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.
TemplarWassisface: If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.
Me: Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.
You: I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.
What did you mean to imply with that statement?
If you are trying to point out your mind reading skills you are failing.
Mathew 7:21-25
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
I'll ask again. Who were you implying were not real Christians?
Sure. So is your opinions of the law. Personal opinions don't stick in the court of law. You should have learned that after the Zimmerman case. As far as I can see, this thread isn't about gay marriage, so therefore I will repel you attempt to bait me. Incest or polygamy are not homosexual acts. They are acts of perversion. They pollute the gene pool of a generation or generations.
How can polygamy be a perversion when it is most likely the most common form of marriage that the human species originally practiced? Primitive man was most likely polygamous. Polygamy is a function of Darwinian evolutionary principles. The stronger more dominant males get the most females, and thus reproduce and pass their genes on more than the weaker males.
When it becomes just the richest that "get all the girls", the practice falls out of favor.
What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?
Practicing up on being a false witness in case the government ever needs you to get rid of someone who doesn't agree with the Ministry of Truth?
You claimed you were not basing any of your opinions and beliefs on this subject on religious beliefs or religion.
You're an idiot. You're doing well and addressing the points, why start the insults at the end? I either insult when I'm getting no serious responses or discuss, I don't discuss and throw in insults, it destroys the discussion.
1) Basically your argument comes down to that "public use" has gray that can't be eliminated, therefore, there are no restrictions on public use at all. That's ridiculous. I don't agree with the court on some of the things you said, but I agree they are at least gray. There is nothing gray about taking property by the force of government guns from one citizen and giving it to another. There is no public use there at all.
2) You didn't address the hypocrisy I pointed out when you rejected it. The left are hypocrites, they supported taking land by force from grandma and giving it to an evil developer. The right, who are supposed to be the hypocrites, weren't. They considered it a violation of individual liberty. Rejection isn't an argument, address it or concede. It's flagrant hypocrisy.
Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?
I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?
States can legalize polygamy any time they want.
Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.
No it doesn't.
It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Due process of law is not legislative process.
No it doesn't.
It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Due process of law is not legislative process.
The fifth amendment had already covered that. As for the 14th, here's the trap. The only way to argue the 14th is that the woman's liberty to have an abortion is being removed by the government without due process. However, for the left to seriously argue that, it would be a complete lie since they advocate government massively taking away our liberties without due process, unless you accept, that legislation is sufficient to remove due process. Think about it in the context of what we both said.
The pro-lifers ironically argue the 14th as well, that life is removed without due process. That is of course a stupid argument since the abortion's not being forced by government.
Nah the fifth amendment is a federal restriction, where the 14th is a state restriction.
Nah the pro-abortion crown argument is that the unborn are not worthy of protection until they are viable outside of the womb, till then their argument is the inconvenience of the mother outweighs the life of the un-viable unborn zygot who is still in the womb. Well that's their argument.
To your argument about pro-lifers being incorrect based on the 14th amendment... government is not committing all first degree murders either. Murder is against the law. By your argument murder is constitutionally protected. Bull.. Roe v. Wade was a very bad ruling.
At any rate my disagreement with you is that legislative process is not due process. Not sure why you are trying to equate a process for legislating with a process for ensuring the rule of law is upheld.
What is the rationality to prohibit plural marriages? Who is harmed by a plural marriage?Because laws prohibiting plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, there is no particular class of persons singled out for exclusion. Such laws are rationally based, seek a legitimate legislative end, and exhibit animus toward no class of persons. And no states law currently written can accommodate plural marriage.
That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples accessing marriage law.
Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law singles out homosexuals as a class of persons to make them different from everyone else. Such laws lack a rational basis, they fail to seek a legitimate legislative end, have no objective, documented evidence in their support, and are predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals. And the marriage laws in all 50 states can currently accommodate same-sex couples.
You may ask this ignorant, inane question as many times as you want, and the facts of law rendering this question ignorant and inane will forever remain the same.
Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.
With regard to parental rights, for example, should a member of a plural marriage seek a divorce, there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the marriage possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.
Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple spouses. One may have more than one spouse in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a relationship seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.
Its important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say theyre being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.
And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.
In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
There are two ways to skin the cat.
1) Government decides what "marriage" is
2) The participants do
To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.
You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.
Either government decides, or the people do.
Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.
With regard to parental rights, for example, should a member of a plural marriage seek a divorce, there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the marriage possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.
Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple spouses. One may have more than one spouse in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a relationship seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.
Its important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say theyre being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.
And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.
In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
Correct. There is nothing arbitrary.
And again, it can be argued that the issue of plural marriage rights is moot, given the fact no state has on its books marriage law accommodating three or more persons.
In order to make a 14th Amendment equal protection violation claim, there must first be a state law that one is not allowed to access.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
There are two ways to skin the cat.
1) Government decides what "marriage" is
2) The participants do
To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.
You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.
Either government decides, or the people do.
The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.
There are two ways to skin the cat.
1) Government decides what "marriage" is
2) The participants do
To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.
You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.
Either government decides, or the people do.
I disagree but then again, I am not taking the stance that the people decide anything in this context. The government decides what they are going to legally recognize as a contractual relationship. That is a simple reality. In the case of gay marriage though (and incautious marriage as well) the government can pick that it will recognize a contract between two people but cannot decide to not recognize consensual contracts between two men or related individuals and still be consistent.
Essentially, the government can define the number of parties that are in the contract but it should NOT be capable of defining the individual people in that requirement past the fact that it must be consensual. I am going to eliminate the entire ‘government should get out of marriage entirely’ argument now before we get into that. I would agree with that and have a strong inclination that you would as well but I really do want to address the concept that defining marriage as one man and one woman is just as arbitrary as two people. That is false as there are no barriers in the first but there are clear physical barriers within the rights themselves that cannot involve more than one other person. Those rights would need to be changed significantly to make that right tenable for multiple parties hence, NOT arbitrary.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
There are two ways to skin the cat.
1) Government decides what "marriage" is
2) The participants do
To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.
You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.
Either government decides, or the people do.
The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.
In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
If you cannot write a contract that covers the rights of more than two people how do you explain partnership agreements that involve more than two people? They even include clauses that specifically allow for splitting the assets if someone wants to leave the partnership, and they hold up in court even if the split is acrimonious, the same way divorces do. The main reason government gets involved in divorce proceedings is because most people do not sit down and work all this stuff out before they get married. The government should not be writing contracts just because people didn't do it themselves.
There are two ways to skin the cat.
1) Government decides what "marriage" is
2) The participants do
To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.
You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.
Either government decides, or the people do.
The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.
Man/woman marriage is equal treatment for gays and straights. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage. The law is literal, it's not algebra. There are no variables.
I dont see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?
The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.
If you cannot write a contract that covers the rights of more than two people how do you explain partnership agreements that involve more than two people? They even include clauses that specifically allow for splitting the assets if someone wants to leave the partnership, and they hold up in court even if the split is acrimonious, the same way divorces do. The main reason government gets involved in divorce proceedings is because most people do not sit down and work all this stuff out before they get married. The government should not be writing contracts just because people didn't do it themselves.
You misunderstand. I did not say that it was not possible; I said that it would need to change existing contractual marriage law. That alone makes the 2 issues entirely different. Allowing men to marry other men does not change anything as far as marriages go. Nothing at all. There is not a single difference in your marriage or their marriage. A 3 person marriage though does indeed change how current marriage contractual law would work. It would actually be different or require that current law be changed to incorporate it.
To be honest, I would not care if that is what they did BUT to equate the two concepts is what I have a problem with. They are not the same thing.
There are two ways to skin the cat.
1) Government decides what "marriage" is
2) The participants do
To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.
You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.
Either government decides, or the people do.
The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.
It is different, somehow, and that proves the government has to step in.
Great argument.
The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.
It is different, somehow, and that proves the government has to step in.
Great argument.
Civil marriage is a function of the law, so of course the government has to 'step in'.
Do you want to argue that equal treatment under the law does not require the circumstances to be similar?
Go ahead.
It's not quite as simple because everyone is a man or a woman, but not everyone belongs to one race. However, that aside, I'm in an interracial marriage, and I can tell you that in no possible way do I think the ability of judges to create law is what protects me.The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.
Man/woman marriage is equal treatment for gays and straights. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage. The law is literal, it's not algebra. There are no variables.
But de facto same sex marriage exists a real form of monogamy, whether the law recognizes it or not.
Your argument btw would be the argument why miscegenation laws are constitutional, because they allowed everyone to enter into a same race marriage, but not into an interracial marriage.
In case you're not aware of it, miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional.
