Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.
Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.
In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.
They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.
Are they 'purely arbitrary' reasons?
And no- no not in effect- it is still illegal for you to marry your mother- or your 8 sister wives.
But if you think you do have the right- and that the reasons you can't marry your mother are 'purely arbitrary'- then take your case to court.
Stand up proudly in court with your mother and announce your Constitutional right to marry your mother.
Let us know how it turns out.
Yet you supply no reason why they aren’t arbitrary?
Well, shit for brains, that was your argument in support of gay marriage..
Well shit for brains that was never my argument for marriage equality for gay couples.
If you think that laws against you marrying your mother are 'arbitrary'- then you logically are against such laws.
Are you against laws prohibiting you from marrying your mother- or do you support having laws in place that forbid you to marry your mother?
Since you think such laws are 'arbitrary'?
I love watching you squirm. You don’t have any reasoned argument against because YOU MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT WORKS IN ITS FAVOR!
No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.
Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.
In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.
They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.
Are they 'purely arbitrary' reasons?
And no- no not in effect- it is still illegal for you to marry your mother- or your 8 sister wives.
But if you think you do have the right- and that the reasons you can't marry your mother are 'purely arbitrary'- then take your case to court.
Stand up proudly in court with your mother and announce your Constitutional right to marry your mother.
Let us know how it turns out.
Yet you supply no reason why they aren’t arbitrary?
Well, shit for brains, that was your argument in support of gay marriage..
Well shit for brains that was never my argument for marriage equality for gay couples.
If you think that laws against you marrying your mother are 'arbitrary'- then you logically are against such laws.
Are you against laws prohibiting you from marrying your mother- or do you support having laws in place that forbid you to marry your mother?
Since you think such laws are 'arbitrary'?
Reduced to a long winded troll
In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.
They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.
In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.
They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.
Well, those things aren't arbitrary. Incest is illegal because it will produce genetically defective children, well beyond the "Ick" factor. Polygamy is illegal because more often than not, the women didn't really have much of a say in it. (It was only fucked up Mormon Cultists who were doing it.)
The arguments against gay marriage were "I think it's icky" and "My Magic Friend in the Sky Says It's Bad"... neither of which were ever good enough reasons on their own.
Hey, if backassward Mormons want to take 14 wives i could care less as long as they don't diddle their underage daughters (which many of them have).
Should probably be a state issue and Utah won't change the laws they have on the books right now - the church doesn't need another black eye.
Poor Joe still thinking that marriage law created a duty of, or responsibility for the partners to engage in sexual activities.
Read the laws Joe. In effect the laws state that these unions are for whatever the members want them to be.
Physical incest is still illegal, within or outside this institution. So excluding family members is indeed arbitrary.
One family member may have a pension that benefits their spouse after his/her death AND NO OTHER. Why shouldn’t this person be able to sign a simple document so that pension can pass to a Son, Daughter, Niece, Nephew?
What in hell I’d the States interest in denying this right to family members?
Talk about backwards.
Marriage changed. It no longer is about sex, love or even cohabitation. It’s simply a financial tool for profit.
Get with the times, this ain’t the marriage your parents knew.
Poor Joe still thinking that marriage law created a duty of, or responsibility for the partners to engage in sexual activities.
Read the laws Joe. In effect the laws state that these unions are for whatever the members want them to be.
Physical incest is still illegal, within or outside this institution. So excluding family members is indeed arbitrary.
One family member may have a pension that benefits their spouse after his/her death AND NO OTHER. Why shouldn’t this person be able to sign a simple document so that pension can pass to a Son, Daughter, Niece, Nephew?
What in hell I’d the States interest in denying this right to family members?
I think you are blundering into the truth here, buddy.
Polygamy is illegal because Bigamy is illegal. Incestuous marriage is illegal because incest is illegal.
SOOOOOOOOOOOO.... when Lawrence v. Texas threw out all the dumb-ass sodomy laws, homosexuality was effectively decriminalized.
There was no longer any legal basis to make gay marriage illegal.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.Hey, if backassward Mormons want to take 14 wives i could care less as long as they don't diddle their underage daughters (which many of them have)...Should probably be a state issue and Utah won't change the laws they have on the books right now - the church doesn't need another black eye.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.Hey, if backassward Mormons want to take 14 wives i could care less as long as they don't diddle their underage daughters (which many of them have)...Should probably be a state issue and Utah won't change the laws they have on the books right now - the church doesn't need another black eye.
If they all are consenting adults then this sex kink also has all the same "rights" the others do.
So certain sex kinks should be illegal according to this ^^ hypocrite...."because the majority rejects them".Polygamy is illegal because Bigamy is illegal. Incestuous marriage is illegal because incest is illegal
There was no longer any legal basis to make gay marriage illegal.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.
If they all are consenting adults then this sex kink also has all the same "rights" the others do.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.Hey, if backassward Mormons want to take 14 wives i could care less as long as they don't diddle their underage daughters (which many of them have)...Should probably be a state issue and Utah won't change the laws they have on the books right now - the church doesn't need another black eye.
If they all are consenting adults then this sex kink also has all the same "rights" the others do.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.
If they all are consenting adults then this sex kink also has all the same "rights" the others do.
There aren't a lot of states where polygamy would be accepted. You're right, there probably are a lot of men who may want more than one wife, but do you know any women who would put up with such an arrangement? I don't - It's kind of a Utah/Mormon thing from the wayback machine.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.
If they all are consenting adults then this sex kink also has all the same "rights" the others do.
There aren't a lot of states where polygamy would be accepted. You're right, there probably are a lot of men who may want more than one wife, but do you know any women who would put up with such an arrangement? I don't - It's kind of a Utah/Mormon thing from the wayback machine.
Read your last sentence. The USSC backed the “arbitrary” concept. No state law makes sexual contact mandatory for valid license. There is no non arbitrary legal reason for states to deny multiple licenses, licenses issued to multiple individuals or family license.
No sex, no incest.
I know it’s dufficult for you to come to grips with the idea that “ these are your arguments”, but you created them, not me.
Deal with it.
Stereotype much? Mormon men in Utah are not the only men who want more than one woman under their roof/in their bed regularly & legally.
If they all are consenting adults then this sex kink also has all the same "rights" the others do.
If there is only one group of consenting polyamorists wanting marriage then it's already legal. 21st Century kink. Nothing way back..as if that mattered?There aren't a lot of states where polygamy would be accepted. You're right, there probably are a lot of men who may want more than one wife, but do you know any women who would put up with such an arrangement? I don't - It's kind of a Utah/Mormon thing from the wayback machine.
So certain sex kinks should be illegal according to this ^^ hypocrite...."because the majority rejects them".
The reason private acts of sodomy don't get an automatic stamp for marriage is that that brand new contract banishes children involved from a mother or father for life.
Next you will say incest & polygamy are illegal because of how they affect children
