Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Faun]

so you think pointing to other problems justifies creating a new one....?

No, but then I'm not the one being inconsistent with my beliefs. And while I personally don't care how many people someone marries, I don't believe polygamy is Constitutionally protected like gay marriage is since there is no discrimination based on race or gender. So if states want to either ban it or allow it, I really don't care. Seriously, if a guy can handle more than one wife, more power to him. One is more than enough for me.

At any rate, I'm trying to gauge your consistency, which appears rather fluid to me. You're saying polygamy should be illegal, at least in part, because "many women and children suffer" from it. I pointed out several other things which many women and children suffer from which are legal.

And you avoided the question ... do you think infidelity, divorce, and alcoholism should be illegal?

obviously you think your argument for 'gay marriage rights' holds water while the argument for 'polygamous marriage rights' does not.....pretty hypocritical......

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.

it couldn't hurt.....both infidelity and divorce used to be illegal......as for alcoholism if it affects the lives of one's family it should be considered abusive behavior....

how is it we hold signing a legal contract for buying a house more important than the signing of a marriage certificate....?

At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not exactly evidence either, though I grant you it is certainly more substantial than your New Jersey citation.

In this case, however, it was actually in arbitration, not in a trial and all parties agreed to it. And, according to the article you linked, "Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so."

And even more damaging for your position, is the Sharia Law the judge cited was. "It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves." So the judge didn't decide the case on Sharia law -- he differed to it in order to get the parties involved to try to work out a deal amicably in arbitration rather than go to court over the matter. I've seen judges do that before, though they didn't cite Sharia law. In this case, however, citing Sharia law as the reason to avoid a civil trial appears applicable as well as appropriate given the two parties both subscribe to it.

I'm still not clear where your imaginary boogey man about Sharia law stems from and that, unfortunately, did not shine any light for me.

if all parties agreed to arbitration why did it wind up in the State court.....?

Because the judge backed down from his position that Sharia law be used to allow the parties to settle their case in arbitration rather than in a trial and he dismissed the case citing the U.S. Constitution. It ended up back in court when the plaintiffs refilled a case

You are now 2 for 2 in citing cases which actually didn't use Sharia law, though you thought they did.

Wanna try for three?

yet the judge originally ruled in this case to use Sharia law.......this is what you call creeping Sharia....

the New Jersey case was also an example of creeping Sharia....the woman had to live without protection enduring beatings sanctioned by Sharia law for 13 months before the decision was finally overturned....

there is also the Hosain v. Malik case in Maryland where Sharia law (a court order from Pakistan) was used to send a girl back to Pakistan to a father she was afraid of instead of staying here with her mother...but under Islamic law the father gets custody of the child if she has reached the age of seven...

reminds me of that Cuban boy whose mother died trying to bring him to America and to freedom....but liberal Democrats sent him back to his father in Communist Cuba....now that he's older he's being used to attack and insult America....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, but then I'm not the one being inconsistent with my beliefs. And while I personally don't care how many people someone marries, I don't believe polygamy is Constitutionally protected like gay marriage is since there is no discrimination based on race or gender. So if states want to either ban it or allow it, I really don't care. Seriously, if a guy can handle more than one wife, more power to him. One is more than enough for me.

At any rate, I'm trying to gauge your consistency, which appears rather fluid to me. You're saying polygamy should be illegal, at least in part, because "many women and children suffer" from it. I pointed out several other things which many women and children suffer from which are legal.

And you avoided the question ... do you think infidelity, divorce, and alcoholism should be illegal?

obviously you think your argument for 'gay marriage rights' holds water while the argument for 'polygamous marriage rights' does not.....pretty hypocritical......

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.

it couldn't hurt.....both infidelity and divorce used to be illegal......as for alcoholism if it affects the lives of one's family it should be considered abusive behavior....

how is it we hold signing a legal contract for buying a house more important than the signing of a marriage certificate....?

At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

 

[bodecea]

obviously you think your argument for 'gay marriage rights' holds water while the argument for 'polygamous marriage rights' does not.....pretty hypocritical......

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.

it couldn't hurt.....both infidelity and divorce used to be illegal......as for alcoholism if it affects the lives of one's family it should be considered abusive behavior....

how is it we hold signing a legal contract for buying a house more important than the signing of a marriage certificate....?

At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

It is gender discrimination...not gay discrimination.

 

[007]

Grandpa...it looks like they can't "let that gay shit go."

Nope, sure the hell ain't...

The guys on the Left are cute. Why are you comparing consenting adults on the left with children on the right? And why are they praying to the American Flag?

The guys on the left are suffering from a very disgusting, sexually perverted, mental illness and need psychiatric help.

The little kids are simply praying with the American flag as a back drop. Two things you leftards hate, God and patriotism.

I knew you being a libtard faggot wouldn't get any of it. You're sick in the fucking head too.

 

[Faun]

Because Woman and Woman is not Equal to Man and Woman... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

Another fact ... The U.S. Constitution does not discriminate based on gender.

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm gored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

Though you may think you poked holes, you didn't.

There is no draft now for anyone, so there is no violation of the 14th Amendment since everyone at this time is being treated the same.

Segregation of bathrooms does not deny anyone the use of a bathroom based on gender, it merely means men and women can't use the same one. Again, no violation of equal protection.

Banning polygamy does not discriminate against anyone based on gender. Again, no violation of the Constitution.

As far as age, the Constitution allows for discrimination. As far as discriminating against those with disabilities, the 14th Amendment doesn't protect them per se, as it prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, and gender; but the 5th Amendment does.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.



At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

It is gender discrimination...not gay discrimination.

what part of the marriage definition don't you get...? or is it you just don't believe in definitions when they contradict what you want....?

 

[KevinWestern]

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

And what happens then, ScreamingEagle? Do the sixteen total polygamist couples who currently live in the United States get to be legally married? Will that be the end of civilization as we know it?

When it comes down to it, the grand majority (super majority, in fact) of adults prefer to be with only one other person. Polygamy will never drive any sort of significant cultural change simply because it will never be significant.

 

[KevinWestern]

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

It is gender discrimination...not gay discrimination.

what part of the marriage definition don't you get...? or is it you just don't believe in definitions when they contradict what you want....?

I look at legal gay marriage as simply an additional freedom for a United States adult (more options vs less). If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you can. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can.

I myself are attracted to women. It's always been that way, and the idea of making out with a guy disgusts me. However, some individuals are simply born gay, and no matter what you do or say this will not change.

I say life is too short to unnecessarily restrict our options. If it isn't hurting you, why work so hard to shut it down?

 

[Faun]

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

That's a pretty impulsive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the inalienable right for people to worship as they choose for themselves, not to allow the government to establish any religion or impose any religious beliefs on the people.

Meaning the Constitution does not consider religion where law is violated. That's the reason the husband seeking evasion from U.S. law due to his observance of Sharia law, who ScreamingEagle referred to earlier, was denied that protection.

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Nonsense. Laws respecting the establishment of religion are in complete violation of the Constitution. You only undermine your self-proclaimed studies with such unaware observations.

It would be one thing to claim they are making those laws with respect to religion, which would still be a stretch since the state's legalities are not imposed on the religious tenets or visa-versa; but it is certainly ludicrous that they are respecting establishment of religion, which clearly violates, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

 

[Faun]

if all parties agreed to arbitration why did it wind up in the State court.....?

Because the judge backed down from his position that Sharia law be used to allow the parties to settle their case in arbitration rather than in a trial and he dismissed the case citing the U.S. Constitution. It ended up back in court when the plaintiffs refilled a case

You are now 2 for 2 in citing cases which actually didn't use Sharia law, though you thought they did.

Wanna try for three?

yet the judge originally ruled in this case to use Sharia law.......this is what you call creeping Sharia....

the New Jersey case was also an example of creeping Sharia....the woman had to live without protection enduring beatings sanctioned by Sharia law for 13 months before the decision was finally overturned....

In both cases, Sharia law was tossed. Do the laws of justice turn slowly? Yes, of course they do. That doesn't mean they bow down to Sharia law.

there is also the Hosain v. Malik case in Maryland where Sharia law (a court order from Pakistan) was used to send a girl back to Pakistan to a father she was afraid of instead of staying here with her mother...but under Islamic law the father gets custody of the child if she has reached the age of seven...

This one is iffy too but Sharia law was the deciding factor, so I concede this one. The reason I say it's iffy is because the judge was ruling, under Maryland state laws, in the best interest of the child. Being the child was Pakistani as were her parents, the judge ruled that enforcing Sharia law would be in the best interest of the child.

Meaning had you been the father of a child in such a case, Sharia law would not have even been considered. So it's not really a case of Sharia law creeping into our justice system. Furthermore, the judge in the case was honoring a court order from another country, something which judges can consider in their ruling. That still doesn't make it U.S. law nor does it supersede U.S. law. It's merely a consideration.

reminds me of that Cuban boy whose mother died trying to bring him to America and to freedom....but liberal Democrats sent him back to his father in Communist Cuba....now that he's older he's being used to attack and insult America....

You're talking about Elian Gonzalez and it wasn't Liberal Democrats who sent him back but the justice system which did. He had his day in court and his Miami family, fighting to keep him, lost the case. It was Liberal Democrats who upheld the law though, I'll grant you that.

 

[Faun]

obviously you think your argument for 'gay marriage rights' holds water while the argument for 'polygamous marriage rights' does not.....pretty hypocritical......

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.

it couldn't hurt.....both infidelity and divorce used to be illegal......as for alcoholism if it affects the lives of one's family it should be considered abusive behavior....

how is it we hold signing a legal contract for buying a house more important than the signing of a marriage certificate....?

At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Your point is muted by the point that discrimination based on gender exists no matter how you frame the law. Even passing a law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; still discriminates based on gender.

And again, the same cannot be said about polygamy unless only one gender is allowed to marry multiple partners. Otherwise, there is no discrimination of any particular group.

 

[Faun]

I knew you being a libtard faggot wouldn't get any of it. You're sick in the fucking head too.

I don't know why but I sense a betrayal of your selected avatar?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It is gender discrimination...not gay discrimination.

what part of the marriage definition don't you get...? or is it you just don't believe in definitions when they contradict what you want....?

I look at legal gay marriage as simply an additional freedom for a United States adult (more options vs less). If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you can. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can.

I myself are attracted to women. It's always been that way, and the idea of making out with a guy disgusts me. However, some individuals are simply born gay, and no matter what you do or say this will not change.

I say life is too short to unnecessarily restrict our options. If it isn't hurting you, why work so hard to shut it down?

this whole thing is not really about 'freedom' for gays.....gays already have all the freedom they could want.....it's really about the left wanting to change society.....when it comes to marriage things become more serious because marriage is a 'building block' of society.....since it involves the core family....mom, dad, kids....this is who the left is really targeting...

when you destroy the meaning of marriage by introducing 'gay marriage' you destroy the meaning of family....mom, dad, kids....and blood relatives...

have you considered that gay marriage means that a child will totally lose his heritage on one side.....either his biological mother or biological father.....? people tend to look to their heritage to figure out who they are in the broader picture....this kills one's lineage and family heritage and family unity is destroyed....the left wants this because there is nothing stronger than families to stand up together against a dictatorial State...blood is thicker than water...

gay marriage is just another step in the leftie march to destroy the family and to create a new form of 'family' where it reallly becomes just whatever you want it to mean or what the State wants it to mean....demeaning/destroying traditional marriage brings about chaos and conflict.....two things the lefties want in order to destroy the foundation of society and replace it with their commie daydreams...you can already see how the State is replacing fathers with welfare checks to support kids....

 

[Faun]

what part of the marriage definition don't you get...? or is it you just don't believe in definitions when they contradict what you want....?

I look at legal gay marriage as simply an additional freedom for a United States adult (more options vs less). If you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you can. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can.

I myself are attracted to women. It's always been that way, and the idea of making out with a guy disgusts me. However, some individuals are simply born gay, and no matter what you do or say this will not change.

I say life is too short to unnecessarily restrict our options. If it isn't hurting you, why work so hard to shut it down?

this whole thing is not really about 'freedom' for gays.....gays already have all the freedom they could want.....it's really about the left wanting to change society.....when it comes to marriage things become more serious because marriage is a 'building block' of society.....since it involves the core family....mom, dad, kids....this is who the left is really targeting...

when you destroy the meaning of marriage by introducing 'gay marriage' you destroy the meaning of family....mom, dad, kids....and blood relatives...

have you considered that gay marriage means that a child will totally lose his heritage on one side.....either his biological mother or biological father.....? people tend to look to their heritage to figure out who they are in the broader picture....this kills one's lineage and family heritage and family unity is destroyed....the left wants this because there is nothing stronger than families to stand up together against a dictatorial State...blood is thicker than water...

gay marriage is just another step in the leftie march to destroy the family and to create a new form of 'family' where it reallly becomes just whatever you want it to mean or what the State wants it to mean....demeaning/destroying traditional marriage brings about chaos and conflict.....two things the lefties want in order to destroy the foundation of society and replace it with their commie daydreams...you can already see how the State is replacing fathers with welfare checks to support kids....

Since you think the potential loss of ones' heritage is a reason not to allow gay marriage, do you feel the same about adoption, where heritage is often completely lost from both the biological mother and father?

Again, you're not coming across as consistent.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.



At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Your point is muted by the point that discrimination based on gender exists no matter how you frame the law. Even passing a law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; still discriminates based on gender.

And again, the same cannot be said about polygamy unless only one gender is allowed to marry multiple partners. Otherwise, there is no discrimination of any particular group.

no matter how you frame it.....opposite gender is quite critical to the definition of marriage.....no children together without opposites....this is not a form of discrimination but just a fact of life and marriage...it is consistent with nature...

and please don't bring up the bogus adoption argument....

 

[Faun]

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Your point is muted by the point that discrimination based on gender exists no matter how you frame the law. Even passing a law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; still discriminates based on gender.

And again, the same cannot be said about polygamy unless only one gender is allowed to marry multiple partners. Otherwise, there is no discrimination of any particular group.

no matter how you frame it.....opposite gender is quite critical to the definition of marriage.....no children together without opposites....this is not a form of discrimination but just a fact of life and marriage...it is consistent with nature...

I would agree that "opposite gender" is crucial to the definition of marriage but I don't agree that it's so critical, that it can't withstand the challenges of gay marriage. But beyond all, I find it unconstitutional for the reason I've been championing. I believe our society is damaged far more by discriminating against people based on gender, race, or religion than gay marriage, which would be a small percentage of marriages (and far less than the 50% of marriages which end in divorce), than it could ever be damaged by allowing all people the inalienable right to the pursuit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while protecting them equally under the law.

and please don't bring up the bogus adoption argument....

It's quite a valid argument given YOU cited loss of heritage as a reason against gay marriage. How you can you possibly be against gay marriage due to loss of heritage (one of the reasons you offered) but not be against adoption for the same reason, which includes an even greater loss of heritage??

 

[sfcalifornia]

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Your point is muted by the point that discrimination based on gender exists no matter how you frame the law. Even passing a law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; still discriminates based on gender.

And again, the same cannot be said about polygamy unless only one gender is allowed to marry multiple partners. Otherwise, there is no discrimination of any particular group.

no matter how you frame it.....opposite gender is quite critical to the definition of marriage.....no children together without opposites....this is not a form of discrimination but just a fact of life and marriage...it is consistent with nature...

and please don't bring up the bogus adoption argument....

What a stagnant, stale world you live in. I'd suggest you go live with the Amish but even they're more hip to changing social norms than you are.

Opposite gender is NOT critical to the definition of marriage and no one's having children these days anyway, gay or straight couples........ except for the illegals, remember?

And what do you care about nature? When it's convenient? How about we worry about chopping down all the rainforests while pumping massive tons of CO2 into the air before we give a shit about who wants to spend the rest of their lives with whom?

 

[sfcalifornia]

obviously you think your argument for 'gay marriage rights' holds water while the argument for 'polygamous marriage rights' does not.....pretty hypocritical......

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.

it couldn't hurt.....both infidelity and divorce used to be illegal......as for alcoholism if it affects the lives of one's family it should be considered abusive behavior....

how is it we hold signing a legal contract for buying a house more important than the signing of a marriage certificate....?

At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Yeah? So?

It's called: Consenting Adults Harming No One.

Get over it, buttinsky.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's a pretty impulsive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the inalienable right for people to worship as they choose for themselves, not to allow the government to establish any religion or impose any religious beliefs on the people.

Meaning the Constitution does not consider religion where law is violated. That's the reason the husband seeking evasion from U.S. law due to his observance of Sharia law, who ScreamingEagle referred to earlier, was denied that protection.

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Nonsense. Laws respecting the establishment of religion are in complete violation of the Constitution. You only undermine your self-proclaimed studies with such unaware observations.

It would be one thing to claim they are making those laws with respect to religion, which would still be a stretch since the state's legalities are not imposed on the religious tenets or visa-versa; but it is certainly ludicrous that they are respecting establishment of religion, which clearly violates, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Unlike you, I attempt to explore the Constitution, not merely 'interpret' it. Marriage is a religious rite wherever you turn. When you make a law regulating marriage, you are in essence making laws concerning religion, which is expressly forbade by the 1st Amendment. Hence the "Congress shall make no law" part.