Homosexual marriage has been mandated, so what's next? Here's what's next!

In Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), the US Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 5-4, that the right of homosexuals to enter into marriage is protected by the US Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that "the Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs," but the "identification and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any formula." As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Majority_opinion

The gist of this reasoning is that the rights of individuals to have autonomy to make decisions and express themselves in relationships is fundamentally more important than the government's interest in regulating such relationships. It seems to me that this reasoning is capable of being extended to other relationships which are currently prohibited by law. And now we are seeing what may be the beginning of the next wave of litigation that seeks to push the envelope.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-parent-seeks-ok-to-marry-their-own-adult-child

A parent is New York, identity and not even gender disclosed, has fled a petition asking a federal court to invalidate New York laws which prohibit marriage between a parent and child. The "child" is an adult, and - for reasons not disclosed - the couple is incapable of conceiving and giving birth to a child.

If they are both adults, capable of making rational decisions for themselves, and incapable of giving birth to defective babes, then why should they NOT have the right to make that decision for themselves? While I do NOT endorse incestuous relationships, I cannot conceive of a reason why the state should be required to allow homosexual marriage but be allowed to ban this proposed marriage.

If this parent-child barren marriage is allowed to proceed, then other incestuous couples will argue that genetic counselling, amniocentesis, and abortion on demand will allow them to avoid giving birth to defective children so they, too, should have the right to marry.

If this sounds preposterous to you, let me assure you that the idea of homosexual marriage being the law of the land would have been quite preposterous to the citizens of the 1950's, 1960's, and even the 1970's, and now it is legal.

Boys marrying boys?!?!?! You gotta be joshing me!
Boys marrying boys?!?!?! You gotta be joshing me!

What seemed like a preposterous joke yesterday may become confounding, perplexing . . . and legal tomorrow.

Gay marriage is legal? W . . . T . . . F?
Gay marriage is legal? W . . . T . . . F?

After incestuous marriages are allowed, then what group comes next: adult-child unions? Human-animal relationships? If you want to guffaw like the kids in the picture above, then in a few years you may reacting in bewildered amazement like the old dude in the second picture.

Homosexual marriage has been mandated, so what's next? Here's what's next!
9
33
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • lightbulb27
    I had no idea, I thought that was done many years back under Obama... what I mis?

    We removed the foundational structure of our society built around particular religeous beliefs and values. Once discarded, it's deveolution and everything goes that the mind can conceive.

    When will cannibalism be legal? Got a lot of extra humans and they die in accidents and such... no sense throwing away a useful carcass, just make soup out of them... and jerky. Is there a problem? it's all mental. The cannibals on this site don't see anything wrong with it (note... I'm not one).

    And so ultimately, yes, a woman can marry a frog... that's liberty. And if she kisses it, maybe in her mind she sees a prince, and that will be one happy frog.
    Is this still revelant?

Most Helpful Girl

  • Gwenhwyfar
    Interesting. I see what you mean counselor. Stare decisis does seem to compel a certain result.
    Is this still revelant?
    • Neko911

      But you can't compare someone taking advantage of a child or animal to 2 people who actually legit care for each other

    • Gwenhwyfar

      @Neko911 agreed! But what about marrying your own adult child?

    • Neko911

      That's grooming. Most of the time when that happens the adukt groomed the adult since he or she was a child. They tend to brainwash them. That's not a real consenting relationship

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

832
  • razelove
    It'll probably pass in court, what I find funny is that no one wants to allow bigamy. For some that extends to religious and cultural identity as well as personal and sexual, but I guarantee more incest, people marrying animals and what not will fly before people being allowed to marry more than one partner legally.

    I can't help but find that a little funny. Respect the individual and their rights unless it can benefit a religion, straight man, or submissive woman.
  • Mishan97
    You’re falling victim to the “slippery slope” fallacy. Legal Gay marriage will not lead to legalizing Incest or pedophilia or bestiality. One, because in the case of pedophilia and bestiality there is a clear power imbalance and there’s a perpetrator and a victim. The child and animal of course are victims to a nonconsensual marriage. Also can I note that in countries, like pakistan for example, where homosexuality is explicitly illegal, incest and child marriages are more common than here in the US where homosexuality is accepted. That alone kind of disproves your argument that a society that accepts homosexuality will lead to a society that accepts child marriage and incest. you brought up a lot of semantic arguments but the simple big picture idea is this; gay marriage hurts no one when it is consensual, it allows gay people to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage like everyone else. Our government gave gay people this right because it finally recognized that people, regardless of sexual orientation deserve the same rights. Our society can believe this and at the same time believe that it is wrong for a child to be forced into marrying an adult and that having sex with animals is wrong. These are not related concepts. So in conclusion, your argument is stupid.
    • TheTower

      While the point on beastiality might be on point but you are wrong regarding incest or pedophilia if the victim it self are the one who approve the kind of sexual behaviour. Sure we can say about child grooming like but how do you prove that the victim are the result of the child grooming. Not only that the same thing can be said on gay partners just like how child grooming were where child who are taken care by gay parent will resulted no more that child grooming it self where there were several cases where boys were force to wear girl cloth or even have his balls cut off.

      Also your argument also wrong because gay marriage are in the first place are no more than child marriage in the first place where gay marriage or even being homosexual can resulted to death on the US. So on what basis that pedophilia and beastility will not have the same flow as homosexual marriage? Not to mention child marriage are actually deep rooted in wester society especially with the elite thats why you have family related monarchy amongst european kings and queens.

      Just like the basis where wrong gender on wring body were used by homosexual the same can be said if children were to said they are wrong age on wrong body. Both side of arguments do not have the same basis yet homosexual were legalise and child marriage while not common but still persist in this modern era. Its only a matter of time before pedophilia are part of LGBTQ maybe plus P for pedophilia.

      His opinion is not wrong but it is inevitable. If homosexuality were legalise what make you pedophilia is not? The European, American or on general sense, human civilisation are already part of the so called child marriage through out the history. I mean, it was legalise once and being homosexual legalisation this have opened new door for pedophilia.

    • TheTower


      We might also see beastility being legalise but that might take years if not hundred year before legalise but marriage between a person and inanimate object is already a thing. While not widely and their number are small but see how the world already begin to accept it. Not to mention you your self also stated that the society can believe what right and what wrong. What confidence do you have that the statue quo will remain the same in the near future? Just more than 10 years ago homosexual are not being accepted so what make you that pedophilia and beastility will not have the same result? Than again, it is. Ot his argument is stupid but you are naive.

    • Mishan97

      @TheTower well historical/societal trends show that acceptance of child marriages is decreasing. In fact more laws are being passed to protect children from child marriages than before. The public attitude towards child marriages is becoming more and more disapproving. For example, a hundred years ago a 16 year old marrying a 25 year old was normal in many countries. Nowadays, in most places, that would be looked upon in disgust. The trend towards homosexuality acceptance is opposite. Public sentiment is becoming more and more accepting of gay people as time goes on. This proves there’s no correlation between societal acceptance of child marriage/pedophilia and homosexuality. Like I said, they’re unrelated. And therefore this guys argument makes no sense

    • Show All
  • Leavesbound
    While it does not permit marriage between parent and child, the state of Rhode Island, years ago, decriminalized all incest where all concerned are consenting adults. There, it is perfectly legal for a 18 year old boy to have sex with his 57 year old grandmother. Not marry mind you, just have sex.

    Personally I don't care what any 2 or more consenting adults do with each other as long as it has no detrimental effect on public safety nor causes as you put it, defective babies.

    On the topic of defective babies, it usually takes multiple generations of repeated incestuous births to actually have defective babies. A good example is the house of Hapsburg in Spain where Charles II was the ultimate conclusion of the line being very defective both physically and mentally. Granted there were no Parent-child marriages in the line, it was still quite close in each generation. I would say that it would take typically until the third generation of parent-child incest before serious issues arose.
    • "On the topic of defective babies, it usually takes multiple generations of repeated incestuous births to actually have defective babies." I don't know what, where, or why you were taught that, but that statement is absolutely wrong.

    • Massageman

      Multiple generations to have defective babies? LIsten to those who are olderandwiser. In "first-degree" incestuous sex in a Czech study, 42% of the babies had birth defects in the FIRST generation. Add behavioral problems and it's over 50%. FIRST generation = more bad than good. God made these rules for a reason.

    • Massageman

      Thank you.

    • Show All
  • Daniela1982
    2 Timothy 3 tells how men will be in the last days. Given over to their pleasures and all forms of sexual perversion.

    1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

    6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
    Today's world has much evil in it and we kill each other with impunity. We take the rules God gave us for our well being, like marriage being between a single man and a single woman, not multiples. He told us Homosexuality is an abomination and those that practice such things will not enter the Kingdom of God. You don't even have to believe in God to know that all the things happening on Earth are not getting better, they are getting worse. Our prisons are overcrowded and all sorts of evil still resides on out streets, such as girls being abducted and sold into the sex trade. Shootings, killings, rioting, looting. You name it. So what's next? The Tribulation with 3 1/2 years of peace and 3 1/2 years of horror with God's judgements that make Covid seem like a mile cold, and culminating in the Battle of Armageddon. Believe me, you don't want to be around for that.
    • WesBrewer

      I am not sure you meant this, but with your wording, it sounds like you are saying only men will be the ones who are "Given over to their pleasures and all forms of sexual perversion" women, men, boys, and girls will all be like that, except for the ones who walk in the ways of the Lord.

    • I hate to break it to you but that’s just how human nature is we have always been this way and always will be there are good and bad people in every generation just because you see people that fit your description now doesn’t mean people like that haven’t always existed I see all these boomers talk about how people are so rude and disrespectful these days but in the 80 and 90s gang warfare was the worst this countries ever seen in the 70s drug epidemics were breaking out everywhere in the 60s and before him crow laws were existent and segregation and racist laws oppressed minority’s all over the country so when please tell me when we’re humans not giant pieces of shit because in actuality we always were and will be it has nothing to do with end times all you described is like I said human nature

    • @WesBrewer True, it is not relegated to just one sex or age bracket.

    • Show All
  • nevernevernever
    two unrelated adults entering into a relationship with each other is not the equivalent of incest or any other perversion and I don't get why people keep comparing homosexuality to such things as incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.
    • "I don't get it" doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong. Morality is subjective and as much as you think your beliefs are reasonable, there are people with opposing beliefs who think they are reasonable. And they don't get your beliefs.

  • Derekk
    I think that there's a worry on the right that a removal of Judeo-Christian standards of behaviour creates a sort of moral relativism in which everything goes and nobody can have any expectations for the future. I happen to share this concern, but I don't think that removing standards implies that you can't replace them. Think of the judicial philosophy of the late Ginsberg. It's very much an anti-originalist position to the law, (and indirectly to morality) and I agree with it. Not because it's theoretically sound and that we should interpret the law according to an evolving social sense, but because legal documents are almost always vague, lacking in definite meaning, influenced by irrational prejudices, and so forth. So why should something flawed be somehow above a flawed interpretation for the utilitarian purposes of correcting it? American law and the Republicanism of your legal system is actually superior in many ways to others; Canada for instance has plenty of restrictions to the rights of free speech within our charter in the form of vaguely determined "reasonable limits".

    But the American constitution isn't perfect. It was developed by Enlightenment-inspired intellectuals who were ignorant of many of the developments in legal and moral philosophy of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. A Lockean Proviso is not nowadays considered to be an airtight defense of property rights any more than the Marxist idea of surplus value is considered a solid theory of exploitation.

    Having said all of this, there is a big difference between a legitimate fear of the law going off the wheels and not having a philosophical basis, and a visceral disgust for practices that you disapprove of. Part of the objectivity of the law implies that some practices will inevitably sour the sentiments of particular people. This is a good thing. It means the law is working, and impervious to the emotional reactions of the mob. Incest grosses me out, and yet by the standards of our conception of consent, it seems hard to preclude it as agree legitimate form of relationship. Animals are another story entirely.
  • Lliam
    I have zero problem with gay marriage or gay people in general. If a government marriage license bestows certain legal and financial benefits, then gay people are entitled to them.

    Some people have always argued that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia. I consider that complete nonsense. Some straight people engage in oral and/or anal sex. Does that also lead to bestiality and pedophilia?

    It's hard to claim that one thing is a slippery slope that leads to unrelated things. For example, what does incest have to do with homosexuality?
    • "what does incest have to do with homosexuality?" The same reasoning that applies when saying that homosexual marriage should be beyond the control of the state could be applied to incestuous marriages between consenting adults.

    • Lliam

      It's apples and oranges.

    • The reasoning is the same.

  • goaded
    You seem to have missed the concept of "consent". Children can't consent, animals can't consent. Adults can. Even Rush Limbaugh got that right (by accident) once.https://www.youtube.com/embed/WwcOcSY9SIs
  • www.cbsnews.com/.../
    Just came across this
    • I am certainly not in support of incestuous marriages, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

    • Me either it was just a news clip I caught when researching your question ✌️

  • Neko911
    I don't get the argument that homosexuality is even remotely close to grooming your child into being your sex/partner. One is a predator taking advantage of a child and the other is two people who love each other who just happen to be the same gender
    • Twalli

      Yet Woody Allen did that with his adopted daughter

    • These people who criticize and put hate on the lgbt community by associating it with incest and bestiality are no different than they were back in the twentieth century when they accuse African Americans for sexually assaulting women. Jim Crow is still here as he has a taste for putting hate on not just African Americans, but also Latinos, Muslims, LGBTQ citizens, women, and other minorities.

    • Basically, history is trying to repeat itself. Any kind of relationship that is harmless will be discouraged and associate it with those that are either absurd and cruel.

    • Show All
  • boombastik
    Incest is wrong on so many levels, it should not even be up for discussion. Hell, why not let people marry horses. They can't have kids. If some wild lady likes to ride and be rode & doesn't mind destroying her innards it should be her or even his choice lol. As far as homos go if they want to turn a dumping sure into a romantic picnic who am I to rain on their parade. It's got to be a shitty marriage though.
  • Massageman
    Great piece.

    I have to 'laugh' (not the ha-ha kind) when entities scoff at the need for a law for a national language, outlawing certain types of "justice' (sharia law, vigilante, etc.) "That wouldn't happen - people aren't that stupid - that's insane - in the United States? Preposterous."

    Well guess what people, it's happening. The country has hit the socialist iceberg and is taking on water very quickly. We keep trying to fix things, and it seems as though we are just drilling holes in the hull, thinking the water will drain out. It does not work that way!
    People have told me, "The world ain't like it was with Leave it to Beaver". You bet it isn't: they wouldn't put up with this crap back then. They think the world has miraculously changed under our feet with no "outside force" aiding that change: they are wrong.

    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Pres Ronald Reagan

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the way God designed things, and seeing as how He conceived of a self-repairing covering on humans (skin), and eyebrows to act as gutters to help keep water out of our eyes, and gave us hearts with muscles that get enough rest between beats, prescribing the beneficial framework for the covenant of marriage was a piece of proverbial cake for Him. Gen 1:26-31. Lev 18:22; 20:13. 1 Cor 6:9-10. Rom 1:27 and many other cites.

    Our problem is that we don’t really learn from history. George Santayana said that “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” The philosopher Hegel said, “What experience and history teach us is this: that people and government never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.” Or as Winston Churchill said, “The one thing we have learned from history is that we don’t learn from history.”

    The refrains that are often heard are: “It can’t happen here,” or “Our country is different.” On the micro level, we know that it can and does "happen here". On the macro level, the reality is that nations are born and die just like individuals. Their longevity may exceed the average person’s lifespan, but the reality is that nations also die.

    History has shown that the average age of the great civilizations is around two hundred years, just about ten generations. Countries such as Great Britain exceed the average while other countries like the United States are just in the midst of breaching that average age.

    Each of the great civilizations in the world passed through a series of stages from their birth to their decline to their death. Historians have listed these in ten stages.

    The first stage moves from bondage to spiritual faith. The second from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth stage moves from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage moves from abundance to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency. The seventh stage moves from complacency to apathy. The eighth stage moves from apathy to moral decay. The ninth stage moves from moral decay to dependence. And the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage. (We are now in various stages and amounts of 5 through 9. Pray we do not hit 10.)

    These are the ten stages through which the great civilizations have gone. Notice the progression from bondage to liberty back to bondage. The first generation throws off the shackles of bondage only to have a later generation through apathy and indifference allow itself to once again be enslaved. ref Probe. org
  • TadCurious
    The dissents in Obergefell were on much sounder ground than Kennedy's majority opinion. The idea that the drafters of the 14th Amendment in 1868, seeking to ensure the rights of the freed slaves, intended also to mandate same sex marriage is absurd. Once you start down the slope of creative writing as judging you are headed for trouble.
    • Twalli

      Do we follow the letter or the spirit of the law? The spirit of the law in the Declaration of Independence was not to give any rights to blacks or women. Odd how you feel that should be discarded when another shouldn't. 🤔

  • Tema123
    Finally , a reasonable man ! I was afraid we ran out of them ! Keep fighting ! I hope your reasoning will eventually reach and enter the minds of those who could kill this blight before it snuffs out the lives of all straight people left.
  • *paces back and forth in front of a Grand Jury*
    Now are we basing this on the -
    Court of Public Opinion
    Court of GaG
    Or other.
    In addition.

    https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-homosexuality/
    Granted the Bible speaks of it.. BUT...

    The Bible doesn’t comment directly on the biology of homosexual desires, though it acknowledges that we are all born with a tendency to go against what God commands. (Romans 7:​21-​25) Rather than focus on the cause of homosexual desires, however, the Bible prohibits homosexual acts.

    So it may state that. Adam may have Alex.. Or Eve may have Alexia..

    There is no definitive answer to it.. But since we are going on Homosexuals...
    https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/mixed-fabrics-does-leviticus-1919-and-deuteronomy-2211
    "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee—Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a farther meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that 'wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister' [Whitlaw]. (See Ezekiel 44:17-18.)"
    ====
    But it is done anyway...
    • The question is about incest, not homosexuality.

    • @OlderAndWiser agreed but the counter argument was, in the courts it was fine. BUT in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION in some areas its accepted.. but in some political circles its not...

  • Anpu23
    After reading this MyTake I've given this a lot of thought. I think the easy solution is for the state to remove itself from the institution of marriage. If the issue becomes a religious ceremony and has no legal weight at all. It becomes between yourself and your religious leaders. The courts can defer to ecclesiastical authority and let them handle the issues as they arrive. Courts can claim "religious freedom" and say "take it up with your (pastor, Imam, preacher, bishop, priest, priestess, or whatever) it doesn't concern the state at all." The state can still restrict sexual union on the grounds of health and consent (dogs can't consent) but the idea of a civil union is no longer a concern. The state no longer recognizes marriage, doesn't record or track it, and the courts are no longer an appropriate venue for challenges to marriage customs.
    • Interesting suggestion I will ponder that and get back to you.

  • Bakcula
    Next is when democrats and progressives will make it okay for grown men to have sexual relations with little girls, aka legalize pedophelia and starts with Joe Biden. I mean this is what they do and women too. They keep lowering the bar on what is morally and ethically acceptable. Now it's the times where everything goes. Wanna fuck a donkey go right ahead. Want a dog to lick the peanut butter off your cunt go right ahead. Under a woman's and democrats rule these things will be possible and "LEGAL".
    • aloha22

      lmao, you realize that there is currently a REPUBLICAN US representative (matt gaetz) embroiled in a scandal involving minors, prostitutes, and trafficking. there are also reports that other republican representatives are also part of this. Gaetz apparently also distributed nude photos among other lawmakers in congress. you're only 14 and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. go do homework or something.

    • @aloha22 Katie Hill, John Conyers Jr., Al Franken, David Wu, Anthony Weiner (what an apt name!), Eric Massa, John Edwards, Tim Mahoney, Strom Thurmond, Gary Condit, Mel Reynolds, Bill Clinton, Brock Adams, Charles S. Robb, Austin J. Murphy, Gus Savage, Barney Frank, Gary Hart, Gerry Studds, John Andrew Young, Robert L. Leggett, Fred Richmond, Wayne Hays, Allan Howe, Wilbur Mills, . . .

    • aloha22

      DONNY TRUMP, Tim Nolan, Ralph Shortey, David Swartz, Mark Pazuhanich, Nicholas Morency, Edison Misla Aldarondo, Philip Giordano, Tom Shortridge, Mike Hintz, Peter Dibble, Donald “Buz” Lukens, Richard A. Delgaudio, Mark A. Grethen, Randal David Ankeney, Dan Crane, Robert Bauman, Jeffrey Patti, Marty Glickman, Howard L. Brooks, Roy Moore, John Hathaway, Paul Ingram, ... I could continue but the list is really long.
      All of those are Republicans who have committed child (or minor) sexual abuse. Donny is an exception but he still bragged about sexually assaulting women and then claimed it was "lockerroom talk" so I think he definitely deserved a spot on that list.
      You included:
      1. Katie Hill - she had relations with a campaign staffer (older than 18) and then had her nude photos leaked. her ex-husband then released nonconsensual porn.
      2. John Edwards - had an extramarital affair (older than 18) while his wife was dying of cancer. terrible guy.
      3. Strom Thurmond is a republican
      4. Gary Condit - had an extramarital affair with Chandra Levy (older than 18) and when she disappeared, he was never a suspect. still a pretty bad person.
      5. Bill Gates - Lewinsky was older than 18 but I still hate him

      look, there are bad people on both sides but before you start throwing dems under the bus for being responsible for promoting pedophilia and sexual relations with minors, you need to take a long hard look at some republicans. all of those people listed above are those who abused their power, not people caught in consensual scandals (which happened to a lot of people in your list of dems).

    • Show All
  • Jesus_is_the_guey
    Are you really going to compare homosexuality to incest that’s fucked up. They have nothing to do with each other. I myself don’t like the idea of homosexuality but if two guys gals or whatever wanna fuck... let them as long as they’re both consenting adults. The problem with incest is it leads to hapsburgs baby’s. Homosexuality can actually lead a less populated earth which is what we need. It also will help millions of people world wide from wasting their time on a person attracted to the opposite sex. Maybe instead of eating your time obsessing who other people are attracted to, I don't know maybe get laid?
    • Did you actually read what I wrote?

    • Half of it but it’s not necessary you made it very clear on where you stand also homosexuality and incest have been around since the beginning of time but they are not related

    • Then you have no idea what point I was making with this post. Goodbye.

    • Show All
  • kevyhanma
    I’m all for equality and crap but MARRIAGE! Is a sacred union between man and woman like wtf call it something else why do they have to take this from heterosexuals I don’t recognize a same sex union as marriage because it’s not
    • Twalli

      Then don't give legal rights exclusively to marriage

  • errorgoodnameunfound
    Well, see, I WOULD give an opinion, but I don't want to waste my time on COMMUNISTS like you who censor opinions they don't like!

    Come on. CENSOR ME YOU COMMIE! :D
  • NikolaiIvanov
    There is something seriously wrong happening in America, I believe going back to the medieval ways by lynching homosexuals and executions of feminist witches. If lynching was legal I'm not joking I'd definitely partake in it
    • Also public executions for incestcous relationships even with consent same as for rape.

  • Iron_Man
    You’re a lawyer why can’t you fight hard against same-sex marriage laws?
    • Tema123

      What can a lone hand do?

    • Iron_Man

      Fight for Moral values

    • Tema123

      He is doing just that ! As long as he fights , it does not signify how he does it !

    • Show All
  • 007kingifrit
    MAP; minor attracted person. its a term that already exists for pedos and it will be next on their list

    society must be intolerant to survive. hatred plays an important biological role. that's why we all hate
  • TheTower
    Its only a matter of time. Homosexual being legalise is like opening pandora box. There were already several cases where child already make defence on the same argument just like how homosexual make. Not only that child marriage are way deep rooted across civilisation thus it was never gone in the first place. Yes, there will be the time where pedophilia, beastality etc. are not consider as taboo or wrong. Just like how homosexual seen are wrong in the first place, same can be said about others. Not to mention there were even those who are married to inanimate object, it seems society also begin accept that kind of marriage. I hope I do not live that long to see that kind of dark future where the concept of not only gender but also age and species are screw up. Maybe armegedon is actually our fail safe button after all. Hahaha.
  • ThisAndThat
    Every decision they make moves society towards eugenics. Have you noticed that?
  • Twalli
    Animals and children can't consent. We'd have to change that first and we'd get a lot of rapists getting off free.
  • shalt
    I still agree if a certain religion, like catholic doesn't want to wed gays in their church, as is their religion, that should be accepted. If you gays want to get married, go to a fucking lake, or beach. Stay in your lane, why make other people lives harder, idgaf about religion by the way, just ignorant for people to belittle someone, even like this... RESPECT SOMEONES RELIGION AND FREDOM OF CHOICE. Who gives a fuckcif someone worships satan. That should be the beauty of freedom. Law punishes those who do WRONG in the eyes of justice. NOT THIS
  • MrTaboo
    Sexual depravity is one of first parts of a countries down far.
  • Dragonpurple
    Polygamy or polyamorous is what will be next. Really how many rights are limited to only one at a time? There is no limit on the number of free speech protests people can be part of, or how many churches they can attend, or even how many guns they can own.

    Marriage is just a legal contract anyways, it would be absurd in any other aspect to say anyone can only be in one contract (of any other type) at a time.

    I remember when my state allowed 1st cousins to get married, so long as they couldn't have children, that was awhile ago though.

    Personally I think marriage should not be regulated by the government at all, for generations people got married without government permission. It should be between all consenting parties and no government approval needed.
    • If the government does not keep track of records so that the status of a purported marriage can be verified, then it would have no way of preventing fraud in the granting of benefits based on marital status.

    • What benefits are you referring to?

      Things like health insurance, for spouses or family members should be changed to say if they live in the same household you can sign them up on your policy. Easy enough to verify if someone suspects there is fraud. Assuming they aren't a child, which could be verified by birth certificates.

      The tax discount for filing jointly instead of single, could be changed to say its the same rate if your married or not.

      You might be thinking of more things than I can off the top of my head, as I can't really say I've experienced any government benefits from being married, other than a slightly lower tax rate and the ability to put my spouse on my insurance. As if I remember right your an attorney so you'd know all that stuff.

    • Employers providing group health insurance can't be required to provide such benefits at all, so they certainly can't be required to provide benefits for "spouses" when that status can't be verified.

      "The tax discount for filing jointly instead of single, could be changed to say its the same rate if your married or not." Yes, it COULD be, but many people would not want that changed.

      The military provides some housing and subsistence benefits that are based upon your marital status.

    • Show All
  • pokerbot
    Homosexual marriage is mandated? You mean I have to marry a man now? Gee, what is my wife gonna say about that?
    • Local governments ae mandated to issue marriage licenses.

    • pokerbot

      Well good! Nobody wants unlicensed marriages do they?

    • Yes, there are many people opposed to government recognition of homosexual marriages. How could you not recognize that fact?

  • Daniel_Dano
    I'm glad I live in a country where homosexuality is very strictly illegal
  • Gespenster_division
    I identify as a woman.
  • Avicenna
    Plural marriage is what's next
    • msc545

      That is actually going on now even though it's not legally condoned

    • Avicenna

      @msc545: It is, but it will eventually be legally condoned as well (a very bad thing).

    • msc545

      Yes. Imagine even more confusion in family law courts!

    • Show All
  • Great writing sir
  • sixtyeightplusone
    incest is wrong but homosexual marriage is worse
    • Tema123

      Yes. You are absolutely right ! At least incest doesn't violate the male-female relationship. So the driving force behind it is right in principle despite the fact that it is badly executed.

  • geola
    Keep the kids safe
  • Anonymous
    Incest is a philosophical dilemma. There’s no logical reason to be against that can’t be applied to non incest couples. The only argument we have against is that we think it’s disgusting as hell.

    Ex: The baby has a higher chance of birth defects.
    - There are non incest couples with conditions that make their children at higher risk for birth defects.

    Children aren’t going to be able to marry an adult. A child doesn’t understand what their doing. They can’t fully comprehend an adult relationship. They are no where near developed enough for it. That’s why they can’t consent. No where close to the majority will support adults marrying children. That’s a huge jump from gay marriage.

    Animals can’t consent to marriage. They don’t understand what’s going on. They can’t comprehend it. We can’t communicate it to them. They can’t consent. That kind of marriage can’t be legal because both parties aren’t in a acceptable state of mind and couldn’t consent even if they were.

    All these arguments you brought up, were also brought up when interracial marriage in the South was controversial and new. They used argument like what’s going to stop people from marrying the family dog , what’s going to stop homosexuals from marrying, etc.
    Even traditionalism, that marriage is traditionally between same race couples so I don’t think interracial couples should get married. Or they can at least call it something else. Just like most people who opposed gay marriage argued that “marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, so I don’t think two men or two women should get married. They should at least call it something else.

    See the trend. You’re worrying about gay marriage like people worried about interracial marriage in the racist times.

    History is repeating itself. Those who don’t know history, are doomed to repeat it.
    • Exactly. Also to mention that Republicans today are no different than when they were southern white Democrats back then as they placed in the Jim Crow laws to keep blacks and Latinos segregated.

    • Who said I am worrying out gay marriage?

    • Anonymous

      Isn’t this post about worrying or thinking about what kind of marriage is going to be next?

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    I don't think that the efforts to legalize incestuous marriage will succeed at any point in history. Why? Because from a secular point of view, I can understand why people think that gay marriage is harmless; on it's face, it really is just the union of two consenting adults (I won't get into distant cultural effects of gay marriage that may be negative). In the case of the incestuous marriage, the same reasoning does not apply. This is because in the incestuous marriage, the sibling and/or parent always has some kind of coercive influence over the person they are marrying. If parent-child marriage is legalized, you incentivize creeps who want to have sex/romantic relationships with their kids, to groom their children into thinking of them in a sexual/romantic way. You can also never know if relationships of these kinds that form, involved the use of this aforementioned grooming, or coercive relationship dynamics that parents hold over their kids (think of the parent's will, possible dependency on the parent, etc...).
    • Anonymous

      Also I will add as an aside that gay marriage isn't really marriage, as traditionally conceived. The term marriage is pretty vague and can refer to unions of many kinds these days. Non-religious notions of marriage, I would argue, are meaningless.

    • It's basically the same way as people argue about interracial marriage. History is basically repeating itself.

    • goaded

      I'm not disagreeing with you, but incest can also be siblings.

  • Anonymous
    I just figured that polygamy would be next

    It is a race to the bottom and the left can't destroy society fast enough in the name of freedom. Their real goal is anarchy (not personal freedom) and in a state of anarchy power changes hands more easily. Everyone heads are spinning, trying to keep up with all of the changes and then all of a sudden, something really bad happens and they abolish the constitution because it was written by white supremacists.

    Don't worry we'll write a new one which will be inclusive of all except those who have previously held power. It won't have a first or second amendment because only racists need guns and only hate mongers hide behind the first amendment
  • Anonymous
    Adult/child and human/animal relationships have victims. (consensual) homosexual relations don't have victims
    • NoManToo

      Why can't a 13 year girl consent to have sex with a 40 year man.

      13 year olds can't help who they love?

    • Massageman

      @NoManToo They are too young to REALLY know.

    • Remyhehim

      @NoManToo because children can't consent either way and that man is then a pedophile.

    • Show All
Loading...