Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Skylar]

They've found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

Your entire argument is that the right to marriage must be conditioned on procreation.

Thus, you're not making a legal argument. As the legal principle you've based your argument on doesn't exist.

You've been stuck in the same spot for about 3 years now. You've made zero progress on the failure of your argument.

“They've found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation”

But denial of the right can be conditioned on procreation

You people crack me up.

And when did I say that the denial of the right to marry can be conditioned on procreation?

Laughing.....are you quoting yourself as me again?

But procreation can’t be used to deny the right, unless it can be.

Drunk this early?

Laughing.....and when did I say that the denial of the right to marry can be conditioned on procreation?

You're running because you know there's no such quote. You keep quoting yourself as me, I'll keep laughing.

Deal?

Sure gay boy, sure.

You can’t use procreation to deny the right to marry, but then, you can!

And three strikes, you're out!

If you find a quote me saying that the denial of the right to marry can be conditioned on procreation, I'll be around.

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Supreme Court has explicitly contradicted you, finding that no marriage is dependant on procreation on their ability to procreate.

Did the USSC also find that children are in no way, shape or form (and never have been) statistical anticipated beneficiaries of the marriage contract?

They've found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Your entire argument is that the right to marriage must be conditioned on procreation.

Thus, you're not making a legal argument. As the legal principle you've based your argument on doesn't exist.

You've been stuck in the same spot for about 3 years now. You've made zero progress on the failure of your argument.

“They've found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation”

But denial of the right can be conditioned on procreation

You people crack me up.

Holly shit!! What!!?? I can't stand it any more! I have been sitting back marveling at the stupidity from both you and Silhouette all day and I can't contain myself any longer even though I really have better things to do. What the fuck are you talking about and what legal theory or precedent is this procreation horseshit based on? Have you read ANY of the numerous federal court opinions on same sex marriage and procreation. Do you read above a third grade level? Geeezzzzz

 

[Silhouette]

Have you ^^ read the Infancy Doctrine?

If you find a quote me saying that the denial of the right to marry can be conditioned on procreation, I'll be around.

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

What if it's conditioned upon not having a contract that banishes children implicitly involved from either a mother or father for life? Will you laugh then too?

 

[Skylar]

If you find a quote me saying that the denial of the right to marry can be conditioned on procreation, I'll be around.

Laughing....I won't hold my breath.

What if it's conditioned upon not having a contract that banishes children implicitly involved from either a mother or father for life? Will you laugh then too?

There is no condition for the right to marry based on procreation.

If you believe there is, show me in the actual law. You can't. You can only show me in your imagination. And your imagination isn't a legal argument.

You're stuck, Sil. Same place for 3 years. You've made no progress.....as the entirity of your argument is trying to convince us to ignore the Supreme Court and instead accept your personal opinion as law.

Nope.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court has explicitly contradicted you, finding that no marriage is dependant on procreation on their ability to procreate.

Did the USSC also find that children are in no way, shape or form (and never have been) statistical anticipated beneficiaries of the marriage contract?

They've found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Your entire argument is that the right to marriage must be conditioned on procreation.

Thus, you're not making a legal argument. As the legal principle you've based your argument on doesn't exist.

You've been stuck in the same spot for about 3 years now. You've made zero progress on the failure of your argument.

“They've found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation”

But denial of the right can be conditioned on procreation

You people crack me up.

Holly shit!! What!!?? I can't stand it any more! I have been sitting back marveling at the stupidity from both you and Silhouette all day and I can't contain myself any longer even though I really have better things to do. What the fuck are you talking about and what legal theory or precedent is this procreation horseshit based on? Have you read ANY of the numerous federal court opinions on same sex marriage and procreation. Do you read above a third grade level? Geeezzzzz

Read them and quoted them.

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

That's the Supreme Court of the United States. If you have a better source, I'm all ears.

 

[Skylar]

Have you ^^ read the Infancy Doctrine?

Yup. It has nothing to do with marriage.....as children aren't married to their parents.

And the Infancy Doctrine only allows a minor to void a contract they are party to. Remember, the term 'implied beneficiary' doesn't appear anywhere in the 'Infancy Doctrine'. You imagined that.

And as always, your imagination isn't a legal argument. Is there anything else but you offering your personal opinion as the law?

Anything at all?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Yes. A new Supreme Court & the actual words of the US Constitution & the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[Skylar]

^^ Yes. A new Supreme Court & the actual words of the US Constitution & the Infancy Doctrine.

The actual words of the Supreme Court contradict you on this matter:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Your argument is that the right to marry MUST be conditioned on procreation. Which isn't a legal argument, as no such principle exists in the law.

And as you know, the Infancy Doctrine is employment contract law for child actors. It has nothing to do with marriage.....as children aren't married to their parents.

Remember the term 'implied beneficiary' in regard to the Infancy Doctrine isn't the Supreme Court. Its just you, citing you.

And your imagination isn't a legal argument.

 

[mdk]

The Infancy Doctrine was never cited as a reason to deny gay marriage in all of the numerous cases concerning this issue. I wonder why?

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt if most Americans care one way or the other about polygamy

Only religious zealots get worked up about it

 

[Silhouette]

I doubt if most Americans care one way or the other about polygamy

Only religious zealots get worked up about it

So polygamy..another sexual kink is already legal. Got ya.

 

[Skylar]

I doubt if most Americans care one way or the other about polygamy

Only religious zealots get worked up about it

So polygamy..another sexual kink is already legal. Got ya.

Laughing......you and your sexual kinks also aren't legal arguments.

Can you quote the *actual law*.....or is it the same shtick where you insist we accept your personal opinion as the law?

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt if most Americans care one way or the other about polygamy

Only religious zealots get worked up about it

So polygamy..another sexual kink is already legal. Got ya.

You don't understand marriage
If you are married and want sex on the side, there is nothing stopping you
Polygamy is about relationships and families

 

[Silhouette]

The words in Obergefell kept oscillating around same sex & gay (homosexual). So a person could cite Obergefell saying it is about sexual kinks. Read it.

 

[Skylar]

The words in Obergefell kept oscillating around same sex & gay (homosexual). So a person could cite Obergefell saying it is about sexual kinks. Read it.

Oh, I've read it. And quoted it to you. The Obergefell ruling is fine. Its you that are confused.

Which is why same sex marriage is legally recognized in every State. Including yours.

 

[rightwinger]

The words in Obergefell kept oscillating around same sex & gay (homosexual). So a person could cite Obergefell saying it is about sexual kinks. Read it.

Show us specifics

 

[Silhouette]

You don't know how to Google?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I doubt if most Americans care one way or the other about polygamy

Only religious zealots get worked up about it

So polygamy..another sexual kink is already legal. Got ya.

Why don’t you find 2 or more other people and march down to the court house and say that you all want to get married because same sex couples can. Best case outcome- you’ll just get kicked out. Worst case- you will all be committed for observation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

You don't know how to Google?

I do. Which is how I can quote the USSC obliterating your argument....

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

While you can only quote your imagination.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[mdk]

You don't know how to Google?

Google doesn't have access to your imagination.