to have children, the ability to have children naturally is only part of the reason to my opposition. The other part is like I have mentioned that in my view if you are for same-sex marriage, you should have no moral qualms about 2 sisters/brothers or whatever getting married. So, it's this combination that forms my opposition,

Isn't that kind of like comparing apples to oranges? Or at least comparing apples to a different kind of apple.

To me there's quite a big difference between two people of the same sex that want to get married, and siblings getting married. That one there's actual medical reasons to be against it. Besides, that's an entirely different topic altogether, and the slippery slope argument is a nonsense one in my opinion.

Props on speaking up with an unpopular opinion though, especially on a site like this where if you even do something as minor as disagreeing with Nenshi you get treated like an outcast. So speaking up in a thread like this takes balls

[WCW Nitro]

Ok, it seems like this thread is getting a bit off track so I'll just stop posting, not because I'm not enjoying the conversation but it's just going to open up more and more questions further away from the topic. And my intent was not to upset anyone but the OP mentioned that he wanted the anti people to speak up and then someone asked me specifically why I was against it so I answered it honestly.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Ok, it seems like this thread is getting a bit off track so I'll just stop posting, not because I'm not enjoying the conversation but it's just going to open up more and more questions further away from the topic. And my intent was not to upset anyone but the OP mentioned that he wanted the anti people to speak up and then someone asked me specifically why I was against it so I answered it honestly.

Well I might be in the minority here but I thank you for speaking up. Like I touched on in a few of my posts, I think the dialogue is important versus the new trend of attacking anyone that's against the popular opinion.