• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

What RChildress could say is that the government shouldn't provide incentive's to same-sex married couples because they offer no chance of providing children and offspring from themselves. After looking up a lot of the numbers with regards to jobs, money, and lower divorce rates, I'm not sure how that would stand up though.
 
RChildress107 said:
What I have said is that I don't think government should provide incentive's to any married couples.
Click to expand...

Oh...sorry to rehash but if this is the case why do you want others to provide you with arguments that are not based on religion and morality when you have not offered any yourself?

There have been several statistics that show since states have approved same-sex marriage their divorce rates have gone down, jobs have been created, and the economy has improved. I think that is a legitimate reason in itself to vote down Amendment One.
 
The point of a law, to me, is to keep one entity from harming or infringing upon the rights of another entity. That's my ultimate problem with all of this. Allowing gay marriage between two consenting people does not harm nor infringes upon the rights of anyone. There are plenty of ways to object to gay marriage on moral grounds that don't resort to crying to the government about it. The government denying rights to one group because another group objects based on moral grounds strikes me as fundamentally contrary to everything we are supposed to stand for. Some people don't want the government to tell them thy have to buy health insurance, but they are just fine telling a minority group they need to adhere to some ambiguous moral code.

Ultimately, this is further erosion of liberty. Forget for a second that it's gays we are talking about and realize that this boils down to using the constitution as a weapon of oppression, a way to strip and restrict liberty from law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. If you believe in what we stand for, then voting no is your only option.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I came across a quote last night about this when I was writing a same-sex marriage public policy paper and I'm not sure it's on here because I haven't read from the beginning, but what does this even mean:



...just wtf?
Click to expand...

When are the bible thumping marriage lovers going to acknowledge that heterosexual unions fail at a staggeringly high rate, far higher than homosexual unions?
 
I was the one who mentioned sex with animals, and it wasn't in an effort to draw a moral equivalence between that and gay marriage Rj. My point was that there are extreme area where EVERYONE is fine with havin laws based on morality, so all we are debating is where to draw the line. I'm not in any way saying that they are related. You get so hysterical every time I make this point, so it seems that you aren't willing to discuss the point I'm making here and instea throw your hands in the air and declare that I'm an extremist. Explain why such laws aren't based on morality and we can move on.
 
It's not a logical argument. One is about love the other is most often about power and domination that developed while being minors.
 
Absolutely not!! There is nothing about domination or harming someone as a child in gays marrying.
 
I think a decent public health argument can be made against incest. Without looking at research at all, I would think that people in incestuous relationships also engage in other risky behavior that could harm themselves or others, and they would also be at higher risk for mental health issues (which are generally paid for by taxpayers). That would be a good enough reason to outlaw that is not from a moral basis.

But then, I'm on the record that two adults who love each other should be able to get married, regardless of their familial relation (except parents and kids).
 
there are public health arguments against bestiality also.
 
DeacDiggler said:
So do you Rj. Would you be okay with a law allowing men to marry baboons? Why not? Because you have a standard of behavior (moral) that you enforce upon others. Every law we have does this or chooses not to.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is that baboons can't consent to the same intellectual level that humans can. I realize, and something that I've struggled with on a philosophical level, that this does not prevent incest from occurring (consensual incest). I think another level that must be applied to that reasoning is the potential for future health problems with children if they are the result of incest. The court has consistently ruled that a compelling interest of the state is to prevent funds being used to assist an increase in wards of the state. These two philosophical tenets combined lend most of my beliefs to be covered. I'm not opposed to polygamy as long as everyone in it consents.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
I think a decent public health argument can be made against incest. Without looking at research at all, I would think that people in incestuous relationships also engage in other risky behavior that could harm themselves or others, and they would also be at higher risk for mental health issues (which are generally paid for by taxpayers). That would be a good enough reason to outlaw that is not from a moral basis.

But then, I'm on the record that two adults who love each other should be able to get married, regardless of their familial relation (except parents and kids).
Click to expand...

Families with high rates of incest also have been proven to have high risks for hereditary disorders. Exogamy is also important from a social standpoint as well.
 
On face value Doofus, your earlier comment about the New Yorkers coming here to get divorced might just have to do with the distinction between judgments and laws. North Carolina would in theory (I guess, I really don't know 100% and haven't read up on it extensively because it truly is on the far periphery of the actual dialogue of whether or not the amendment should be passed or not) not be able to grant divorces to same-sex couples though since they don't recognize the marriage that occurs in New York. Now I don't understand why marriage is not recognized in North Carolina if it is in New York (as a legal contract which would be subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause) but there's a legal distinction between judgments and laws which is rather complicated that many people have cited as to why marriage is not applicable from state to state (even though hetero marriages always are).
 
Preventing teen pregnancy has been proven to be a legitimate state interest (Michael M. v. Sonoma, 1981) and I'm sure there are cases out there from the SCOTUS that stipulate that incest falls under some sort of legitimate regulatory state interest where there is compelling reason to have a narrowly tailored law to overcome even the highest level of scrutiny.
 
As multiple people are trying to tell you, they don't have the same structure.
 
RChildress107 said:
i have not made any comments on bestiality.

There may be other arguments not based on morality against two brothers getting married, if so they have not been presented on this thread.
Click to expand...

.....

Deacsfan27 said:
Families with high rates of incest also have been proven to have high risks for hereditary disorders. Exogamy is also important from a social standpoint as well.
Click to expand...

BeachBumDeac said:
I think a decent public health argument can be made against incest. Without looking at research at all, I would think that people in incestuous relationships also engage in other risky behavior that could harm themselves or others, and they would also be at higher risk for mental health issues (which are generally paid for by taxpayers). That would be a good enough reason to outlaw that is not from a moral basis.

But then, I'm on the record that two adults who love each other should be able to get married, regardless of their familial relation (except parents and kids).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top