Legal Eagles: Current Law Case Discussion & Other Legal News

Grand Potentate

Grand Potentate

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
36,199
John Lee Pettimore III said:
That op-ed is fucking scary. Rambo, do you actually agree with this line - "I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."
Click to expand...
That was directly from Alito's dissenting opinion.
 
Journeyman

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
4,238
All of these people who like to talk about how marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage is for procreation and production of children are totally ignoring the fact that marriage has, historically, been primarily about property rights, not about procreation and children.

Certainly, children have also been part of marriage - to deny otherwise would be utterly foolish - but if you're going to argue for maintaining the status quo between of the tradition of marriage, then you need to recognise that, traditionally, people got married not so that they could have sex or children (because there were many, many, many people doing that anyway), but so that they could legalise the holding and inheritance of property.

Of course, such an argument would actually be in favour of same-sex marriage, so it's easy to see why traditionalists ignore it.
 
Pauly Chase

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
6,388
So this can be construed as an argument of property rights vs inherent rights? I got annoyed because of all of the debates, the money, and the resources wasted on this issue which only concerns less than 10% of the entire population. If the economy tanks and ISIS reigns, gay marriage would be the last thing I am concerned with.
 
John Lee Pettimore III

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
gheys.jpg
Rambo said:
That was directly from Alito's dissenting opinion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the layout of the article befuddled me. Which is sad.

Pauly Chase said:
So this can be construed as an argument of property rights vs inherent rights? I got annoyed because of all of the debates, the money, and the resources wasted on this issue which only concerns less than 10% of the entire population. If the economy tanks and ISIS reigns, gay marriage would be the last thing I am concerned with.
Click to expand...

Actually, gay marriage would create a rather convenient registry for ISIS to implement their gay rights outreach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pauly Chase

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
6,388
Did they toss him off a scaffold? Jesus.
My Facebook was blown up by people incorporate rainbow color scheme into their profile pictures. I really don't think the masses that "support" this issue truly understands the implications, but rather just jumped on the bandwagon like the rest of of the populace, similar to the ice bucket challenge.
 
Pauly Chase

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
6,388
Allen Smithee said:
Marriage is about not being cuckolded, Journeyman Journeyman
Biological imperative is to pass your genes on and not waste time raising somebody else's kids.
Click to expand...

A point most do not understand. If homosexuality truly is genetically advantageous, the species of any organism would cease to exist. Two areas can be addressed here: 1) genome's ability to propagate itself (not for the benefits of the species, but the benefits of the genes themselves) and 2)parental investment for potential offsprings (an evolutionary adaptation that forces parents to invest more in their biological offspring rather than someone else's products because their genes are not passed on). Neither theory supports the the natural propagation of the "homosexual gene", if it exists. From a psychological point of view, evidence actually support many who are or claim to be homosexual/bisexual/etc, have suffered traumatic childhood abuses, physical, sexual and or emotion; not applicable to all gays. While the legality of government recognized license for marriage for mainly financial benefits can be argued continuously, the biological reason for heterosexual union is rather apparent.
 
Last edited:
Journeyman

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
4,238
Allen Smithee said:
Marriage is about not being cuckolded, Journeyman Journeyman
Biological imperative is to pass your genes on and not waste time raising somebody else's kids.
Click to expand...

I don't see why being married would prevent that from happening. Plenty of bastards out there who were sired "on the other side of the blanket" and plenty of people having affairs.

Also, you certainly don't need to be married to have children and you never have. Until the last few hundred years, it was not common for poorer people to get officially married. Firstly, they couldn't afford to and secondly, they had no property of any value to disburse to their spouse and children.

Historically, the primary reason for getting married was to ensure transfer of property as it formalised the relationship so that the spouse and children could be recognised as beneficiaries of the estate. Bastards, born out of wedlock, were not recognised as they were not part of the formal relationship.

Of course, marriage became dressed up with a whole lot of socio-cultural baggage about respectability and so on. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the main reason for the accretion of such baggage was because the people in society who had most to gain from getting married were the wealthy - either nobles or those who were simply rich. Of course, people want to emulate those who are noble or wealthy and so marriage became socially respectable, as well as something that you do to secure property rights for your spouse and children.
 
Pauly Chase

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
6,388
The argument then is centered around "financial benefits" rather than "right", no?

Here is a tricky question, if Bruce Jenner marries a male, should be they be pronounced as bride and groom, or groom and groom?
 
John Lee Pettimore III

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
Pauly Chase said:
Did they toss him off a scaffold? Jesus.
My Facebook was blown up by people incorporate rainbow color scheme into their profile pictures. I really don't think the masses that "support" this issue truly understands the implications, but rather just jumped on the bandwagon like the rest of of the populace, similar to the ice bucket challenge.
Click to expand...

Yes. Four men were tossed off for alleged homosexuality. They filmed it all. Fucking savages.
 
Journeyman

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
4,238
Pauly Chase said:
The argument then is centered around "financial benefits" rather than "right", no?
Click to expand...

As with most things socio-cultural, marriage as an institution has changed over time.

You no longer need to marry to ensure that your spouse and your offspring are entitled to a share of your property. You no longer need to marry to be respectable (in much of the western world, at least). And, of course, you don't need to marry to have children (not that you ever did).

Marriage nowadays is something that people typically do because they want to, not because they have to.

I think that the above sentence is quite significant, because it illustrates society's changing mores in regard to marriage and relationships and it's those changing mores that have rendered marriage almost redundant in many people's minds. Hence, legalising same-sex marriages is a much smaller step than it would have been some decades ago.

However, the question of rights remains. Regardless of the reasons behind the custom, and whether the custom is largely irrelevant nowadays, it was still the case that same-sex couples could not marry. In other words, they did not enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.
 
Pauly Chase

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
6,388
A distinction should be made between union vs. marriage. Same sex couples could and can unionize, the case, I believe is/was, can that particular union be recognised by the government. Why such a strong need for government recognition? I think it's for the pure reason of benefits, mainly financial. Therefore IMO it should not be a argued as a right, rather, as the ability to obtain government issued personal gains

Another thought, Isn't the idea of marriage in the Western World, a Judeo-Christian tradition?

In the States, at least, since the society is forced to accept every individual's sexual identity regardless of his or her genetic makeup, the idea of government recognised marriage should be made obsolete based on this decision. There is no reason to have marriage anymore and every couple should be able to obtain benefits just like the current married couples. But that is another messy argument.

Not suggesting I agree or disagree with this ruling, but it is extremely ridiculous that the high court got involved in this issue.
 
OfficePants

OfficePants

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,933
Journeyman said:
All of these people who like to talk about how marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage is for procreation and production of children are totally ignoring the fact that marriage has, historically, been primarily about property rights, not about procreation and children.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Marriage is a legal contract. Anyone that thinks differently doesn't understand the cash cow divorce is for lawyers.
 
Russell Street

Russell Street

King Of The Trolls
Supporter
Messages
6,461
Grand Potentate

Grand Potentate

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
36,199
Antonin Scalia died.

I was tempted to put this in the 'Today, In Awesome' thread but figured this was the better spot.
 
C

COG

Guest
Climate change realists are enemies of the state, but Trump is the fascist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom