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.
Marriage is a contract with specific parameters. The contract is between two PEOPLE of the age of majority. Not between more parties or between any entity incapable of legally entering a contract.Yes. Do you think all Americans should be protected with all the rights guaranteed to all other Americans, with the exception of convicted felons and those judged to be mentally incompetent?Do you think it's acceptable to protect all rights?
I am not finished with my question
What about those who like to have many spouses at the same time, or those who like to have sex with animals or someone who would like to marry someone who is under the age of 16? Shouldn't their rights be protected??
The obama campaign sure has raised a ton of dough after his announcement, but he may have just torpedoed himself in some important states for the election.
And in North Carolina, if a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married. So if one of them registers in a hotel/motel with someone else, then they're guilty of bigamy.What's next? Maybe we could allow people to marry more than one person???
Why not? its already happening anyways, the people that can keep more than 1 wife just don't register for marriage certificates for them, I used to sleep with a cougar in California that was married to a rich Jewish guy in LA, she was his second wife he kept her in the house with him and everything, he just didn't get a marriage certificate.
If you marry someone and keep a mistress on the side, it is perfectly legal. It has been done for thousands of years.
But if you choose to formally acknowledge the second woman, you are breaking the law
Marriage is a contract with specific parameters. The contract is between two PEOPLE of the age of majority. Not between more parties or between any entity incapable of legally entering a contract.Yes. Do you think all Americans should be protected with all the rights guaranteed to all other Americans, with the exception of convicted felons and those judged to be mentally incompetent?
I am not finished with my question
What about those who like to have many spouses at the same time, or those who like to have sex with animals or someone who would like to marry someone who is under the age of 16? Shouldn't their rights be protected??
Everything else is just so much poor rationalizing and inept excuses for doing the right thing by your fellow Americans.
Marriage is a contract with specific parameters. The contract is between two PEOPLE of the age of majority. Not between more parties or between any entity incapable of legally entering a contract.Yes. Do you think all Americans should be protected with all the rights guaranteed to all other Americans, with the exception of convicted felons and those judged to be mentally incompetent?
I am not finished with my question
What about those who like to have many spouses at the same time, or those who like to have sex with animals or someone who would like to marry someone who is under the age of 16? Shouldn't their rights be protected??
Everything else is just so much poor rationalizing and inept excuses for doing the right thing by your fellow Americans.
The obama campaign sure has raised a ton of dough after his announcement, but he may have just torpedoed himself in some important states for the election.
So you believe he trumped himself by not being a small minded bigot?
The marriage contract creates a new legal entity. A committee of a man and several women cannot be made into a marriage because that committee exceeds the limit of parties entering a contract.Marriage is a contract with specific parameters. The contract is between two PEOPLE of the age of majority. Not between more parties or between any entity incapable of legally entering a contract.I am not finished with my question
What about those who like to have many spouses at the same time, or those who like to have sex with animals or someone who would like to marry someone who is under the age of 16? Shouldn't their rights be protected??
Everything else is just so much poor rationalizing and inept excuses for doing the right thing by your fellow Americans.
Good non answer. You start off talking about defending someone rights but when asked about someone who might like to have more than one husband or wife at the same time you clam up tighter than a guilty person in front of the police.
The marriage contract creates a new legal entity. A committee of a man and several women cannot be made into a marriage because that committee exceeds the limit of parties entering a contract.Marriage is a contract with specific parameters. The contract is between two PEOPLE of the age of majority. Not between more parties or between any entity incapable of legally entering a contract.
Everything else is just so much poor rationalizing and inept excuses for doing the right thing by your fellow Americans.
Good non answer. You start off talking about defending someone rights but when asked about someone who might like to have more than one husband or wife at the same time you clam up tighter than a guilty person in front of the police.
The access to the protections of the system of jurisprudence is the seminal question. You want to redraw the parameters of the contract beyond the two parties it is designed to protect.
Who you can marry does have a big impact on people, but I agree government has no place in the bedroom. Our marriage laws are civil laws not religious. If the the church want to limit who it's members can marry based on it's religious doctrine, that's fine, but that should not be part of civil law.Wait, let's look at the bigger picture. First I have no problem with Obama endorsing gay marriage however, why did he do it now?? What changed that made him make this announcement?
Having asked that question I find it quite amusing that while he is taking huge steps to take away states rights, he conveniently leaves this decision to individual states. OK!!
Last but not least, the government needs to stay out of our bedrooms, period. They need to stop the rhetoric on gay rights, birth control and abortion. Those are individual choices and the government shouldn't pay for any of it, shouldn't have any control over it and shouldn't take any stand. It's diversion from the real issues facing us, you know like jobs and the economy.
Personally I'd rather discuss the things that impact all Americans, not just some.
If the the church wants to limit who it's members can marry based on it's religious doctrine, that's fine, but that should not be part of civil law.
Nothing wrong with flip flopping if you change your mind...shows signs that you are willing to engage when new facts emerge...
...the overwhelming majority of Americans have "evolved" on the issue of gay rights (even liberals!). I'd wager that 90 percent of Americans think differently about who gay people are and what kind of equality they're entitled to than they did a decade or two ago. So the idea that Barack Obama did too isn't hard to understand. Of course, there are people who hate Obama and believe that everything he does is in service of a sinister agenda. But the median voter right now is someone who likes Obama personally, but thinks he has done only a passable job as president. That voter may not be a starry-eyed fan of the president, but s/he isn't inclined to think the worst of him either. So when he says "I've evolved," that voter says, "Yeah, I get itI have too."
Nothing wrong with flip flopping if you change your mind...shows signs that you are willing to engage when new facts emerge...
This desperate attempt to pin the "flip flop" tag on the Prez regarding this particular issue isn't gonna work anyway:
...the overwhelming majority of Americans have "evolved" on the issue of gay rights (even liberals!). I'd wager that 90 percent of Americans think differently about who gay people are and what kind of equality they're entitled to than they did a decade or two ago. So the idea that Barack Obama did too isn't hard to understand. Of course, there are people who hate Obama and believe that everything he does is in service of a sinister agenda. But the median voter right now is someone who likes Obama personally, but thinks he has done only a passable job as president. That voter may not be a starry-eyed fan of the president, but s/he isn't inclined to think the worst of him either. So when he says "I've evolved," that voter says, "Yeah, I get itI have too."
Why Obama Won't Be Punished For His "Evolution" On Marriage Equality
Hey, while this is still a hot topic and fresh in the minds of everyone...
Could someone please direct me to the thread praising Dick Cheney when he came out in favor of gay marriage three years ago? Maybe we could merge the two...
The same thing that happened to the rights of the guy who thinks burning his garbage in the middle of town is a good idea. Or the gal who thinks she has the 'right' to drive while texting.The marriage contract creates a new legal entity. A committee of a man and several women cannot be made into a marriage because that committee exceeds the limit of parties entering a contract.Good non answer. You start off talking about defending someone rights but when asked about someone who might like to have more than one husband or wife at the same time you clam up tighter than a guilty person in front of the police.
The access to the protections of the system of jurisprudence is the seminal question. You want to redraw the parameters of the contract beyond the two parties it is designed to protect.
You first was talking about rights. What happen to defending the right of a person who wants more that one spouse?
Of course it isn't, but that doesn't keep people from making shit up. I've asked more than once for the passage in the Bible that forbids gay marriage.If the the church wants to limit who it's members can marry based on it's religious doctrine, that's fine, but that should not be part of civil law.
And it isn't.
Of course it isn't, but that doesn't keep people from making shit up. I've asked more once for the passage in the Bible that forbids gay marriage.If the the church wants to limit who it's members can marry based on it's religious doctrine, that's fine, but that should not be part of civil law.
And it isn't.
The same thing that happened to the rights of the guy who thinks burning his garbage in the middle of town is a good idea. Or the gal who thinks she has the 'right' to drive while texting.The marriage contract creates a new legal entity. A committee of a man and several women cannot be made into a marriage because that committee exceeds the limit of parties entering a contract.
The access to the protections of the system of jurisprudence is the seminal question. You want to redraw the parameters of the contract beyond the two parties it is designed to protect.
You first was talking about rights. What happen to defending the right of a person who wants more that one spouse?
The rights I'm advocating are the rights of sober, law abiding American citizens of the age of majority to enter a legally binding contract of marriage with the man or woman of his choosing. You're exploiting the word 'rights' to mean absolute freedom.
Americans have the right to equal justice and equal protection under the law. Americans do not have the absolute freedom to act as they please. No one has the right to shout FIRE! in a theater, yet all americans have the right to free speech.
No what you're doing is hitting the civil right flavor of the month. You're on the gay band wagon because it's the in thing to do. You aren't for protecting anyone's rights if your were you would also defend the abnormal right of someone who wants to have sex with animals. I for defending rights but not those of abnormal people.
