Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

The icky argument is not covered in the oral arguments (which is what we are covering).

Actually we were still talking about the age thing as it has yet to be beaten (I am still waiting to hear what right the state will have to deny a child a more secure adult/child relationship).


=========================
So next up on the argument docket was by Alito in regards to polygamy.

Stipulated by Alito, if four lawyers, 2 men and 2 women, were to want to enter into a marriage what is to keep them out? How may we say that marriage should be between two consenting adults as the petitioners emphasize?

Petitioners response, the states would rush forward and say that is not the historic or current definition of marriage and would further prohibit those marriages due to the confusion they engender such as parental rights over children.

Courts general reaction, what kind of answer is that? The same is being said to petitioners in regards to same sex marriage where it is not the historic or current definition of marriage and marriages of those type engender confusion over parental rights to children.

Petitioners response, well that is my response so...

---

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?

We have determined my theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over price.

However, the issue is not what you do in the privacy but is in regard to compelling public recognition of what is done in private by the state. Meaning it is no longer private.

The pedophilia one is sort of being done with the underage kids. Though it is not pedophilia as petitioners would have marriage defined in a nonsexual way. Beastiality is not on the docket because animals do not have civic rights (yet).

---

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.

On this point you may indeed make an argument (Roe V Wade)

But if the government has no say in the relationship than the government has no obligation to recognize or subsidize that relationship (Maher V Roe)