dagblog - Comments for "Justice Roberts's Gay Marriage (and Mine)"

I think those worms have been

Donal — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:12:06 +0000

I think those worms have been crawling around for centuries. Irons seems to be claiming that marriage is too special a concept to apply to other relationships than a man and a women. But he claims to be a complete libertarian so rather than openly tell other people how to live, he just finds it interesting to bring up incest and the tired old man-dog marriage argument. I'd never marry Mom or Dad because then they'd have more reasons to complain that I never call them. I'd never marry a dog or a cat because it would then spend all our money on stuff like electric can-openers, then just look baffled when I complained about the bounced checks. But apparently so many people want to marry Mom, Dad, Spot or Fluffy that we just have to settle that before addressing gay marriage.

It is interesting that Irons pointed out that a father marrying a son might complicate inheritance taxation. So he does recognize that marriage has to do with the property of the marrieds as well as social and legal recognition of their relationship.

This opens a whole can of

ocean-kat — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:44:14 +0000

In reply to Justice Roberts's Gay Marriage (and Mine)

This opens a whole can of worms if marriage isn't about procreation. For example could a mother marry her son? Laws against incest are there to protect us from inbreeding and if a mother is too old to have children she can't breed. That's why we need laws against elderly women and male homosexuals marryiing. Old men with young women and lesbian couples should, of course, marry because they can breed. In fact with lesbian couples both can breed so lesbian marriages should be encouraged.

Here, noted scientist Jeremy Irons (at least I think he played a noted scientist in one of his movies) can explain it better than I can.

"Could a father not marry his son?" Irons asked HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps. Irons argued that "it's not incest between men" because "incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/jeremy-irons-on-gay-marri_n_300...

Oh, you skewered me, I

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:12:39 +0000

In reply to PP - you are the straw man

Oh, you skewered me, I bleed.

"If John Roberts believes...and I trust he does" and then "spiritual institution" must hic haec hoc ergo cogito zoom thusly mean "for procreation only" and concerns about marriage must refer to tax deductions.

No straw men here - you've earned your degree in Thinkology. Please proceed to the thinkers café.

PP - you are the straw man

NCD — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:09:55 +0000

In reply to I think the 2 main arguments

PP - you are the straw man king, and there you go again!

Dr. C didn't construct one, you did, and then you deconstructed your own creation!

Dr. C.: "If John Roberts believes, as I trust he does, that marriage is a genuinely spiritual institution...". That isn't a straw man , it's John Roberts!!

And tax deductions for marriage, medical and legal privileges/benefits, spouse health coverage and other things have also 'not been around for thousands of years'. Half of marriages end in divorce, and most children in the US are born out of wedlock now anyway, which would seem to negate any link with marriage and procreation.

One of the best posts I have read at this site Dr. C, or any other venue on this subject.

LOL

trkingmomoe — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:47:01 +0000

In reply to Oh no prob, we can still hook

LOL

That depends on the person.

trkingmomoe — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:40:30 +0000

In reply to How great a role do you think

That depends on the person. These people wanted to marry and the families seemed happy about it. Some just live together because of financial and family relationships. Others just hang out together and maintain their own homes and are content with being boy friend and girl friend. They are the same as younger people in society.

Oh no prob, we can still hook

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:55:20 +0000

In reply to WAIT A MINUTE! Does this mean

Oh no prob, we can still hook up, just don't need a certificate from city hall. Bring your King James if you like. [PS - what's love got to do with it? Are we 14?]

WAIT A MINUTE! Does this mean

Richard Day — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:47:56 +0000

In reply to I think the 2 main arguments

WAIT A MINUTE!

Does this mean you do not love me any more?

Oh internet relationships are so...so...tentative!

I guess I'll go back to my bible.

I think the 2 main arguments

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:45:10 +0000

In reply to Justice Roberts's Gay Marriage (and Mine)

I think the 2 main arguments are 1) condemned in the Bible and 2) historically not done around the world over thousands of years.

Sorry to deconstruct your straw man, but inability to procreate hasn't been the #1 argument against gay marriage. And even if 1 or 50,000 hetero couples are unable to, the vast majority can

Thanks Doc, because you're

Bruce Levine — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:19:19 +0000

In reply to Justice Roberts's Gay Marriage (and Mine)

Thanks Doc, because you're right on the money here. I really am so surprised that this whole procreation argument as grounds for opposing gay marriage is still given weight by anyone who sits on that Court or who happens to walk by it. I guess it's a reflection, perhaps and placing things in a better light, that the issue is moving so quickly through the courts, legislatively, and societally, that the arguments aren't keeping up with the pace.

Nice work Doc.

P.S. And let me add my appreciation for pointing out that married and unmarried people choose to have or not to have children for all kinds of reasons, just about all of them I can think of being fundamentally private and personal considerations.