Just 5 days later: Man Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives

[Silhouette]

No, it has not been explained at all. The same theory can be applied to heterosexual marriage. Close relatives are still not going to be married. States have not lost complete control. They just cannot discriminate between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Make sense?

Gay sex is a sexual orientation. Incest is another orientation/drive. Polygamy the same. You're not a lawyer are you Chris? What part about equal protection under the newly created amendment to the Constitution don't you get?

Sil, really, the arguments for INCLUSSION are the same for any and all alternative lifestyle. The difficulty is when you get to opposite sex siblings because they can procreate. ..The argument then is, can the government deny the right to marry to same sex siblings, which can't procreate because opposite sex siblings can?

The answer is messy either way, but I don't see how a court could now say that procreation is the deciding factor without flipping existing law on its head?

Since when are you considering the needs, wants or requirements of children in marriage? Are you going on record here as saying children's considerations trump adults wishes as to marriage? If you're going down that road, be prepared to defend how stripping them of either a mother or father as a role model and new institution is "good for them".

You just stepped into quicksand my friend.

Procreation ISN'T A REQUIRMENT...it's AN EXPECTATION. It's why the states lose money on marriage. They've read the statistics on boys who grow up without fathers or girls who grow up without mothers. They don't like crime, waste, indigency. Marriage as you just inadvertently pointed out is for the first consideration of children. Whether the state ANTICIPATES (doesn't require) natural parents, adoptive parents, grandparents is the whole of the issue. Gay marriage now asks the state to lose money on a situation that is not best for children (father/mother)

Your sudden new interest in "the wellbeing of children" would be hilarious...that is if you enjoy a hypocritical stance that is actually hurting children (gay marriage)

 

[ChrisL]

No, it has not been explained at all. The same theory can be applied to heterosexual marriage. Close relatives are still not going to be married. States have not lost complete control. They just cannot discriminate between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Make sense?

Gay sex is a sexual orientation. Incest is another orientation/drive. Polygamy the same. You're not a lawyer are you Chris? What part about equal protection under the newly created amendment to the Constitution don't you get?

Sil, really, the arguments for INCLUSSION are the same for any and all alternative lifestyle. The difficulty is when you get to opposite sex siblings because they can procreate. ..The argument then is, can the government deny the right to marry to same sex siblings, which can't procreate because opposite sex siblings can?

The answer is messy either way, but I don't see how a court could now say that procreation is the deciding factor without flipping existing law on its head?

Since when are you considering the needs, wants or requirements of children in marriage? Are you going on record here as saying children's considerations trump adults wishes as to marriage? If you're going down that road, be prepared to defend how stripping them of either a mother or father as a role model and new institution is "good for them".

You just stepped into quicksand my friend.

Procreation ISN'T A REQUIRMENT...it's AN EXPECTATION. It's why the states lose money on marriage. They've read the statistics on boys who grow up without fathers or girls who grow up without mothers. They don't like crime, waste, indigency. Marriage as you just inadvertently pointed out is for the first consideration of children. Whether the state ANTICIPATES (doesn't require) natural parents, adoptive parents, grandparents is the whole of the issue. Gay marriage now asks the state to lose money on a situation that is not best for children (father/mother)

Your sudden new interest in "the wellbeing of children" would be hilarious...that is if you enjoy a hypocritical stance that is actually hurting children (gay marriage)

So, are you ready to deny sterile couples or old people the opportunity at marriage too?

 

[Silhouette]

So, are you ready to deny sterile couples or old people the opportunity at marriage too?

Hey dipstick....what part about ADOPTIVE PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS was hard for you to read? I made it nice and big for you this time so you can't play pretend in your next post that you didn't quite understand how mother/father is represented in all age groups and ability to conceive.

The important part for you to remember dearie is that no gay couple can provide a man and woman as parents to children!

 

[ChrisL]

So, are you ready to deny sterile couples or old people the opportunity at marriage too?

Hey dipstick....what part about ADOPTIVE PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS was hard for you to read? I made it nice and big for you this time so you can't play pretend in your next post that you didn't quite understand how mother/father is represented in all age groups and ability to conceive.

The important part for you to remember dearie is that no gay couple can provide a man and woman as parents to children!

Gay people can adopt children. Gay people can have a surrogate. Besides, nobody cares about that shit anymore. Get with us in this century.