U.S. Supreme Court declines to take gay marriages cases

I'm not talking about time. I'm talking about the logical leap required to trot out the time-honored, well-debunked "gay people are pedophiles" argument.

 

In order to treat one group differently than another under the law, there needs to be, at the very least, a rational basis for doing so -- if not a compelling reason. And there needs to be no other way to accomplish that purpose (this is an oversimplification but it's basically how it goes).

So far nobody has been able to come up with a rational basis, much less a compelling reason, for prohibiting same-sex marriages. I doubt this would be as much of a hurdle for child marriages, bestiality, etc. Polygamy is a more interesting question.

 

The government can argue that there is a legitimate reason to have an age of consent, which is that children in general are too young to understand about sex and that they need protection from older people in that regard.

They can't argue that there is a legitimate reason to not allow gay marriage, other than, "that's the way we've always done it," or "it's in the Bible." There's no overriding principle.

Although, if sex between consenting adults is legal and giving money to someone for political purposes equals free speech, I wonder if someone arrested for soliciting a hooker could claim their free speech rights are being violated, since they are just seeking something that is legal.

 

I think the board requires you to make at least one previous worthwhile post before allowing your political thread to stay unlocked, which explains why yours are immediately locked.

 

A slippery slope argument is no argument at all, simply a distraction from having to argue a point that someone knows they'll lose. Saying "If we allow same-sex marriage, someday we'll have to allow 12-year-olds to marry" is the same as saying "I have no real way to make a logical argument about this topic, so I'm going to raise something unrelated or, at best, tangentially related to try to make a point that makes no sense but is emotionally charged and therefore will distract from the fact that I don't have a valid argument."

Surely you see that. You really can't be that dense.

 

Well, whatever...meanwhile, the Huffington Post, hardly a conservative values forum, visits one example of pushing the card if rights. Hold on people, The ride will be quite entertaining. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/legalization-incestuous-relationships-_n_5959494.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000022&ir=Weird+News

 

Your reply is "well, whatever?" Does anyone in real life take you seriously, or does literally everyone in the universe consider you a complete joke?

 

Again, the government could claim a legitimate reason in not allowing adult incest, in that they don't want children with a higher possibility of being deformed.

 

That's silly. They don't outlaw couples with high, known risks of genetic disease. That is a fig leaf and always has been.

How about two brothers?

 

Grow up...if you can.

 

Has there been cases in which two brothers are seeking to get married?

 

Does it matter?