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.
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 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.
And you don't trust the public to elect officials to create law, but you do trust that giving 5/9 dictatorial powers over a free country will lead to greater morality.
Or more directly, equal treatment requires identical circumstances. Giving judges the power to decide what's "similar" is giving them absolute power.
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.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.
You're counting on that if the public is immoral, a few moral people will go to law school, become judges and protect us from ourselves by making moral laws from the bench by decree.
That ... is nuts ...
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.
The government should require anyone who wants the government to recognize their marriage to have a contract in place before it does so, the same way it does when it recognizes a business. End of problem.
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.
The government should require anyone who wants the government to recognize their marriage to have a contract in place before it does so, the same way it does when it recognizes a business. End of problem.
And what have you ACTIVELY and POLICALLY done to make that a reality?
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.
And you don't trust the public to elect officials to create law, but you do trust that giving 5/9 dictatorial powers over a free country will lead to greater morality.
Or more directly, equal treatment requires identical circumstances. Giving judges the power to decide what's "similar" is giving them absolute power.
Elected officials banned handguns in Chicago, and the 9 dictators said 'No'.
I take it you would then prefer that guns could be banned city by city state by state
No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.
and that blacks and whites could be banned from marrying each other state by state.
Why?
Power divided is power checked. I would be for a Constitutional Amendment. But the price of the Federal government making up powers for themselves is far more dangerous. I'll live in a State that allows interracial marriage in the mean time. BTW, my wife is Korean, not black. Not that it matters.
And you don't trust the public to elect officials to create law, but you do trust that giving 5/9 dictatorial powers over a free country will lead to greater morality.
Or more directly, equal treatment requires identical circumstances. Giving judges the power to decide what's "similar" is giving them absolute power.
No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.
and that blacks and whites could be banned from marrying each other state by state.
Why?
Power divided is power checked. I would be for a Constitutional Amendment. But the price of the Federal government making up powers for themselves is far more dangerous. I'll live in a State that allows interracial marriage in the mean time. BTW, my wife is Korean, not black. Not that it matters.
So you would prefer that state and local governments could ban firearms legislatively or not?
That's a yes or no question.
The government should require anyone who wants the government to recognize their marriage to have a contract in place before it does so, the same way it does when it recognizes a business. End of problem.
And what have you ACTIVELY and POLICALLY done to make that a reality?
I tell people who need government approval of their relationships how stupid they are.
And what have you ACTIVELY and POLICALLY done to make that a reality?
I tell people who need government approval of their relationships how stupid they are.
You need your own planet.
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 tell people who need government approval of their relationships how stupid they are.
You need your own planet.
I am not the one that needs the government to approve of what I do or who I sleep with.
The government should require anyone who wants the government to recognize their marriage to have a contract in place before it does so, the same way it does when it recognizes a business. End of problem.
And what have you ACTIVELY and POLICALLY done to make that a reality?
I tell people who need government approval of their relationships how stupid they are.
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?
I didn't imply anything, I explained what actually makes a person a Christian. Unless you are claiming to be a Christian it doesn't even apply to you, stop taking everything personally.
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.
And what have you ACTIVELY and POLICALLY done to make that a reality?
I tell people who need government approval of their relationships how stupid they are.
It's all about the money.
The homos just want the rest of us to affirm their "lifestyle" and hand over money.
Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.
And what have you ACTIVELY and POLICALLY done to make that a reality?
I tell people who need government approval of their relationships how stupid they are.
It's all about the money.
The homos just want the rest of us to affirm their "lifestyle" and hand over money.
Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.
The 2012 Libertarian Party Platform in section 1.3, Personal Relationships:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the governments treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
.
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.
The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?
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.
The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?
You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.
