She got off topic, and made it personal by bringing my family into it. By the way, second time someone on here has insulted my family out of nowhere.

Again, I am not a "Fella." As for what consenting adults do in private, that is private. When they announce to world what they do in private, and demand people change their views to accept it, it is no longer private.

And you are fine with post where she said my parents must have sex in front of me when I was a child?

First off, it was a hypothetical question. Look it up if you don't understand the word. Sweet Afs would (and has) never been disrespectful to anyone. So stop being so hypersensitive and thin-skinned during a debate and let it go already. Get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. Sheesh!

You are not the one to talk here. Someone who suggests media should address molester priests as gay pedophiles, as if pedophilia is about sexual orientation, and tries to label gays as pedophiles; someone who has no problem calling personal relationship between adults as sick, has no grounds to say she was insulted and it came from nowhere, even if it was an insult. And BTW, I asked a question. If you dare insult gays by implying they have sex in front of their children and that might confuse them, then how come it's an insult when the same question is asked about yourself?

I'm not sure why you think when a straight couple gets married, their sex to the rest of us is less yucky than anyone else's, or that I would have to accept their sex style, be it missionary, all the way to including bondage and discipline. Who cares? You don't have to accept it. Government does. Not sure why you think you are entitled to marriage benefits while gays should not have the same entitlements. Aren't they the citizens of the same country? Don't they pay the same taxes that you pay? Just because you are not accepting of their life style, they should not be getting spousal benefits?

As I've brought a number of times now, and which you and others conveniently sidestep, the U.S. decided on what it considered "marriage" over a century ago when they outlawed polygamy. Even though the polygamists actually were denied their Constitutional right of freedom of religion under the First Amendment. And you and every other secular liberal from then till now didn't say jack about it. But now, when it involves gay marriage, you want to change the rules. This is a classic example of how, despite all the talk, you people couldn't care less about "rights" unless they fit your personal social agenda.

And the government doesn't necessarily "have" to accept anything. The issue should be left up to the states. But we all know why you and other libs don't want that, don't we?

WOW. Apples and bowling balls!

I thought polygamy was attacked by other religious groups (more like how they attacked alcohol) and it lead to it being banned. I might be wrong though.

There is no US Code that makes polygamy illegal; the last code was repealed during the 1970s. While the definition of religious marriage is a function of individual religions, the definition of civil marriage is a function of state codes. Codes in all 50 states make civil polygamy illegal.

While the attempt to draw a connection to past civil rights causes is obvious, the difference is her and her fellow gays want their relationships, and not just themselves, to be recognized differently by the government. They want gay "marriages" to be seen as equal to straight marriages and they're not. Sorry if that's not politically correct but it's the truth.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say but those codes are the result of people in this country deciding long ago what they do and don't consider marriage. It was decided long ago that marriage is one man and one woman. The only reason we're seeing the gay marriage issue raised now, despite nothing said all these years about polygamy, is that the libs sympathize with the gays and not with polygamists. Even though it's the polygamists who actually have a real case when it comes to their rights being denied.

As a society we've become soft and invented the term PC to cover up for our failure as a nation to vote people in on merit in lieu of the truth!


Nothing for nothing Ivy who the hell would want multiple wives! One is way more than enough and my lucky wife is the greatest wife in the world. But in all candidness what's the benefit! Or is there another factor that plays into it?

Let me be clear again, I'm not trying to argue in any way for polygamy to be allowed. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy and selective outrage on the part of the left.

And as I've said many times, like the abortion issue, I'd be more than happy to leave the gay marriage issue up to each state.

Ivy, not saying you advocate for Polygamy I just don't understand the value in it? Is thier a culture reason? Is there a historical or traditional push for it? Not arguing for or against it just don't understand what the benefit is?

Although it has been practiced in other cultures and religions in other parts of the world, as far as the issue at hand here in the U.S., polygamy (or plural marriage) was part of the Mormon religion back in the 1800's. The Mormons eventually abandoned the practice in the 1890's. Of course, there are offshoot groups that still practice it and many people still associate the Mormons with the practice despite the church not practicing it for over a century.

It was considered long ago as such? Well, now it is being considered again. We didn't say jack about it in 70s when polygamy was banned? Hey, I was born in 70s. I doubt I could say jack about anything.

I'm not against any form of marriage, even I don't care if Woody Allen married his step daughter. As I said before, if they are of age and consenting, why do I care? Good for them. And tough luck for anyone who wants to put their nose in others' business, or put his or her marriage in a scale and say, oooooh, no, our marriage is so much more marriagy than their marriage.

Now that is a thought...How has the rest of the world handled this Gay Marragie issue in other parts of the world....(I know, I know... we are not bound by what others do)So lets hear what you know.

So what is the general consensus on how the Supreme Court will rule?

If any two consenting adults marrying or being in relationship is always ok, then incest would be legalized. Mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, a brother marrying his sister. The argument "If they are adults, it's ok" is crazy.
In fact, most every argument for homosexual marriage can be used to justify incest.

What? Where does it say that the two people being married can be brothers or sisters? Last time I checked there were laws on the books forbidding incest. There is a huge difference between incest and gay marriage. Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society.

I hardly think allowing gay marriage is going to create a huge demand for guys to marry their daughters and sisters (except in the red states which oppose gay marriage and where incest is the rule not the exception already).

I have always maintained the Prop 8 issue will be dismissed on the issue of standing, and I stick by that. Too many of the "liberal" justices were concerned about this issue during questioning.

I also will go out on a limb here and say DOMA will be struck down on a 6-3 vote with Roberts voting with the majority and Scalia, Alito and Thomas strongly dissenting.

The inside baseball politics here is the Court kicks the can down the road on gay marriage, at least for now, but gets rid of DOMA, leaving things up to the states.

I think Roberts will be on the winning side of both issues, thus furthering his personal agenda to make this HIS court, not Scalia's. This is in line with what he did on Obamacare.

The argument for gay marriage is often "Anything consenting adults want to do is their business, and they should be allowed to marry if they want"

Same can be used for incest. There were laws forbidding gay marriage (rightly so) The same arguments being used to overturn them can be used to justify and legalize incest. 'Whats wrong with 2 adults in love.." ???

Jace you miss the point. Incest reslts in demonstrable risk of birth defects...it is a health issue. Gay marriage is not. You are mixing apples and oranges. And BTW before you ask I have no problem with polygamy.

This Thread just goes to show everyone what is in some people minds out there. How they think and what they trust to be true.
Wow and at times what I read worrys me!

If you say A- someone will say B and if you say B some will say that it is bullshit!

this last example really took the cake. If this, then we should allow this and allow that...yeah yeah yeah...

DT I really like that last one:
Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society.

and the old, Don't play with yourself or you will go blind! comes to mind also

religious taboo- gay marraige isn't? and the church say one thing and some clergy love little boys!
birth defects- you would see more do to smoking, drugs, booze and the list goes on and on and on... before incestuous realationships. hey if you don't want your sister, then why would we?

One thing that is missing in all of these posts is the citing of the state's compelling interest in marriage and, thus, its regulation. Such compelling interest (mitigated somewhat by Supreme Court opinions in recent years) can be demonstrated in certain hypothesized marriage relationships, but not in others.

By the way, someone posted that marriage should be left up to the states. It is.

Also DT, I agree with your prognostication regarding Prop 8. It reminds me of Newhouse and his religion related pleading on behalf of his daughter. Scotus ruled that as the non-custodial parent, he did not have standing to plea. I think that the equal protection clause will be used to strike part of DOMA.

So far I found Jace's points ridiculous.
BUT: The health issue doesn't apply. You could make incestuous sex illegal and still have incestuos marriage legal.
Anyway, why would somebody want to marry someone closely related? Well, this is a dead end way of discussion.

Incestous marriage only happened in royal families to keep there blood line 'pure'. Of course most of the descendants had Hemophilia (when the blood doesn't clot) if I remember correctly. Why some still do it now...only those involved know.

This is always the argument, isn't it? If gay marriage is OK, then the next step is incest, bestiality, pedophilia... It's absurd. There is no comparison.

Tell that to Californians, who have voted twice now to uphold Prop 8, only to have the courts overturn their will.



The argument is, if gay marriage is allowed, it's not hard to believe this other stuff will come about. Not the next day or the next year. But you can't say it won't. Years ago, gays "marrying" would have been unthinkable.

People here say, "Well, as long as it involves consenting adults." So, even though these people go further at allowing certain things than EastHarlem, jace, or myself, they do draw a line somewhere. But maybe others draw the line even further then you do. And sooner or later, they're going to be clamoring for their "rights" too.