i dont have to cite a precedent. you know as well as i do that under due process of law you can make any laws and remove any laws and its all legal. you can remove any and all ammendments and any other alws as long as its under due process(legally).


drinking age. i think it was MADD that lobbied to change it to 21. how about legal adult age. we see fit that it is 18 and not 21 and not 16. like i said, as long as a law is passed with due process, its fine.

agreed. and we made that law as we saw fit.
[quote]
I explained why. I used incest as an example. The government has a compelling reason to deny those forms of marriage. Its not just because they are "gross". [quote] not true for all cases. can you make the argument for twins? neither techincally has an overbearing power over the other.
[quote]
Because some forms of marriage infringe on rights (underage marriage) or put people at risk (incest). [quote] some. not all. thats very important because youre leaving out big groops. incest between two cousins puts who at risk? and how does underage marriage infringe on anyones rights?
the topic of family environment. theres a difference between a couple and a family. do you want to argue for the couple issue or for the family issue?
so you want to deny someone their right to marriage because you dont want to change the other laws to include multiple parteners? whats the difference between that and someone that doesnt want to change the marriage deffinition because they dont want to change the laws? do you have a compelling argument for it?
BTW the government (ie. laws) doesnt come before the people so passing laws or denying rights because of and inconvenience for the legislation is not a compelling argument, in fact, im pretty sure its unconstitutional seeing as how the people provide the power not the laws.

yes it would but its irrelevant. see above.

im talking about blood relatives.



because it was out of context that i have set up which was that both parties were of legal age and consenting to it.



so your reasoning is based on sexual behavior? and *possible* psychological victimization? how would you prove that that couple shouldnt be suited to be married?
[quote]
Cousins are allowed to marry in some states. [quote] even immediate cousins?


thats not true. the victim could be offspring.
as long as all parties are consenting and no one is being harmed, then no. my problem is not with marriage, but with abuse. as long as abuse is punished its fine.



[quote]
Please cite your precedent where a child has been bound to the terms of a contract, with or without his parent's consent.

No, probation is a punishment.

The parents are liable for them...not the children. If the child does not fulfill the terms of the contract, what are the consequences for the child?

There are none. Please cite an example to the contrary. A child cannot bind himself to a contract. If the parents sign for him, it is the parents that are responsible, not the child.
[quote]

ill answer these together. when my friend was younger he got caught with pot on him and he had a choice; serve time or probation for 3 years and he picked probation andthe rule was that if he broke his probation he would sereve the time even if he had just one more day on probation. he was underage. that doesnt sound like a contract to you?

definition of contract
con·tract Audio Help /n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 ˈkɒntrækt; otherwise v. kənˈtrækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

certain forms? as in some forms are okay with love being the only premise?

I adovocate for the change in the definition of marriage because it represents the only union that was recognized under law. It is a discriminatory law not because gay people can't also marry under the law, but rather because it is discriminatory against individuals who wish to form a union other than between a man and a woman. If all the same rights and protections under the law could be established under civil union, I would be fine with that. But the fact is by giving it a different word, we risk a "separate but equal" situation where these unions are treated as anything but equal with regard to protections and rights under the law.

Marriage itself should never have been made into the law. It should have been union. While the definition itself may be the innocent union between a man and a woman, the fact that it was the word choice encoded into law to describe the unions under the law that makes it discriminatory. The word has no place in government, it should be given back to the people and churches who claim ownership.

And you did nothing to refute my argument about contracts. You merely said it's a contract because there is a choice. You ignored the compelling and overbearing force the other parties might have had in the matter. This is not a contract. Otherwise if I held a gun to your head and gave you the choice of your life or you signing over all of yoru assets to me, this would be a contract under your rules. It's not. The government has power over the individual regardless of if he signs the contract or not. It's saying you ahv ea choce... go to prison or go on probation. This is not a contract.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

So you are saying I should take your word for it?


If I agreed with you on that point, we wouldn't be arguing about this.

You could technically pass a law that says fat people arent allowed to wear tube tops in public because its gross. But it would be nullified by the judicial branch almost immediately.


And the judicial branch will make them null and void unless you can prove the state has a compelling reason for them.


Compelling reason is because of the number of drunk driving accidents caused by people under 21. I dont agree with it personally, but the state did.



Compelling reason is that the state feels people under the age of consent lack the life experience to make decisions in their own best interest.



The examples you have given so far have compelling reasons behind them.


I disagree. It is common for twins to have one dominant.


Any child they might conceive, deliberately or accidentally. That raises the issue of birth defects.

But like I said, some states don't agree that even that is sufficient compelling reason.


Because Children cannot consent to marriage. I explained above the compelling reason for that...why the law recognizes an age of consent.


That is what many theists argue. I don't agree though.


I would argue that allowing gays to marry does not affect the family at all.

Marriage is obviously not about family...if it were, the government would not permit couples to marry who could not have children (sterile) or who had no intention of having children. Straight people can marry for any reason or no reason at all.


Yes.

I am not opposed to allowing polygamy for moral reasons. Just practical ones. If there is enough demand for it, I would not be opposed to changing the laws to accommodate them. So far I have not seen a huge demand for polygamous marriage.


Yes. I already gave it actually:


Hope that helps.


So much for the Family Values angle eh?

You think incest marriage is ok, but gay marriage is not?


Yes.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm




Explain to me how two gay men could have a child with each other.



Thats a punishment. Not a contract. The terms are therefore irrelevant, since it is all punitive.

A contract is not punitive. A contract is a free agreement between two people. You cant choose to agree to a punishment if it is being imposed on you.


No.



Emphasis mine. He never had the choice not to agree. It is a punishment that is imposed on him, not an agreement he willingly signed. He didn't agree to either, he was simply forced to choose between the two.

The law does not recognize what you described as being a contract.



"Love is insufficient reason to make a given form of marriage legal." Happy?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Post of the week:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.

Certainly I understand what you are saying, and I'm sure many of those against rights for gays understand too. There are just too many other issues we are dealing with such as

what's the limit to marriage if gays are allowed
Whether or not it is a choice, that doesn’t mean it is right
it's "unhealthy"
it's "un natural"

and all sorts of fun filled arguments we come against that don't care if sexual orientation is chosen or not.


So first we have to establish that homosexuality is not "wrong" for whatever reason to begin with.

Then we have to establish why homosexual couples should get the same legal treatment of a heterosexual couple.

Top that off with all the circular arguments we are facing and those who believe they are infallibly right by the dictates of god...

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Yes and if I remember correctly, Michael Jackson used to be black.

then why are you advocating for gay marriage? until now, you said nothing about civil unions..
thats not true. if it were made seperate but equal then it would be treated as such. if you dont change the name, you take the risk of discrimination between those who refuse to recofnize gay marriage as marriage(which IMO is more likely).

the government is the people. it was never taken away. people hold the power, not the government.

no i didnt overlook the possibility. your statement is subjective. the word "might" can go either way.
[/quote]
This is not a contract. Otherwise if I held a gun to your head and gave you the choice of your life or you signing over all of yoru assets to me, this would be a contract under your rules. It's not.[/quote] i agree. but what youre stating is a situation out of the hands of the court system. a contract in a court setting that goes through due process is completely different and you know it.
thats not true.

yes it is. it goes through the legal system, it has terms and conditions.. sounds like a contract to me.

Because I consider the difference to be a silly issue of semantics irrelevant to any moral issues at hand.
I think recent history has spoken for itself that the issue is with civil unions, not marriage. People with civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, they are not necessarily recognized across states, and they are having more difficulty enforcing hospital rights and to make medical decisions than married couples.

We only need one entity to recognize gay marriage... the government. After that, the rest will follow by act of law where the government has jurisdiction (for instance, not in churches). Civil unions, on the other hand, need to be recognized in every state and by the federal government with the same rights to be comparable to marriage.
Irrelevant. The people have done many discriminatory things, for instance make it illegal for a black person to marry a white person. I know you said you were not sure what I was talking about before, but this is what I was talking about. In the past, some states encoded this into law. This is why I mocked you by saying:

"Everyone has the right to get married, two blacks, two whites. there is no discrimination"
That statement was vague because I was referring to “possible” contracts in general. In a case where one party does have significant force over the other, there is no contract and it will be thrown out in court.
Um, no I don't know it.... that's why I used it as an argument. If the government holds a threat that they will imprison you, or if I hold a gun to your head, both of these cases are examples where the other party has significant force over the other one, and is thus not a contract. However, in the court system it doesn’t need to be a contract because it is a punishment proceeding following the due process of law. This is different.
Yes it is. They have the power to imprison.
Unfortunately the legal system is a lot more complicated than you think it is. True, it sounds like a contract, but if you want to get into the law, the actual definition of a contract as is recognized legally is very complicated. I would know, I spent a 5 months in college studying contract law. Two important elements of a contract, as recognized under law, are the presence of consideration AND that neither party has an overbearing control over the other party such that they have little choice but to agree to the contract. Any such contract will be thrown out of court.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I want to marry an animal, no I want to marry my car, no I want to marry the tree. At what point do we stop. If you can't legally regulate that 2 people must be of the opposite sex to get married, how can you regulate that 6 people does not a marriage make?

no.. i backed up my statement with proof. do you care to discredit my statement with countering proof?

precedent doesnt go before proof...
thats right. thats the beauty of our system.


i agree.


thats not true. your statement indicates that the reason it changed is because they might drive afterwords and that they might get in acidents. thats not why it was changed.. the two reasons were because 1. they wanted to make all states have the same restrictions and 2. they believed that 21 year olds were more mature then 18 year olds. that would be like saying we should make all speed limits the same from state to state and not have anyone under 30 years of age drink and drive because 30 year olds are more mature then 21 year olds.

they preactically told people "youre mature enough to be an adult but not mature enough to drink wether or not youre going to drive afterwards. is that compelling evidence for you?

i was talking about legal adult age, not age of consent.

to the point that one can have an overbearing dominance over the other? you think thats common?

have you ever been around twins? its like being in a cage with two male lions that are competing for dominance. even between boy and girl twins.
that only happens when the blood line has not changed for multiple generations. thats why some states dont find it as compelling evidence. so i ask again, whats the compelling evidence?


the state of texas (among others) disagrees with you..
can you back up your statement?


you think a gay family would be normal and the children wouldnt be confused? do you feel the same about an incest family?

yes it is. thats one reason why family members can get married.. it would create a strange environment for children.
intention means nothing. you think every child was intended? also, theres adoprion.

[quote]
Straight people can marry for any reason or no reason at all. [quote] gays can marry for any reason at all. bi people too.


gays are only 1% to 5% of the population (the former percentage is more conservative while the ladder is more liberal).. polygamy affects all muslims(1% of the population), and practically all other religions have sects that practice polygamy. the numbers are comparable to gays but but i guess that doesnt matter right?


it wasnt very compelling.. like i said. we structure laws around people. we dont deny people certain rights because of an inconvenience in laws. it was an inconvenience to change all laws regarding blacks as property.. we still did it.





you dont think polygamists have family values?
i didnt say gay marriage is not okay. i said its no different than incestuous or polygamous marriage.


from your link:

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

*North Carolina- First cousin marriage is legal. Double cousin marriage is prohibited


would it be fair to make the same laws for gays? they should be over 50 and should not have children(except for north carolina)




i dint say with each other. there are circumstance in which a gay man can have custody over a child. the mother is in prison, the mother is dead, the mother doesnt want the child, adoption, etc..



he wasnt forced into the contract. he could have rejected it if he wanted to.



he could have refused either term for more time in jail...

can you show some proof?
so youre saying that some marriages are okay on the reason of love ans some are not. how is that not discrimination? unless you want to make the argument that discriminating between marriage is okay and not all marriage should be accepted. if thats the