SCOTUS: DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Denny347]

The country has officially become the most screwed up place on the planet. Marrying 12 year olds and polygamy will have to be allowed now. The horse has walked out of the barn cause the door is open. And just how long will it be before some nutcase wants to marry their dog or cat. Guess that should be legal too. Oh, and what about your second cousin. That should not be prohibited either because it would be discriminatory. And the folks in the big city call the folks in the country rednecks. Right.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah, the door is now open to all kinds of stuff now, but I wouldn't whig out over it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yeah, the door is now open to all kinds of stuff now, but I wouldn't whig out over it.

To the contrary, consider this:

In the mid-1900's... the very thought and idea of two males or two females being together was preposterous. It was ridiculous. People thought "It'll never happen, this'll never be OK."

Here we are.

In the last decade or so... the very thought and idea of an adult and a child being together was preposterous. It's ridiculous. We think "It'll never happen, this'll never be OK."

And yet, the "normalization" of pedophilia is on the rise. It's constantly being reclassified as a "sexual orientation"... others say "Who are we to say who these people are allowed to love?!"... etc.

Give it another 10-20 years. Pedophilia will be in the SCOTUS as California tries to legalize it. Don't doubt me.

Edit: Just so I'm not talking out of my ass: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...a-as-a-sexual-orientation-google-hangout.html

 

[Mark 1911]

Give it another 10-20 years. Pedophilia will be in the SCOTUS as California tries to legalize it. Don't doubt me.

The only thing I doubt about your prediction is the time frame. I don't think it will take another 10-20 years to get there. As far as pedophilia going to the SCOTUS, I think you're right on the mark. Children count for less and less in our society every day, despite the spew to the contrary.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The only thing I doubt about your prediction is the time frame. I don't think it will take another 10-20 years to get there. As far as pedophilia going to the SCOTUS, I think you're right on the mark. Children count for less and less in our society every day, despite the spew to the contrary.

I'm trying not to be too pessimistic about it. I know you're right.

 

[Mark 1911]

I'm trying not to be too pessimistic about it. I know you're right.

SCOTUS just proved that (again). It's not about being pessimistic, just realistic. They obviously weren't thinking about the children in 1973, or this week. They blew it, big time, again.

 

[Stickfight]

They shoulda never given em the right to vote. It's all been downhill since then.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Go ahead and stick you head in the sand. That's how the US has gotten to the current conditions.

 

[Doug]

SCOTUS just proved that (again). It's not about being pessimistic, just realistic. They obviously weren't thinking about the children in 1973, or this week. They blew it, big time, again.

1973?
What is the reference, please.

 

[Trooper]

Marriage is not strictly a religious activity. You can get married by a judge.

The state does indeed authorize marriage. Did you have to get a marriage license before you could get married?

State law, and Kirk Freeman could give more detail, does not deal with "Marriage" but rather creates a special partnership. A "ceremony" is not marriage, and the "license" is really merely part of the contract that forms the partnership.

The courts do not deal with broken hearts, love or anything else that we associate with "marriage". The courts only deal with breaking apart a partnership and divesting the property of said partnership (to include children).

Frankly there are no laws forbidding you from having whatever sexual partners that you want. You can live, and have sex with, multiple women. But you can only form a "marriage" partnership with one person. If you want a larger partnership then you have to go to a lawyer and draw up a contract.

You can have sex with a sibling, the state does not care. It only cares about the messes we create by forming partnerships then getting mad at each other.

 

[hornadylnl]

1973?
What is the reference, please.

I'm going to guess roe v wade.

 

[Denny347]

Dumbest arguments ever.

 

[CarmelHP]

You can have sex with a sibling, the state does not care. It only cares about the messes we create by forming partnerships then getting mad at each other.

What? Are you from Kentucky?

IC 35-46-1-3
Incest
Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.
(b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if it was valid where entered into.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.6. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.86; P.L.158-1987, SEC.5; P.L.79-1994, SEC.16.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Frankly there are no laws forbidding you from having whatever sexual partners that you want.

Well, actually, there are a whole slew of such laws, but I think you mean between consenting, non-intoxicated, mentally competent adults.

 

[Trooper]

What? Are you from Kentucky?

IC 35-46-1-3
Incest
Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.
(b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if it was valid where entered into.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.6. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.86; P.L.158-1987, SEC.5; P.L.79-1994, SEC.16.

However, once you are 18, and all parties are willing, the law (generally) has no limits.

 

[Trooper]

Well, actually, there are a whole slew of such laws, but I think you mean between consenting, non-intoxicated, mentally competent adults.

However we do not regulate sex between willing adults. There are very few limits on adults, even if they are siblings.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

However we do not regulate sex between willing adults. There are very few limits on adults, even if they are siblings.

I can't help but notice you're quite knowledgable on this matter....

 

[Mark 1911]

1973?
What is the reference, please.

Roe v Wade

I'm going to guess roe v wade.

Yes.

 

[Trooper]

I can't help but notice you're quite knowledgable on this matter....

Just have observed how most libertarians act....

 

[CarmelHP]

However, once you are 18, and all parties are willing, the law (generally) has no limits.

What? A person eighteen (18) years of age or older is a Class C Felony, incest with under 16 is a Class B.

IAALBNYL