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

[koshergrl]

"Progressivism and fascism share the totalitarian belief that with the proper amount of tinkering, social engineers will be able to realize the utopian dream of establishing a nation where perfect equality reigns. This mindset accounts for the support that the early progressives gave to eugenics, whose ultimate aim was the creation of a pure race, a “New Man” – not unlike the Nazi “Aryan” ideal. Such a project, of course, could only be overseen and carried out by a wise and omniscient leadership, an intellectual elite endowed with judgment superior to that of the unwashed masses.
"The totalitarian impulses that animated both fascism and progressivism were once viewed by the Left as evidence of compassion and humanitarian concern for the welfare of the lowly."

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

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either

 

[koshergrl]

"..
For the Progressives, the government’s obligation in this regard was perfectly compatible with treating different races (whom they believed were at varying stages of development), differently in law and policy.[13] It also trumped not only the ability of individuals to exercise their now “so-called innate or ‘natural rights'” –e.g. the right to live, enjoy one’s physical liberty, acquire and use property, marry, speak, worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience, etc.–but also an individual’s fundamental right to attain his own highest development where the prospect for development was believed to be relatively small, or his restraint was believed to be advantageous to the development of a greater number.[14]
"Perhaps nowhere is the Progressives’ willingness to run roughshod over individual liberty, for the sake of improving America generally, as stark as in their support for eugenics."

Eugenics American Progressivism and the German Idea of the State - Online Library of Law Liberty

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.

so what is the GAG ORDER on the bakers all about.....?

 

[Seawytch]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

 

[Seawytch]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.

so what is the GAG ORDER on the bakers all about.....?

It's not a gag order, that's what.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

 

[Seawytch]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.

 

[koshergrl]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.

Your handlers depend on your stupidity.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.

so what is the GAG ORDER on the bakers all about.....?

It's not a gag order, that's what.

of course it is.....contrary to what Slate said.....

"But here’s what Stern [Slate] overlooks: Commissioner Avakian recites in detail the statements the Kleins made that he is upset about and that his agency claims violate Oregon law. What led to his “cease and desist” order is the key to understanding why it’s accurately called a gag order that prevents the Kleins from speaking about their faith and their intent to “stay strong” and fight this harassment by the Oregon state government."

Sorry Slate Oregon Did Gag Those Christian Bakers

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why? There must be a reason

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.

then i guess we don't need that Civil Rights Act anymore since nobody 'gets to vote on Civil Rights"........hahaha....we'll just leave it all up to those know-it-all lawyers....

 

[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 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

None of what you posted would meet the equal protection clause nor due process. You simply want them banned without a compelling state reason.

That's dangerous dear.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either

That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either

That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.

It wasn't? Straight people can marry the same sex? I think you're wrong on that

 

[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 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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either

That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.

It wasn't? Straight people can marry the same sex? I think you're wrong on that

Flaming imbecile, straight people had the right to marry the person they love. How do you still not get this?