Sen. Santorum shooting his mouth off.

[Mystech]

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Is homosexuality incest? no
would expressly permiting marages to members of the same gender also mean permiting incest? no

unless of course you think that heterosexual marrages being legal lets fathers marry daughters and brothers marry sisters? Well does it galt?

Well, now brother marrying sister, and father marrying daughter, those are both heterosexual problems if you ask me. I think that maybe we should start prohibiting heterosexual marriages to stop this kind of thing.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Mystech
By the nature of the condition of homosexuality a homosexual will be marrying a member of the same sex, hence homosexuals are not allowed because homosexual marriages are prohibited. Quit arguing semantics and see the reality of the situation.

Again I point to literacy tests and "grandfather clauses" in the American south that applied to all but were designed to disenfranchise one group.

Semantics are an important part of the discussion to distinguish between open discrimination and "discrimination" based on disparate impact.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Galt seems to think that laws are draftend on a mountain in the clouds by holy men whos writings can do no harm.

Laws certainly can do harm. And I have stated at least twice that I don't support a ban on same-sex marriages.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Lets be clear here Galt, a law banning homosexual marages, stops homosexuals doing something that should be thier right.

It is same-sex marriages that are banned, not homosexual marriages. Other than that, I agree with you.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
The law is drafted with bias, and will be enforced with bias, and even in its clearly worded objective state only has no bias if you choose to ignore the idea that a homosexual is going to want to marry a member of the same gender, which for some reason you think is a valid thing to do.

Once again, I don't agree with the ban on same-sex marriages. I just don't think the law is discriminatory at face value.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Permiting homosexual marrage also permits incest you say? Im sorry if i dont quite see where that absurd statement comes from. You are going to have to elaborate.

I have elaborated several times. If the United States Supreme Court rules that the government has no business regulated sexual acts or marriage between consenting adults, incestuous relationships will be legalized by default.

Whether you think such acts should be legal or not is a matter of opinion, but the end results of such ruling by the courts is pretty obvious.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Saying that permiting homosexual marrage would also mean permiting incest is denying the same intentionaly vapid examination of the letter of the law that you have been trying to push.

Permitting same-sex marriages on the grounds that the government has no business regulating the sex lives of consenting adults will absolutely be used as a precedent to challenge laws banning incest.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Is homosexuality incest? no

Did I say that it was?

Originally posted by SpyMoose
would expressly permiting marages to members of the same gender also mean permiting incest? no

Not necessarily, nor did I claim that it would. My arguments were very specific to court cases that may establish a precedent of prohibiting government regulation of consensual relationships, which includes incest and polygamy.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
unless of course you think that heterosexual marrages being legal lets fathers marry daughters and brothers marry sisters? Well does it galt?

No, it doesn't. But a ruling by the United States Supreme Court that the government has no business regulating the behavior of consenting adults will by default repeal this ban.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
perhaps you would like to further claim that if homosexuals are allowed to marry then by this time next year we will all be eaten by bears. It makes about as much sence.

My argument makes perfect sense in the context in which I was making it: United States Supreme Court rulings regarding regulation of sexual acts between consenting adults.

Here is a statement I made at the beginning of this thread:

"It actually is, indirectly. As I have said before, a ruling by the Supreme Court that the government has no business regulating sexual acts between consenting adults will set a precedent that will almost certainly be used to challenge laws against incest and polygamy. This is not demonization of homosexuals but a statement on the logical conclusion of such a ruling, and to point out this obvious fact does not make one a bigot.

All laws regulating sexual acts between consenting adults are based on the same premise: that the government should be empowered to intervene when people engage in behavior that the general public and/or some nosy politician finds offensive. You either agree with this premise or you don't. But you can't agree with it for some people and not for others, which is basically what Senator Santorum seemed to be saying."

 

[Asguard]

for christ sake

with the exception of stat rape (ALREADY a crime, doesnt need another law) what the hell IS wrong with even incest

if someone wants to screw there sister and they are both 16 go for it

its NONE OF UR GOD DAM BUSINESS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES IN THERE BEDROOM unless it harms a child or someone UNWILLING

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Asguard
for christ sake

with the exception of stat rape (ALREADY a crime, doesnt need another law) what the hell IS wrong with even incest

if someone wants to screw there sister and they are both 16 go for it

its NONE OF UR GOD DAM BUSINESS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES IN THERE BEDROOM unless it harms a child or someone UNWILLING

I agree.