Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 9:43 am
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 9:46 am by robvalue.)
If the best argument against same sex marriage is, "We'd have to allow children to marry as well" I think we're well past the winning post.
As for my previous comment about marriage in no way being a promise of any sexual consent at any point, I believe this still stands? That weird law that was mentioned may only apply to marriage for some reason but it doesn't seem to impact my question at all. I'm not suggesting that most people intend to constantly refuse sexual activity or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't see how you can possibly police a system where you've given "general consent" to sexual activity. I'd say no one should ever be defaulted to giving permission, marriage or no. And really, why should marriage have anything specifically to do with sex? If you want to have sex, go have sex, whether you're married or not. You're still the same couple after you get married as before.
Clearly marriage isn't required in order to give consent to sex.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 9:48 am
(June 3, 2015 at 9:36 am)TRJF Wrote: I think it's roughly correct for, say, a contract to buy a stereo. But marriage isn't the same kind of "contract", and I don't believe it has the same rules.
You would specifically be correct in that a contract to buy a stereo is a contract for the purchase of goods and is litigated under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
A marriage contract is considered a contract for services and is litigated under common law. While the marriage contract stipulate terms not common to all contracts for services it is treated legally as a contract for service just like any other.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 9:52 am
And they say romance is dead 
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 9:54 am
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 9:58 am by Anima.)
(June 3, 2015 at 9:43 am)robvalue Wrote: If the best argument against same sex marriage is, "We'd have to allow children to marry as well" I think we're well past the winning post.
As for my previous comment about marriage in no way being a promise of any sexual consent at any point, I believe this still stands? That weird law that was mentioned may only apply to marriage for some reason but it doesn't seem to impact my question at all. I'm not suggesting that most people intend to constantly refuse sexual activity or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't see how you can possibly police a system where you've given "general consent" to sexual activity. I'd say no one should ever be defaulted to giving permission, marriage or no. And really, why should marriage have anything specifically to do with sex? If you want to have sex, go have sex, whether you're married or not. You're still the same couple after you get married as before.
Clearly marriage isn't required in order to give consent to sex.
It is not the best argument. It is the one we are currently discussing. In a 2.5 hr oral arguments we have made it to about 0.1 hr.
(see other posts regarding changing marriage to be relationship and security centric)
(June 3, 2015 at 9:42 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: (June 3, 2015 at 9:41 am)Anima Wrote: Furthermore, the change in definition you initial purposed would no prohibit polygamy, bigamy, or incest marriages.
Nice try at a slippery-slope shocker, but I'm actually not against those either.
Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with each other
Uh...NO!!
The law is not going to permit ritualistic human sacrifice no matter how much the sacrificer and the sacrificed want to do it. 
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 11:57 am
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 11:58 am by robvalue.)
Have we got to the "icky" argument yet? I think we should cover that next.
I mean, come on! It's icky, right? Open and shut case.
If there's any more arguments let's hear them, I think we've beaten this age thing way past death.
Let's get into some shit about it being unnatural or gays being worse parents or something. My chainsaw needs blood.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 11:59 am by FatAndFaithless.)
(June 3, 2015 at 9:54 am)Anima Wrote: (June 3, 2015 at 9:42 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Nice try at a slippery-slope shocker, but I'm actually not against those either.
Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with each other
Uh...NO!!
The law is not going to permit ritualistic human sacrifice no matter how much the sacrificer and the sacrificed want to do it.
 I'm obviously talking about marriage contracts, asshole. But way to jump to human sacrifice from a gay marriage discussion. Typical Christian tactics. Are you going to bring up besitality and pedophilia yet, or have you already done that?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 12:00 pm
I think that is next on the agenda. No wait, we did pedophilia. Bestiality is next.
So if we allow gays to marry, then horses will marry toasters! Come on!
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 12:02 pm
Dogs and cats living together! It's madness!
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 28384
Threads: 226
Joined: March 24, 2014
Reputation:
185
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 12:04 pm
(June 3, 2015 at 9:41 am)Anima Wrote: Furthermore, the change in definition you initial purposed would no prohibit polygamy, bigamy, or incest marriages.
As they should not be allowed to do. The government has no business prohibiting the marriage of consenting adults regardless of how icky someone might think they are.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 12:05 pm
We have in this envelope another change to marriage which a randomly chosen member of the audience wrote down. We haven't seen it.
If you accept gay marriage, we will open this up and you must also accept whatever gibberish this person has written.
Will you take that chance? Can you, in good conscience? Just think what they might have written...
|
