The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[Pop23]

The Kleins are a good Christian couple and I hate seeing this happen to them. I reversed my approval of gay weddings over this outrage. Now I am totally opposed to any gay marriage and will work to have this court decision overturned by new legislation or constutitional convention to outlaw gay marriage. Gays have overstepped. They couldn't leave their victory alone. Now they are using it to persecute decent people who cannot violate their Christian beliefs. The Kleins are going to appeal this decision and I wish them God-speed.

It's remarkable that anyone can truly be this ignorant of the Constitution and hateful toward gay Americans.

Clearly we're still very much in need of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards all Americans' civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

 

[ChrisL]

It's remarkable that anyone can truly be this ignorant of the Constitution and hateful toward gay Americans.

Clearly we're still very much in need of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards all Americans' civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

Butt hurt. That describes you perfectly. Waaaa! The gays are destroying my marriage!!! <<<<< That's you.

 

[koshergrl]

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

 

[koshergrl]

The level of zany RWNJ butthurt on this thread is just priceless.

Proceed apace.

You've said that like 15 times. Don't you have any other material? It kind of illuminates your own butthurt and makes me embarrassed for you.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's remarkable that anyone can truly be this ignorant of the Constitution and hateful toward gay Americans.

Clearly we're still very much in need of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards all Americans' civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

 

[toxicmedia]

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

 

[Statistikhengst]

The level of zany RWNJ butthurt on this thread is just priceless.

Proceed apace.

You've said that like 15 times. Don't you have any other material? It kind of illuminates your own butthurt and makes me embarrassed for you.

Are you bleating again? Why yes, you are!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

 

[Pop23]

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

 

[Faun]

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

 

[Pop23]

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

 

[Faun]

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I see no grounds since the law is applied equally to all.

 

[Pop23]

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I see no grounds since the law is applied equally to all.

Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?

 

[Esmeralda]

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

 

[Esmeralda]

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

You are a proud Nazi no doubt.

 

[koshergrl]

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

You are a proud Nazi no doubt.

Nazis are traditionally supported and funded by progressives. So...nope. Bullies who prey upon the vulnerable, lie to attain power, and kill off their enemies...that's all you baby.

 

[Esmeralda]

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

You are a proud Nazi no doubt.

Nazis are traditionally supported and funded by progressives. So...nope. Bullies who prey upon the vulnerable, lie to attain power, and kill off their enemies...that's all you baby.

You are one massive nut case.

 

[koshergrl]

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Oh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

You are a proud Nazi no doubt.

Nazis are traditionally supported and funded by progressives. So...nope. Bullies who prey upon the vulnerable, lie to attain power, and kill off their enemies...that's all you baby.

You are one massive nut case.

"

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”

• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”

• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”

• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”

• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”

• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”

• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”

• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”

• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

According to Goldberg, progressives' affinity for fascism was quite understandable because, contrary to popular misconception: “[F]ascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

 

[Faun]

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I see no grounds since the law is applied equally to all.

Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?

No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.

 

[koshergrl]

"That said, we can see that fascism, communism, and progressivism are all closely related to one another."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223