Kansas Homophobic Bill: DEAD!

[Asclepias]

One mans Freedom Pisses on the Morals and Freedom of the rest - A pedophile should have the right to practice his perversion in the name of Freedom ? No one really gives a shit what you degenerates do to each other in the name of sexual gratification - it's obvious you don't know any better. The friction arises when you try to gain acceptanceinto main stream society - no amount of Mental Programming will ever change the fact a rose by any other name is still a Rose , Shit by any other name is Shit, and Homosexulaity is and always will be Shit.

I think you are definitely gay and in the closet dude. Anger like that is based on self hatred.

...says the self-diagnosed mantra of LGBT who took over the APA in the 1970s-80s & summarily took themselves off the DSM and then went full-campaign to defend their icon, Harvey Milk, as reflective of their psycho-sexual-political values [see my signature for details]...

It really is a matter of perspective who is insane and who isn't these days isn't it?

Not really. If you are afraid of gay people turning you gay then you are either gay yourself and denying it or you are insane.

 

[martybegan]

Of course not. Just means that the wheels are turning and lights are starting to go off in peoples heads illuminating the fact that gay people getting married does not turn heterosexual people gay.

Course it doesn't... it just pisses on the Bible and the word of God, and spits in the face of all Christians... that's all.

The devil is at work here folks, he's in your face. You'd do yourself a favor to see it for what it is... evil.

The Bible was written by men who claim God spoke to them. You cant base other peoples rights on people that believe in what could be nothing more than a fairy tale. Christians have produced some of the worlds evilest people. Give me a break.

No, you base people's rights on what is inherent, and then codify them in a constitution, which restricts the government from infringing on said rights. What is the difference between morality that comes from God and one that comes from people themselves?

 

[Asclepias]

Course it doesn't... it just pisses on the Bible and the word of God, and spits in the face of all Christians... that's all.

The devil is at work here folks, he's in your face. You'd do yourself a favor to see it for what it is... evil.

The Bible was written by men who claim God spoke to them. You cant base other peoples rights on people that believe in what could be nothing more than a fairy tale. Christians have produced some of the worlds evilest people. Give me a break.

No, you base people's rights on what is inherent, and then codify them in a constitution, which restricts the government from infringing on said rights. What is the difference between morality that comes from God and one that comes from people themselves?

There is no difference. They both come from people and not God. Who determines what is inherent? People do. Governments come and go. Some completely ignore their constitution. Morality comes from people. The more enlightened people believe that if you are not harming or depriving anyone then who are you to restrict that action?

 

[g5000]

So you believe the framers of the Constitution were Gay Friendly ?

Yes, since they wrote a Constitution that progresses with its populace. When they wrote it, they never expected blacks and women to be equal to landowning white men...and yet here we are.

YOU have no shame, YOU have no business insulting an entire race of people by your pathetic attempt to link their Just and Noble Cause to your Sexual Perversions. Stop picking on the Black People and kindly stopping hurling insults at them - pretending as if they somehow support your perverted agenda.

So far as the Constitution, the principle Author -good old Tommy Jefferson once wrote a law calling for the Castration of sodomites - Don't know how he proposed to deal with lesbos however

Good old Tommy also owned slaves.

Seawytch's point stands.

 

[g5000]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[g5000]

So denying 50 people the right to marry each other does not deny them equal protection?

Its not a strawman, its a legitamate critique of the concept that equal protection is in-voidable. Your argument supporting same sex marriage requires equal protection TO BE in-voidable.

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

Nope. If a compelling rational reason can be provided for disallowing multi-marriage, then your slippery slope assertion is fallacious.

 

[GISMYS]

Same sex marrage??? Next comes multi-partner marrage,next child marrage, then sex with animals and call it all right because its your right to love!!!!

Slippery slope fallacy.

Bottomline= same sex sick sexual perversion is an unnatural act of abomination.=====================Sick sexual perversion==women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Romans 1

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. If a compelling rational reason can be provided for disallowing multi-marriage, then your slippery slope assertion is fallacious.

There are a number of arguments against polygamy.

There are many arguments against polygamous from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized polygamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The Bible was written by men who claim God spoke to them. You cant base other peoples rights on people that believe in what could be nothing more than a fairy tale. Christians have produced some of the worlds evilest people. Give me a break.

No, you base people's rights on what is inherent, and then codify them in a constitution, which restricts the government from infringing on said rights. What is the difference between morality that comes from God and one that comes from people themselves?

There is no difference. They both come from people and not God. Who determines what is inherent? People do. Governments come and go. Some completely ignore their constitution. Morality comes from people. The more enlightened people believe that if you are not harming or depriving anyone then who are you to restrict that action?

But the courts are restricting the action of people via the legislature to set the rules as they see it for the contract of marriage, which has always been a State action.

Courts should not create rights out of thin air, rather the constitution should be amended to recognize rights.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. If a compelling rational reason can be provided for disallowing multi-marriage, then your slippery slope assertion is fallacious.

There are a number of arguments against polygamy.

There are many arguments against polygamous from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized polygamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Isn't it only bigamy if one party is married to multiple people who are unaware of each other?

 

[martybegan]

No it doesn't it, requires that the government provide (depending on level of scrutiny) either a rational basis or compelling government interest to demonstrate why differentiated treatment is warranted. No rights are "in-voidable". Take for example "liberty", we often restrict the liberty of criminals by placing them in prison. We restrict the right to exercise religion, we don't allow an individual to stand in 4-lanes of traffic to preach their religion. "Free Speech" is restricted by libel and slander laws.

The test isn't some mythical "in-voidable" claim, the test is the government demonstrating a valid secular compelling government interest in why like situated groups are treated differently. In this case you have same-sex couples and different sex couples - both tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults - yet in many places one can enter into Civil Marriage and one cannot based on the gender classification of the individuals in the couple.

If, or when, bigamy laws are challenged - it will be the governments responsibility to demonstrate a rationale as to why limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults has a rational reason. (BTW - Strict scrutiny will not be applicable because Civil Marriage wouldn't be limited based on race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.) Bigamy laws will either be upheld or struct based on the merits of THAT case and not simply because the gheys were allowed equal treatment as a couple with straights.


>>>>

Most of the people here supporting same sex marriage DO run to equal protection and claim it is the only reason you HAVE to allow same sex marriage. My point is that their point means we HAVE to allow multi-marriage.

Nope. If a compelling rational reason can be provided for disallowing multi-marriage, then your slippery slope assertion is fallacious.

People are already making the argument that poly marriage should be allowed under equal protection, the slope is there, and we have already slipped off it. Standing at the bottom and saying there was not slope is kind of silly.

 

[Asclepias]

No, you base people's rights on what is inherent, and then codify them in a constitution, which restricts the government from infringing on said rights. What is the difference between morality that comes from God and one that comes from people themselves?

There is no difference. They both come from people and not God. Who determines what is inherent? People do. Governments come and go. Some completely ignore their constitution. Morality comes from people. The more enlightened people believe that if you are not harming or depriving anyone then who are you to restrict that action?

But the courts are restricting the action of people via the legislature to set the rules as they see it for the contract of marriage, which has always been a State action.

Courts should not create rights out of thin air, rather the constitution should be amended to recognize rights.

In this case the courts are right in their actions. Sometimes you cant wait for the constitution to be amended to grant people their rights as humans.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. If a compelling rational reason can be provided for disallowing multi-marriage, then your slippery slope assertion is fallacious.

There are a number of arguments against polygamy.

There are many arguments against polygamous from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized polygamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Isn't it only bigamy if one party is married to multiple people who are unaware of each other?

I think you missed the point of the post Marty.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

There is no difference. They both come from people and not God. Who determines what is inherent? People do. Governments come and go. Some completely ignore their constitution. Morality comes from people. The more enlightened people believe that if you are not harming or depriving anyone then who are you to restrict that action?

But the courts are restricting the action of people via the legislature to set the rules as they see it for the contract of marriage, which has always been a State action.

Courts should not create rights out of thin air, rather the constitution should be amended to recognize rights.

In this case the courts are right in their actions. Sometimes you cant wait for the constitution to be amended to grant people their rights as humans.

Yes, you can. Unless of course you are a believer in unconstitutional actions as long as they agree with your worldview.

What a fucking fascist twat you are.

 

[Seawytch]

No, you base people's rights on what is inherent, and then codify them in a constitution, which restricts the government from infringing on said rights. What is the difference between morality that comes from God and one that comes from people themselves?

There is no difference. They both come from people and not God. Who determines what is inherent? People do. Governments come and go. Some completely ignore their constitution. Morality comes from people. The more enlightened people believe that if you are not harming or depriving anyone then who are you to restrict that action?

But the courts are restricting the action of people via the legislature to set the rules as they see it for the contract of marriage, which has always been a State action.



Courts should not create rights out of thin air, rather the constitution should be amended to recognize rights.

Like they did in Loving v Virginia?

 

[martybegan]

There are a number of arguments against polygamy.

There are many arguments against polygamous from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized polygamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Isn't it only bigamy if one party is married to multiple people who are unaware of each other?

I think you missed the point of the post Marty.


>>>>

I do get the point, but I'm a stickler for proper terms, as an example I correct people who call pederasts pedophiles all the time.

Your points are all valid, but in the end the same arguments that gay marriage as a right supporters use are still valid in this case, IF, you want to treat equal protection as some immovable object that DEMANDS same sex marriage be recognized, even if the State in question does not want to. The argument will go that just because you make life more difficult for the bean-counters and the courts, who are you to stop 20 people who love each other dearly from the protections the marriage contract gives them? All they want is equality. Equality and a Christian baker to provide their 170 pound wedding cake.

 

[martybegan]

There is no difference. They both come from people and not God. Who determines what is inherent? People do. Governments come and go. Some completely ignore their constitution. Morality comes from people. The more enlightened people believe that if you are not harming or depriving anyone then who are you to restrict that action?

But the courts are restricting the action of people via the legislature to set the rules as they see it for the contract of marriage, which has always been a State action.



Courts should not create rights out of thin air, rather the constitution should be amended to recognize rights.

Like they did in Loving v Virginia?

Loving is based on the desire to colorblind the constitution as per the reconstruction amendments. What was done between the passing of the amendments, Plessey, and loving was in direct counter to the intent of the 14th amendment.

There is no biological difference between a white/black hetero couple and a same race hetero couple except melanin concentration. There is a biological difference between hetro and homo couples. The marriage contract was never designed for the latter, and unless the State legislatures in question want to change it, they should not be forced to by judicial fiat.

 

[Silhouette]

Like they did in Loving v Virginia?

Loving was about race and not sexual behaviors. Human behaviors fall under the realm of local penal and civil codes.

SCOTUS brought up Loving in DOMA/Windsor and despite this found that so-called "gay marriage" was only allowed "in some states" [but not others]. There's your sign...

They compared gay marriage instead to 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire or getting married to close blood relatives. ie: they were saying gay marriage is odd and not therefore to be readily forced upon the various states.

 

[Asclepias]

But the courts are restricting the action of people via the legislature to set the rules as they see it for the contract of marriage, which has always been a State action.

Courts should not create rights out of thin air, rather the constitution should be amended to recognize rights.

In this case the courts are right in their actions. Sometimes you cant wait for the constitution to be amended to grant people their rights as humans.

Yes, you can. Unless of course you are a believer in unconstitutional actions as long as they agree with your worldview.

What a fucking fascist twat you are.

No I believe if you can place a law on the books that is unconstitutional then people will challenge it to the supreme court. Dont get frustrated because this does not work in your favor.

 

[martybegan]

In this case the courts are right in their actions. Sometimes you cant wait for the constitution to be amended to grant people their rights as humans.

Yes, you can. Unless of course you are a believer in unconstitutional actions as long as they agree with your worldview.

What a fucking fascist twat you are.

No I believe if you can place a law on the books that is unconstitutional then people will challenge it to the supreme court. Dont get frustrated because this does not work in your favor.

Restricting marriage contracts to a man or a woman is not unconstitutional, neither is a State changing the contract to include homosexual couples. The constitution is neutral on the topic of marriage, thus it devolves to the State Legislatures to determine the confines of the contract.