Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage a Right (5-4)

Originally posted by Robtard
It's still incestuous. Consent doesn't change the DNA of a biological brother and sister

Well being for all is what matters, why marriage-equality is a good thing

See, it's comments like this that make people think you're a complete dullard

Nope.

My point is that [if] only "consent among adults" is a valid argument, then adults 'can' consent to an incestuous relationship as well. Therefore, legality of marriage should not be restricted to this argument only.

2. Then homosexuality should not be promoted.

Reason?

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. (CDC)

3. What is wrong with that statement?

I pointed out a fact that many people tend to be promiscuous before marriage. It is during these relationships, that people are at increased risk of catching STDs and/or STIs. Gays and bisexuals are not an exception to these developments.

For me, Religion always has been and always will be a way to explain what we do not understand. In the ancient times that meant lightning, sea storms and earthquakes. Their answer was Zeus, Poseidon and the Gods. Now we do understand what causes them, and now we're left looking to ourselves. What causes some humans to be different from others, what causes others to make different choices to us, and why. We ask what happens when we die, and why any of our choices in life should matter.

Religions try to answer these questions, and a lot of times they contradict themselves.

They contradict themselves and ultimately leave a gateway for people to make their own choices and only hide behind Religion as their answer.

This is a very weak explanation of religion.

Originally posted by Robtard

See, it's comments like this that make people think you're a complete dullard

*know

Originally posted by psmith81992
If you can show me where Judaism, and to a lesser extent Christianity, contradict themselves, I'll be more inclined to listen to this very generic "rationalization" for religion.

This is no contradiction and just utter nonsense. Christianity and Judaism have rules. Yet we are given free will (that is, to break those rules or not). Where is the contradiction here?

This is a very weak explanation of religion.

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Contradiction? ^^

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

^^ Contradiction?

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

^^ Contradiction?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

^^ That's also a contradiction.

There's hundreds. 32:27 has killing as permitted or commanded, 20:13 has it forbidden under all circumstances.

The bible contradicts itself all the time :/

Imagine if the SC would rule that incest would be legal.
It's not about the fact that abnormalities can arise from pregnancy, but the act itself could be deemed legal someday.

I mean, it's not much different with this case. What if the siblings love each other, like how two males/females love each other? Should we deprive them of their right to love one another or to satisfy their lust?

I think the main issue with this ruling is the SC let emotions rule over the constitutional process.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*know

As a reminder:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
a child is not legally capable of consent. this is already law.

Who is really dumb? You.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Imagine if the SC would rule that incest would be legal.
It's not about the fact that abnormalities can arise from pregnancy, but the act itself could be deemed legal someday.

I mean, it's not much different with this case. What if the siblings love each other, like how two males/females love each other? Should we deprive them of their right to love one another or to satisfy their lust?

I think the main issue with this ruling is the SC let emotions rule over the constitutional process.

There's no ethical problem with two consenting adults who are related loving each other aside from the risks to offspring. But incest can easily be harmful because of power imbalances, abuse and other toxic elements. I'd imagine there'd also be something about mixing the familial relationship with a sexual one that could be an issue.

The bible contradicts itself all the time :/

Show me a contradiction in the torah? Not to mention you're not looking at anything but the words, unless you are an authority on the bible and explain what you're reading, not very convincing. We would have to break down each line to see what it means.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
1. That is not my point.

My point is that [if] only "consent among adults" is a valid argument, then adults 'can' consent to an incestuous relationship as well. Therefore, legality of marriage should not be restricted to this argument only.

2. Then homosexuality should not be promoted.

Reason?

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. (CDC)

3. What is wrong with that statement?

I pointed out a fact that many people tend to be promiscuous before marriage. It is during these relationships, that people are at increased risk of catching STDs and/or STIs. Gays and bisexuals are not an exception to these developments.

As noted: Consent won't magically change the DNA of a brother and sister.

As noted: Marriage equality is not "promoting" homosexuality. Those same gay people where gay before last week when the SC ruling came down.

Aside from being a ridiculous non sequitur?

Okay, great, gay, straight, bi etc people like to have sex before marriage. What is your point in singling out gay men here and not allowing them to be married?

IT'S ICKY!

Originally posted by psmith81992
Show me a contradiction in the torah?

We're not talking about Judaism, but ok?

Exodus 12:40 states “The habitation of the Children of Israel during which they dwelled in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.” [This verse will be publicly read in Orthodox synagogues this coming Saturday morning.]

This verse clearly contradicts Exodus 6:18-20 which states that Kohath lived 133 years and Amram lived 137 years. Kohath came to Egypt with Jacob (Genesis 46:11). Moses, the son of Amram, died at the age of 120 (Deut. 34:7), which was 40 years after the Exodus, making Moses 80 years old at the time of Exodus. Therefore the Egyptian exile could not have lasted more than 350 years. (In fact, according to the Talmudic tradition, it lasted only 210 years.)

Took that off the first google result since I'm not Jewish so I have no idea :L

I have no problem with incest..except they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. But then how the hell do you enforce that?

Originally posted by Nephthys
T But incest can easily be harmful because of power imbalances, abuse and other toxic elements.

If the incestuous couple can not (in the case that one of the people involved is fixed/sterile or in the case of a homosexual couple) or will not have children, what about incest is wrong?

Originally posted by Selenial
We're not talking about Judaism, but ok?

Took that off the first google result since I'm not Jewish so I have no idea :L

According to the talmudic tradition, the time spent in Egypt was 430, plus 39 1/2 for the exodus. I was just going over that today. As far as the entirety of your post, it would take a 2 minute question from the rabbi to easily explain away the alleged contradiction. That's really the point though. Unless you're educated in the bible, you're not familiar with the explanations for versus (and believe me, you'll get 4 explanations for every verse). We were given the written torah, and the oral torah explaining the written torah. If you want me to disprove your post, just ask and I'll ask my rabbi about it tomorrow. 100% confident his answer will take a minute or two and would suffice.

Oh, by the way, this is the 15th time that marriage has been defined as a fundamental right by the supreme court.

14 times before this all came to that conclusion on marriage-as-a-right.

Legally, they're being consistent, and nothing about ruling on this is new territory.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Those can also be present in homosexual relationships. Or heterosexual ones. Or any relationship. I definitely understand the idea that these things would exist between an incestuous pairing between a parent and child for example, but what of siblings close in age? Or cousins?

If the incestuous couple can not (in the case that one of the people involved is fixed/sterile or in the case of a homosexual couple) or will not have children, what about incest is wrong?

I know, but like you say the relationship between parent and child is easily set up for abuse. Even older siblings typically possess an uneven amount of influence over a younger one that could lead to coercion, even unintentionally. It's the same reason teachers can't get into relationships with students. There's an innate position of authority that can lead to problems, that isn't present in homosexual, heterosexual etc relationships.

Well I'm no psychologist, but I do have to wonder if there's a significant risk of an unhealthy relationship from combining a sexual and familial bond. But as I've said in the past I'm certainly open to the concept.

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, by the way, this is the [b]15th time that marriage has been defined as a fundamental right by the supreme court.

14 times before this all came to that conclusion on marriage-as-a-right.

Legally, they're being consistent, and nothing about ruling on this is new territory. [/B]

Originally posted by Nephthys
I know, but like you say the relationship between parent and child is easily set up for abuse. Even older siblings typically possess an uneven amount of influence over a younger one that could lead to coercion, even unintentionally. It's the same reason teachers can't get into relationships with students. There's an innate position of authority that can lead to problems, that isn't present in homosexual, heterosexual etc relationships.

Well I'm no psychologist, but I do have to wonder if there's a significant risk of an unhealthy relationship from combining a sexual and familial bond. But as I've said in the past I'm certainly open to the concept.

Open yourself to the concept of my fist to your face.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Do you have any siblings? In this day and age, siblings that aren't significantly older hold no position of authority over their younger sibling. My younger sister is not and never has been subservient to me (and no I haven't had sex with her either, she's not nearly attractive enough).

Open yourself to the concept of my fist to your face.

I, however, have had sex with her.

who didn't? you're not special.

see nemebro i got your back 👆