California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[Rudey]

I guess you're having trouble reading so I will write it again for you just as I have before. I said marry. I didn't say have kids. We're not talking about children here. You can marry and not have kids as many do. Additionally, we don't play a game of eugenics in America where we prevent people from getting married based on certain genetic markers so not sure what you're getting at there.

I am talking about moral reasons that people are asking to remove from the equation. I could shoot a whole in your tax argument but then again I'd like to stick to morality.

So please read the words this time and then respond. It's an awesome tactic...I promise.

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you procreate with your sister, you're going to likely have kids which will burden the system due to their birth defects.

Not really. If my wife and I were to divorce and then marry our cats, we'd pay about half the taxes we do right now. When one spouse produces income and the other, Toonces, does not, there's a significant marriage bonus.

As for polygamy, assuming we can work out the tax stuff and not allow for some polygamy "superbonus," then I'm really okay with polygamy so long as we're still talking about consenting, non-related adults.

You asked for a rational, non-moralistic reason, so there it is.

In your furry-love world, if my cat decides it lives at another house, does that mean my cat gets half my stuff?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I guess you're having trouble reading so I will write it again for you just as I have before. I said marry. I didn't say have kids. We're not talking about children here. You can marry and not have kids as many do. Additionally, we don't play a game of eugenics in America where we prevent people from getting married based on certain genetic markers so not sure what you're getting at there.

Preventing marriage due to the possibility of certain genetic markers, i.e., M.S., is one thing. Preventing it due to the probability of children which will have a host of birth defects is another.

We already have laws which outlaw procreation between siblings, parents, etc. with just that sort of purpose. I'm sure morality is involved, but you don't need morality to see that the decision to procreate in that sort of relationship harms others.

Using legalistic language, and even adopting the California view, under substantive due process, marriage is a fundamental liberty interest. If something is a fundamental liberty interest, we test a restriction's validity under strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling governmental goal -- here, we have the welfare and health of the children being born to the marriage, the effect that those sorts of children will have upon society, etc.

Part of marriage involves intercourse. For different-sex couples, intercourse almost always involves a risk of pregnancy, whether intentional or not.

I could see same-sex sibling marriage under California's law, but probably not between siblings of different genders. For the above reasons, I think there's a compelling governmental goal in preventing what may come out of that union.

You attempt to divorce marriage from procreation. I don't think that's really possible, at least where procreation is possible.

[Rudey]

I didn't ask what you thought was possible. Perhaps you should stick to the argument.

I'll make it very simple for you since it's difficult responding to the subject:
If johnny shoots blanks and jenny is sterile, and they are siblings, should they be allowed to get married?

And stop talking about the cost to the taxpayer for healthcosts. If we were worried about costs, we would have gotten rid of lawyers a million years ago but we're stuck with you arent we?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Preventing marriage due to the possibility of certain genetic markers, i.e., M.S., is one thing. Preventing it due to the probability of children which will have a host of birth defects is another.

We already have laws which outlaw procreation between siblings, parents, etc. with just that sort of purpose. I'm sure morality is involved, but you don't need morality to see that the decision to procreate in that sort of relationship harms others.

Using legalistic language, and even adopting the California view, under substantive due process, marriage is a fundamental liberty interest. If something is a fundamental liberty interest, we test a restriction's validity under strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling governmental goal -- here, we have the welfare and health of the children being born to the marriage, the effect that those sorts of children will have upon society, etc.

Part of marriage involves intercourse. For different-sex couples, intercourse almost always involves a risk of pregnancy, whether intentional or not.

I could see same-sex sibling marriage under California's law, but probably not between siblings of different genders. For the above reasons, I think there's a compelling governmental goal in preventing what may come out of that union.

You attempt to divorce marriage from procreation. I don't think that's really possible, at least where procreation is possible.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rudey

If johnny shoots blanks and jenny is sterile, and they are siblings, should they be allowed to get married?

I don't see how a distinction like that would be bureaucratically manageable.