Utah Legalises Same-Sex Marriage One Day After NM.

There has been several threads about this, and it is merely a silly way for opponents of gay marriage to try to refuse the reality of what is happening today in the US (and in most developed countries in the world): the acceptance that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and that, if marriage between two consenting people is legal, it should not be refused to people based on sexual apparatus.

But. . . since you insist:

Marriage between closely related individuals pauses a danger to offsprings. However, if that danger is removed (i.e., sterilization of at least one party, with, obviously, the choice to have children through artificial insemination, surrogate birth, or adoption) many people do not see a problem with it. In fact, the laws differ from State to State on how far remove the "parentage" between two people must be to obtain a marriage license. It is also clear that, if two people of opposite sex are spending their life together as a married couple, it would be very hard to determine whether or not they are legally married, so many forms of discriminations wouldn't affect them.

Polygamy is basically the same thing. . .as long as young, underage girls are not "brought" into a polygamist marriage that they do not have the maturity (and/or the power) to accept or reject. Another issue with polygamy is the financial aspect of it. How do we deal with "multiple wives" requesting spouse payment from social security?

What if ONE person in a family of 4 adults works, and the 3 other adults than feel they should EACH receive the "spouse benefit?" This would without a doubt be a huge problem for the solvency of social security!
But, maybe if there was a law that allowed only "divided" spousal benefits between the number of non-working spouses, it might take away that problem.

Personally, I don't have an issue with either of those two potential issues. . .as long as the obvious problems (inbreeding and cost to tax payers) are dealt with before hand.

 

The reasons for banning incest and polygamy stand regardless of whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. The point is that there is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples.

- - - Updated - - -

The fail is all yours. Marriage is indeed a Constitutional right, as per Loving V Virginia.

 

So what? Marriage falls under the Constitution "equal rights under the law." Whether you like it or not. . .that is a fact.

And, the Constitution is FAR from being perfect! Some of the "RIGHTS" implied under the Constitutions are ridiculous today, while other HUMAN RIGHTS are being objected to because they are not specifically mentioned under that imperfect document.
And, by stating that the Constitution is imperfect, I am ONLY reiterating what our forefathers stated. . .that is why there is a process in place for amendments.

But, in my book, marriage is a much less "destructive" right than "owning a gun!" At least, it doesn't kill anyone!

 

No, it's not going to explode my head. The people who engage in this are the ones who will suffer, not me. lol. Why would anyone's heads explode?

 

The Constitution doesn't say that, its says nobody can be denied equal protection of the laws. Equal rights under the law is in US code.

What rights implied by the Constitution are ridiculous?

Just what is the definition of marriage, anyway?

 

Probably because most people thought Utah would be one of the last states to recognize same-sex civil marriage not one of the first.

Why will people who engage in a same sex marriage suffer any more than people who engage in an opposite sex marriage which, I'll freely admit, can be quite a lot?

 

It's really quite simple. I'm not sure how you don't understand. If it's a right, then how come a father can't marry his daughter or son? How come a guy can't marry his sister or brother?

Clearly it's not a right

 

That's irrelevant. You're not stopping them from having children by denying them the right to marriage. You're simply denying them the "right" to marriage and the benefits that come along with it. Also, what about 2 brothers who want to get married? What about if one of the partners is infertile?

What's the problem then?

But they're still denied marriage aren't they? If you're claiming that marriage is a right, then they should have the "right" to marry. Period.

If you don't believe that, then you don't believe marriage is a right.

 

In case you didn't realize it. UTAH did not legalize it. Therefore it's not shocking that it was allowed. It was a liberal court that did so. If the citizens of Utah had been allowed to vote on it, they would have voted it down like the other 33 out of 36 times it was voted on by the American people

Far and away the American people think that homosexual marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Don't worry, the fight is nowhere near ended. We will bide our time until we get another conservative or two on the SCOTUS and take that vote again. Let's see if that 5-4 vote will hold up.

 

Eventually leftwingers will get around to that stuff as well and then eventually it will be the right of a biological father to marry a biological daughter or son -- assuming the age of consent and then of consent itself . . . and ditto for siblings marrying siblings. That's the nature of 'no limits' liberalism. "Seriously we just want this one little thing. Stop being paranoid haters! Just give us this one little thing and we will stop pushing."

So out of sheer exhaustion society gives the Left that one little thing and then -- gasp! -- it turns out that they LIED. It turns out that now they want this next little thing and then the next and the next and the next and then they have it all. Society? Culture? Utter chaos with zero meaningful standards . . . but that's progress for you.

 

Oh don't worry, they've already started to attempt to get rid of the "age of consent" and to change the Pedophile label into "Minor Attracted Persons". Did you know it's no longer PC to call them pedophiles? They're now minor attracted persons.

This isn't surprising considering the absurdly high rate of child molestation in males who have sex with other males.

 

Ownership of slaves?
And. . .I believe that the way the "right to bear arms" is interpreted is ridicule.

Please, understand that this is MY opinion, and that disagreeing with me about MY opinion is a moot point.

 

Wrong again!

Here are a series of 2013 polls:

 

I'm not interested in polls. I'm interested where it counts. And where it counts is that it's been voted NO on 33 out of 36 times that the American populace actually had the opportunity to vote for it.

Which is why these states that are legalizing it, like Utah, aren't doing it by vote... because it would never pass. They have to force it against the will of the people.

But it's your lie, tell it how you want to.

 

Who cares?
The fact is that in every state that have already legalized gay marriage, once it is legalized, it gains on approval.
Utah will be no different.

This is just the beginning. In 5 years, over half the States will be PRO gay marriage, and in 10 years, Gay marriage will be the law of the land.

 

Oh well . . . it's not as if anyone expected the United States to endure forever. Gary Larson -- the cartoonist -- once suggested that mother nature's greatest nightmare scenario would be cats with opposable thumbs. Civilization's greatest nightmare is 'no limits' liberals with an agenda. So it goes.

 

Yep. . .but where it COUNTS is where it is LEGALLY ALLOWED, no matter how you want to spin it.

And, EVERY WEEK more people are switching to approving gay marriage, because they realize that all the fear mongering in the world will not make gay marriage detrimental to marriage, and that it really doesn't impact the life of heterosexual people in ANY negative fashion.

Those "votes" you are talking about happened in the PAST. . .look at what will happen IN THE FUTURE!

 

You might want to check your history again. Homosexuals have done this many times in the past in many different country's. It ALWAYS gains traction because the morality of the people has degraded so far that they're willing to accept debase and derelict lifestyles... which is why they also ALWAYS accept other abhorrent activities like sex with children or animals or something of that nature after they accept homosexuality.

However, and this is the part that you'll care about, they ALWAYS end up losing. They gain traction for a while, but they ALWAYS end up being considered as the same debase, vile, abhorrent practicers of immorality that they were in the beginning. They never win. They simply gain footing for a while.

Regardless... what do you think is going to happen when we get some conservatives back on the SCOTUS? You only won by 5-4 margin. What do you think is going to happen when we get 2 conservatives back up there and take that vote again?

 

Lol, please show me in the Constitution where ownership of slaves is a right? Maybe you forgot this part of the Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

If you want to quote the Constitution and say it's a "fact", perhaps you should read it first.

 

Of course it does. It's extremely expensive and homosexuals provide no benefit that justifies the amount of subsidies used for marriage.

And you can keep pointing to the court rulings. What you seem to forget is that court rulings get changed and overturned when new judges come in to take their place. If you think that the homosexual agenda is not going to get challenged in the courts once we get conservatives back in... you're exceedingly deluded.

And unfortunately for you, the will of the people WILL eventually win. And the will of the people is that homosexuality is a detriment both morally and economically and shouldn't be allowed. And see, unlike you, we actually have the will of the people on our side... so we don't have to FORCE it down their throats... they'll happily accept it.

 

But why? I thought people, according to those who advocate for deviants being allowed to marry each other, had the right to marry whomever they wanted? You know, equal protection and all. Why are you denying certain people what you claim is a right for all?

 

Because they're hypocrites and they don't actually believe in equality or equal rights or equal protection. They only believe it insofar as it justifies their perverted agenda. When THEY disagree with something, they feel they have every right to discriminate against them.

 

So wait... you're saying the the ability to produce healthy offspring should be a condition of being married?? Hmmmmm.....

The fact that you have to make stuff up weakens your stance. I'm not talking about underage girls. I'm talking about consenting adults. Why should a guy be forbidden from marrying a dozen women?

 

Is that prior or after the Civil war?
And. . .if it was prior. . .are you telling me that the slave owners (like Washington) were disobeying the Constitution?

Get real. . .Stop splitting hair and playing games.

 

I hold solace in the fact that people like these have attempted to get homosexuality accepted for at least 3000 years. And it's NEVER been accepted consistently. It only gets accepted for a short period of time and then it's dead. It's dead because it's immoral, unethical and leads to serious ethical conundrums in society. Society eventually labels them as pariahs... In fact... homosexuals usually end up in FAR worse positions than they were in before after they attempt to get people to accept them.

This will not be any different.