Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[NYcarbineer]

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

That's absurd. Changing one detail in the marriage definition, under the law, only changes that detail. If other details are to change, they'd have to be changed by law as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

That's absurd. Changing one detail in the marriage definition, under the law, only changes that detail. If other details are to change, they'd have to be changed by law as well.

Once you change one definition, what is to prevent changing all of it? I asked Gadawg why polygamy and incestuous marriage shouldn't be allowed. He had no answer. There is no answer because there is no reason it should not be. Why not group marriage? Why not allow the entire population of Santa Maria della Cerveza in Mexico to pledge their troth to Juan Gomez, an American citizen, thus making them all citizens as well?
there is no end to it.

 

[Seawytch]

ROFLMAO.
You got nothing.

Actually, it is the anti-gay bigots that "got nothing" which is why marriage equality keeps winning in court. See, the anti-gay bigots have been unable to come up with a compelling state reason to deny marriage equality.

Anti-gay bigots are on the wrong side of history. Our children will look back on them the same way we look back on the racists of yesterday.

You mean the Southern-Democrats.

Yes, like the Dixiecrats...who all became Republicans or had their "come to Jesus" moment.

 

[Seawytch]

Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex.

Maybe people who have unconventional sex want to be enslaved. Ever thought of that????

Yeah, but they usually have a safe word. I doubt Santorum (google it) was thinking of the S & M community when he made his stupid statements.

 

[Seawytch]

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

That's absurd. Changing one detail in the marriage definition, under the law, only changes that detail. If other details are to change, they'd have to be changed by law as well.

Once you change one definition, what is to prevent changing all of it? I asked Gadawg why polygamy and incestuous marriage shouldn't be allowed. He had no answer. There is no answer because there is no reason it should not be. Why not group marriage? Why not allow the entire population of Santa Maria della Cerveza in Mexico to pledge their troth to Juan Gomez, an American citizen, thus making them all citizens as well?
there is no end to it.

If polygamists, bigamists or incestuous couples feel that they can put forth a case to allow their legal marriages, they can. I certainly cannot think of a compelling state reason to prohibit polygamy and would support it, but there are reasons to prohibit incestuous relationships.

What is your compelling state reason to prohibit non-familial consenting adults equal access to legal marriage? You've yet to present one (nor have any of the lawyers arguing against marriage equality, so don't feel too bad about yourself)

 

[The Rabbi]

That's absurd. Changing one detail in the marriage definition, under the law, only changes that detail. If other details are to change, they'd have to be changed by law as well.

Once you change one definition, what is to prevent changing all of it? I asked Gadawg why polygamy and incestuous marriage shouldn't be allowed. He had no answer. There is no answer because there is no reason it should not be. Why not group marriage? Why not allow the entire population of Santa Maria della Cerveza in Mexico to pledge their troth to Juan Gomez, an American citizen, thus making them all citizens as well?
there is no end to it.

If polygamists, bigamists or incestuous couples feel that they can put forth a case to allow their legal marriages, they can. I certainly cannot think of a compelling state reason to prohibit polygamy and would support it, but there are reasons to prohibit incestuous relationships.

What is your compelling state reason to prohibit non-familial consenting adults equal access to legal marriage? You've yet to present one (nor have any of the lawyers arguing against marriage equality, so don't feel too bad about yourself)

No one is prohibiting anything. Get a grip.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

That's absurd. Changing one detail in the marriage definition, under the law, only changes that detail. If other details are to change, they'd have to be changed by law as well.

Once you change one definition, what is to prevent changing all of it? I asked Gadawg why polygamy and incestuous marriage shouldn't be allowed. He had no answer. There is no answer because there is no reason it should not be. Why not group marriage? Why not allow the entire population of Santa Maria della Cerveza in Mexico to pledge their troth to Juan Gomez, an American citizen, thus making them all citizens as well?
there is no end to it.

Polygamy was banned 100 + years ago. Did that lead to the banning of monogamy?

 

[The T]

That's absurd. Changing one detail in the marriage definition, under the law, only changes that detail. If other details are to change, they'd have to be changed by law as well.

Once you change one definition, what is to prevent changing all of it? I asked Gadawg why polygamy and incestuous marriage shouldn't be allowed. He had no answer. There is no answer because there is no reason it should not be. Why not group marriage? Why not allow the entire population of Santa Maria della Cerveza in Mexico to pledge their troth to Juan Gomez, an American citizen, thus making them all citizens as well?
there is no end to it.

Polygamy was banned 100 + years ago. Did that lead to the banning of monogamy?

*YOU* show undisputed WHY you are regarded as a MORON around here by so many...

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm still trying to figure out how not being able to get hitched is enslavement?????





I thought being married was a form of enslavement in some cases.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, it is the anti-gay bigots that "got nothing" which is why marriage equality keeps winning in court. See, the anti-gay bigots have been unable to come up with a compelling state reason to deny marriage equality.

Anti-gay bigots are on the wrong side of history. Our children will look back on them the same way we look back on the racists of yesterday.

You mean the Southern-Democrats.

Yes, like the Dixiecrats...who all became Republicans or had their "come to Jesus" moment.

That's an Urban Legend, that I discovered by working in a factory in the South, is totally false.

 

[The T]

I'm still trying to figure out how not being able to get hitched is enslavement?????





I thought being married was a form of enslavement in some cases.

Giving UP your 'Individualism'?

 

[Seawytch]

Once you change one definition, what is to prevent changing all of it? I asked Gadawg why polygamy and incestuous marriage shouldn't be allowed. He had no answer. There is no answer because there is no reason it should not be. Why not group marriage? Why not allow the entire population of Santa Maria della Cerveza in Mexico to pledge their troth to Juan Gomez, an American citizen, thus making them all citizens as well?
there is no end to it.

If polygamists, bigamists or incestuous couples feel that they can put forth a case to allow their legal marriages, they can. I certainly cannot think of a compelling state reason to prohibit polygamy and would support it, but there are reasons to prohibit incestuous relationships.

What is your compelling state reason to prohibit non-familial consenting adults equal access to legal marriage? You've yet to present one (nor have any of the lawyers arguing against marriage equality, so don't feel too bad about yourself)

No one is prohibiting anything. Get a grip.

So that would be a no, you can't come up with a compelling state reason to deny marriage equality to gay and lesbian partnerships. Again, don't beat yourself up...lawyers arguing against marriage equality couldn't either.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean the Southern-Democrats.

Yes, like the Dixiecrats...who all became Republicans or had their "come to Jesus" moment.

That's an Urban Legend, that I discovered by working in a factory in the South, is totally false.

Racism, sexism, homophobia etc., no longer find a comfortable home in the Democratic party. It is also obvious that they are MUCH more comfortable in the GOP/Tea Party these days. That's no urban myth.

 

[daveman]

Yes, like the Dixiecrats...who all became Republicans or had their "come to Jesus" moment.

That's an Urban Legend, that I discovered by working in a factory in the South, is totally false.

Racism, sexism, homophobia etc., no longer find a comfortable home in the Democratic party. It is also obvious that they are MUCH more comfortable in the GOP/Tea Party these days. That's no urban myth.

Utter nonsense. I could provide examples (and I have many times here), but you'll refuse to accept them.

Because you don't want to see.

 

[bodecea]

Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex.

Maybe people who have unconventional sex want to be enslaved. Ever thought of that????

Yeah, but they usually have a safe word. I doubt Santorum (google it) was thinking of the S & M community when he made his stupid statements.

Maybe.....maybe not....

 

[bodecea]

You mean the Southern-Democrats.

Yes, like the Dixiecrats...who all became Republicans or had their "come to Jesus" moment.

That's an Urban Legend, that I discovered by working in a factory in the South, is totally false.

I'm sure working in a factory enlightens you as to the history of Politics in the South like nothing else can.....

 

[Seawytch]

That's an Urban Legend, that I discovered by working in a factory in the South, is totally false.

Racism, sexism, homophobia etc., no longer find a comfortable home in the Democratic party. It is also obvious that they are MUCH more comfortable in the GOP/Tea Party these days. That's no urban myth.

Utter nonsense. I could provide examples (and I have many times here), but you'll refuse to accept them.

Because you don't want to see.

And for every one you provide, I can provide five.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Santorum's point is that the state does in fact have a compelling interest in maintaining traditional morality.
I certainly appreciated his arguments as a genuine expression of conservatism, not the narco-libertarian variety often peddled.

Perhaps reading the ruling and supporting case law might help you understand:

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in
most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id

The right to marry has been historically and remains the
right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.

Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

 

[daveman]

Racism, sexism, homophobia etc., no longer find a comfortable home in the Democratic party. It is also obvious that they are MUCH more comfortable in the GOP/Tea Party these days. That's no urban myth.

Utter nonsense. I could provide examples (and I have many times here), but you'll refuse to accept them.

Because you don't want to see.

And for every one you provide, I can provide five.

You think you can, because you'll distort meanings.

 

[Political Junky]

You mean the Southern-Democrats.

Yes, like the Dixiecrats...who all became Republicans or had their "come to Jesus" moment.

That's an Urban Legend, that I discovered by working in a factory in the South, is totally false.

Dixiecrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The States' Rights Democratic Party was a short-lived segregationist, socially conservative political party in the United States. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the Southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government,[1] and supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy. Members of the States' Rights Democratic Party were often called Dixiecrats. (The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the Democratic Party.)
By 1950, nearly all the Dixiecrats had returned to the Democratic Party.[citation needed] The Dixiecrats had little short-run impact on politics. However, they did have a long-term impact. The Dixiecrats began the weakening of the Democratic Party's total control of presidential elections in the Deep South. The 1948 campaign laid the foundation, at first in presidential voting only, for the creation of a two-party region. Finally, the Dixiecrats, especially Strom Thurmond (Senator from 1954 to 2003) initiated a national political dialog on the dangers of an expansive federal government that threatened "local control." This theme was picked up by southern Republicans, who became a major element in the national GOP by the 1990s.[2]
<much more>