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

[Pop23]

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.

I think I'm wondering if you are some kind of high-functioning retard, that you think that someone is going to marry his brother and not have sex.

Why? It may be as simple as getting on his brothers health insurance as a spouse.

Oh, I get it, your thinking traditional marriage Joe. The USSC ruled that tradition in this issue is not a determining factor.

I’ll ask again then. Can you quote a state law mandating sexual contact within a marriage?

Marriage, by current legal standards is simply a financial instrument.

Get with the times Joe.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Ginsburg made an even more meta argument. That divorce laws that treated women as equal partners eliminated the legal impetus to ban same sex marriage. Up until that point marriage had always been an explicit hierarchical relationship with wives subordinate to husbands. All same sex unions lacked that, as they would involve two people of the same hierarchical status. They were always equal.

When men and women became equal partners under the law, the last logical barrier to same sex unions were lifted.

 

[DrLove]

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.

It’s a financial arrangement.

Why do you now argue for tradition when before you argued against it?

Where did I argue for that particular tradition? I think it's creepy but would support their right to do it even though it'll never happen. Some traditions are good. Turkey at Thanksgiving, Honeybaked Ham or prime rib at Christmas. Christmas trees, family gatherings, fireworks on the 4th, the Indy 500 on Memorial Day - stuff like that.

It IS primarily a Utah/Mormon thing from the wayback machine. Polygamy ended after creepy nutcases like Davey Koresh and Warren Jeffs and it's not likely to return unless one is a total recluse living in a compound on 100 acres in Wyoming. That's a good thing

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

False premise. As no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. So says the Supreme Court.

Next pseudo-legal fallacy, please.

Next you will say incest & polygamy are illegal because of how they affect children

Laughing....not until you legally establish that all marriages are predicated on children or the ability to have them we don't.

You're still stuck at square one with your legally indefensible premise. And you've made no progress in about 3 years.

You're stumped, Sil.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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 that want gay marriage either. In fact it's still illegal in CA's Constitution because in the most liberal left looney state in the Union it was still voted down twice in the way they make laws... by popular vote directly from the governed.

Kink isn't the basis of the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Try again. This time quoting the actual legal basis rather than whatever fetish turns your crank on a given day. As only the legal bases have any relevance to a legal conversation.

 

[Pop23]

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.

It’s a financial arrangement.

Why do you now argue for tradition when before you argued against it?

Where did I argue for that particular tradition? I think it's creepy but would support their right to do it even though it'll never happen. Some traditions are good. Turkey at Thanksgiving, Honeybaked Ham or prime rib at Christmas. Christmas trees, family gatherings, fireworks on the 4th, the Indy 500 on Memorial Day - stuff like that.

It IS primarily a Utah/Mormon thing from the wayback machine. Polygamy ended after creepy nutcases like Davey Koresh and Warren Jeffs and it's not likely to return unless one is a total recluse living in a compound on 100 acres in Wyoming. That's a good thing

There is actually a multitude of reasons, mostly practical, for it to return under the current standard of legal marriage law.

 

[Silhouette]

Kink isn't the basis of the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Try again. This time quoting the actual legal basis rather than whatever fetish turns your crank on a given day. As only the legal bases have any relevance to a legal conversation.

Then if the standard is simply "consenting adults in love wanting to commit for life" without regard to sexual behaviors, then polygamy is already legal. Sleeping together behind closed doors is nobody's business but their own...or is it?

Gay marriage isn't legal because as the LGBT bloggers pointed out here, incest and polygamy aren't legal "for the sake of the children involved". So, having a contract that banishes children involved from either a father or mother for life, is illegal.

In the future, scholars will cite as the main reason Obergefell was overturned and powers returned to the governed (states) on these issues of sex kink behaviors is that the Court simply omitted any discussion or inclusion whatsoever at the contract-revision Hearing of children's interests in mothers/fathers. They had no unique representation at that Hearing as they would have a guardian ad litem in hearings on divorce MUCH LESS consequential....since divorce, acknowledging children's unique interests in the marriage contract, continuing their benefits (mother father contact) long after the contract is dissolved, keeps children still in contact with both a mother and father unless there's a danger to them doing so.

Yes, Obergefell really, truly actually was and is Pandora's Boxs of legal rat's nests and precedent fuckups...also judicial-legislation, overreach of powers and a biased decision (two Justices came out publicly displaying favoritism towards pushing gay marriage on all the states before the Hearing).

 

[Silhouette]

False premise. As no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. So says the Supreme Court.

Next pseudo-legal fallacy, please.

No marriage is predicated on children arriving, just as no budding business contract predicates profits since they may not arrive either. But they are anticipated. And this is why states have a vested interest in granting benefits to married people who a state otherwise could care less what they do. Because a state knows that children that overwhelmingly arrive to two people in the same bed at night for years, need a marriage structure that gives them both a man (father) and wife (mother) for their best shot at life as future citizens.

In this regard, this is why marriage was invented since time immemorial and maintained to present day. That is, until anti-marriage (gay) came along and promised to reverse those benefits (still wanting pay) to the state by using a contract to banish any children anticipated from either a father or mother for life. Which is disallowed and such contracts are void upon their face by the standards of the Infancy Doctrine. The ID says no contract implicitly involving children may banish them from a psychological necessity. Those contracts aren't merely able to be challenged, they are VOID UPON THEIR FACE before their ink is even dry. Such is the importance we give the ID's protections to children from machinating adults.

Gay lifestylists/behavioralists may WANT to play house "as mom and dad" to kids with a contract. But they cannot do so because you cannot possess a contract that banishes children from a psychological necessity.

 

[Skylar]

False premise. As no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. So says the Supreme Court.

Next pseudo-legal fallacy, please.

No marriage is predicated on children arriving, just as no budding business contract predicates profits since they may not arrive either. But they are anticipated.

Nope.

"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 pseudo-legal argument is contradicted by the Supreme Court. You are not making a legal argument as you ignoring the law and the explicit findings of the USSC.....instead insisting we follow your personal opinions as the law.

Smiling......nope!

Which is why your arguments are legally irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

Kink isn't the basis of the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Try again. This time quoting the actual legal basis rather than whatever fetish turns your crank on a given day. As only the legal bases have any relevance to a legal conversation.

Then if the standard is simply "consenting adults in love wanting to commit for life" without regard to sexual behaviors, then polygamy is already legal. Sleeping together behind closed doors is nobody's business but their own...or is it?

Same sex couples don't need a reason to exercise their own rights. You need a constitutionally valid reason to deny them their rights. And you have none.

You merely have your personal opinion....which is contradicted by the actual law and court rulings.

Which is why your opinions remain legally irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

False premise. As no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. So says the Supreme Court.

Next pseudo-legal fallacy, please.

No marriage is predicated on children arriving, just as no budding business contract predicates profits since they may not arrive either. But they are anticipated. And this is why states have a vested interest in granting benefits to married people who a state otherwise could care less what they do. Because a state knows that children that overwhelmingly arrive to two people in the same bed at night for years, need a marriage structure that gives them both a man (father) and wife (mother) for their best shot at life as future citizens.

In this regard, this is why marriage was invented since time immemorial and maintained to present day. That is, until anti-marriage (gay) came along and promised to reverse those benefits (still wanting pay) to the state by using a contract to banish any children anticipated from either a father or mother for life. Which is disallowed and such contracts are void upon their face by the standards of the Infancy Doctrine. The ID says no contract implicitly involving children may banish them from a psychological necessity. Those contracts aren't merely able to be challenged, they are VOID UPON THEIR FACE before their ink is even dry. Such is the importance we give the ID's protections to children from machinating adults.

Gay lifestylists/behavioralists may WANT to play house "as mom and dad" to kids with a contract. But they cannot do so because you cannot possess a contract that banishes children from a psychological necessity.

You merely have your personal opinion....which is contradicted by the actual law and court rulings.

Which is why your opinions remain legally irrelevant.

What, is Sunday Syriusly's day off for spamming points on pages into obscurity, using your unsubstantiated points? You're taking over her shift?

Polygamists at least could possess a contract that did not banish children involved from either a father or mother for life..

 

[Skylar]

False premise. As no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. So says the Supreme Court.

Next pseudo-legal fallacy, please.

No marriage is predicated on children arriving, just as no budding business contract predicates profits since they may not arrive either. But they are anticipated.

Nope.

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

Killing your entire argument. You're stuck, Sil. As you are forced to ignore the Supreme Court and insert your personal opinion instead.

That's not a legal argument. Try again.

What, is Sunday Syriusly's day off for spamming points on pages into obscurity? You're taking over her shift?

Says the gal that just spammed her last post, verbatim. Sorry, Sil. But you're stuck in the exact same pseudo-legal morass as you were the last time I posted here.....desperately trying to convince us to ignore the Supreme Court and accept your personal opinion as the law.

Um, no.

What else have you got?

 

[Silhouette]

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? Because if they haven't put that in stone, and they are as we all know they are: recipients of both mother and father until 2015 from said contract, then Obergefell is in violation of the Infancy Doctrine.

I would say on the contrary that YOU are stuck my friend. No court will EVER dare say that children are in NO way shape or form anticipated beneficiaries to the marriage contract. Never. No attorney would even argue that; not with a straight face. So as long a there IS a way, shape or form of children being beneficiaries of or from the marriage contract's "father & mother", then gay marriage is an illegal contract.

 

[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.

 

[Skylar]

Because if they haven't put that in stone, and they are as we all know they are: recipients of both mother and father until 2015 from said contract, then Obergefell is in violation of the Infancy Doctrine.

Nope. As you already know, the 'Infancy Doctrine' is employment contract law for child actors.

It has nothing to do with marriage....as no child is married to their parents. Marriage is a contract with two parties. And a child isn't one of them.

Its not the Supreme Court that's confused. Its just you.

 

[Pop23]

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[Pop23]

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.

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?

 

[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.

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?

 

[Pop23]

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.

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!