The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[unofan]

If you're going to bring up medical reasons for why family members shouldn't marry, the entire basis behind that is the bearing of children. It is physically impossible for a homosexual couple to bear children without the physical influence of a third party, so therefore if you wish to discriminate against the family members, you deiscriminate against the homosexuals, otherwise you are a hypocritical bozo that is merely trying to sell your brand.

How does preventing gay marriage protect children, if as you say, they cannot procreate?

Also, arizona specifically allows cousins to marry so long as one or the other is infertile (by age or disability). Why is that ok but not two gay men?

 

[unofan]

Yes I do, and if the ability to safely bear children (which obviously discounts infertility) is the basis behind determining whether or not a couple should be allowed to wed, then it must be applied across the board.

A basis, not the basis.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

How does preventing gay marriage protect children, if as you say, they cannot procreate?

Also, arizona specifically allows cousins to marry so long as one or the other is infertile (by age or disability). Why is that ok but not two gay men?

You're missing my point...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yes I do, and if the ability to safely bear children (which obviously discounts infertility) is the basis behind determining whether or not a couple should be allowed to wed, then it must be applied across the board.

It has nothing to do with the actual ability to have kids. It has everything to do with the hypothetical child's mental and physical deformities that come from two related people procreating. Being gay doesn't increase chance of mental retardation. Being gay doesn't increase the chance of having a physical deformity. Being gay doesn't increase the chance of genetic predisposition to diseases.

 

[unofan]

You're missing my point...

And you're missing the entire forest for the trees.

Marriage is a fundamental right. You start with the assumption you can get married, then exclude for certain reasons, such as the inability to consent. Depending on the reason, you have to show various levels of harm.

Tell me a legitimate reason why gays should be prevented from being married.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It has nothing to do with the actual ability to have kids. It has everything to do with the hypothetical child's mental and physical deformities that come from two related people procreating. Being gay doesn't increase chance of mental retardation. Being gay doesn't increase the chance of having a physical deformity. Being gay doesn't increase the chance of genetic predisposition to diseases.

Being gay infinitely decreases the chance of the ability to have children. If your basis for prohibiting marriage is upon children, then put it across the board.

Wow, do I love adding new dimensions to devil's advocate...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Being gay infinitely decreases the chance of the ability to have children. If your basis for prohibiting marriage is upon children, then put it across the board.

Wow, do I love adding new dimensions to devil's advocate...

Seriously, this argument you're making has absolutely no logical basis. I'm saying, "If A, then B" and your response is "Asparagus". It has nothing to do with the ABILITY TO PRODUCE A CHILD, it has everything to do with the massive increase in risk to the child and the damage it causes to humanity's collective gene pool.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Seriously, this argument you're making has absolutely no logical basis. I'm saying, "If A, then B" and your response is "Asparagus". It has nothing to do with the ABILITY TO PRODUCE A CHILD, it has everything to do with the massive increase in risk to the child and the damage it causes to humanity's collective gene pool.

You're still basing the entire allowance of marriage upon the ability of a couple to safely bear healthy children without the influence of a third party. You are so blinded by your agenda that you cannot see that simple fact. Unless you have another reason for prohibiting the legal union of two family members, you have no argument for denying one group legal union, but allowing another.

 

[French Rage]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You're still basing the entire allowance of marriage upon the ability of a couple to safely bear healthy children without the influence of a third party. You are so blinded by your agenda that you cannot see that simple fact. Unless you have another reason for prohibiting the legal union of two family members, you have no argument for denying one group legal union, but allowing another.

OK, then rephrase it to not allowing a union that carries a known high risk of a child being born with physical and mental disabilities.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

OK, then rephrase it to not allowing a union that carries a known high risk of a child being born with physical and mental disabilities.

Anyone who would make a good guest on Jerry Springer, people blinded by disease (such as the Jeopardy champion Eddie Timanus), people with HIV, and so on and so forth, are not allowed to get married. Got it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Anyone who would make a good guest on Jerry Springer, people blinded by disease (such as the Jeopardy champion Eddie Timanus), people with HIV, and so on and so forth, are not allowed to get married. Got it.

Finally, an argument that actually addresses the actual issue. (Of course, I have no response, so I'm not exactly helping the situation.)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Finally, an argument that actually addresses the actual issue. (Of course, I have no response, so I'm not exactly helping the situation.)

I'll let Eddie know, the next time I talk with him, that his son should be taken away and he should be forced to file for divorce because you believe his disease disqualifies him from marriage. BTW, his son did have the same disease, but because they knew to look for it right after birth, he still has vision.

 

[French Rage]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I'll let Eddie know, the next time I talk with him, that his son should be taken away and he should be forced to file for divorce because you believe his disease disqualifies him from marriage.

Yeah, you do that.

 

[Rover]

Do you understand the actual medical reasons why family members shouldn't have kids?

Understand? He's living proof of it!

Seriously though Flaggy, I'm thinking if you had some companionship in your life you wouldn't spend all hours out here launching baseless arguments to pass the time. You know how every town has some big fat guy who's 30 and still lives with his mother but shows up at city council or town meetings and threatens to sue everybody once a week just to get attention? Don't be THAT GUY, or if you are already, consider changing your ways.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If your basis for prohibiting marriage is upon children, then put it across the board.

You have their argument backward: their argument is that you ban marriage among certain parties to prevent deformed children from being conceived. If a marriage cannot produce deformed children under their argument then there would be no reason to ban it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Understand? He's living proof of it!

Seriously though Flaggy, I'm thinking if you had some companionship in your life you wouldn't spend all hours out here launching baseless arguments to pass the time. You know how every town has some big fat guy who's 30 and still lives with his mother but shows up at city council or town meetings and threatens to sue everybody once a week just to get attention? Don't be THAT GUY, or if you are already, consider changing your ways.

You're obviously living proof of what you just described, seeing as how you spend all your time shoving the propaganda machine down our throats.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You have their argument backward: their argument is that you ban marriage among certain parties to prevent deformed children from being conceived. If a marriage cannot produce deformed children under their argument then there would be no reason to ban it.

The ban is still based upon the ability to safely bear healthy children without a third party influence. You haven't changed that, only tried to spin it in order to fit an agenda. It's still discrimination.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The ban is still based upon the ability to safely bear healthy children without a third party influence. You haven't changed that, only tried to spin it in order to fit an agenda. It's still discrimination.

A third party isn't going to prevent the malformities that are more likely to occur when two related people procreate.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

A third party isn't going to prevent the malformities that are more likely to occur when two related people procreate.

What about the e-coli-related diseases you could get from "giving the package"?