We're Getting Married!

[frigidweirdo]

OMG, now the electoral college is racist and homophobic.

you guys lost congress in november, and you will lost the whitehouse in 2016. the american people are fed up with lying liberals and corrupt democrats. get over it. you libs had your chance and obama destroyed it for you-----------you picked him, its your fault.

I need some of those drugs you're on. How do you go from me pointing out that things aren't exactly democratic, to it being racist and homophobic? You made such a leap of imagination, I'm sure you could write a pretty tripping novel.

"You guys"??? Huh? I didn't lose anything.

But hey, you go off on a rant about this that and the other, it STILL doesn't have anything to do with this debate. Maybe you could NOW start to respond to posts properly

 

[Syriusly]

Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.

This country has serious problems

Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

It hasn't anywhere else yet.

Didn't happen when mixed race marriages were legalized, even though there were folks just like you predicting exactly that.

The only ones mentioning polygamy and incest are those on the right who oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

I will be glad to answer the question.

But first- do you understand the basis for argument for equal protection?

Do you understand that State's can only refuse rights to Americans when States can provide a compelling argument for why that right should be denied?

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

First, a polygamist can marry who they please, another consenting adult.

Transitioning from couple marriage to polygamy isn't about who the person can marry, it's about how many can be married to each other. A different premise.


******************************************************************

Secondly, there are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.

>>>>

 

[mdk]

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

It does not. I found this quote to be most illuminating though:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving

 

[Syriusly]

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

Marriage is not a right, never has been a right, there are restrictions

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Felons are restricted from owning guns- yet there is still a right to gun ownership.

 

[Redfish]

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions?

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

How exactly are you being treated like a second class citizens because gays are getting married?

not what I said, not even close. try reading it again.

 

[Redfish]

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

It does not. I found this quote to be most illuminating though:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving

one persons opinion. what makes it more significant than the opinion of any other american?

 

[Syriusly]

This just in: Floridians may now marry their goats (adult, consenting goats of course).

Once again...a conservative who doesn't understand what consensual sex is.

But to help you out- no- your goat, your dog, your cow, your cat- none of them can consent to have sex with you.

 

[Redfish]

Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.

This country has serious problems

Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

It hasn't anywhere else yet.

Didn't happen when mixed race marriages were legalized, even though there were folks just like you predicting exactly that.

The only ones mentioning polygamy and incest are those on the right who oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

I will be glad to answer the question.

But first- do you understand the basis for argument for equal protection?

Do you understand that State's can only refuse rights to Americans when States can provide a compelling argument for why that right should be denied?

yes, and what is your compelling and legally valid reason for denying marriage to polygamists?

 

[Syriusly]

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Oh, you're still wiling away with this decrepit argument?

Firstly it was a majority vote. It wasn't the majority will of the people.

Brown v. Board of education which ended segregation was NOT based on a majority vote in congress, but in the Supreme Court. The ending of slavery was done by the president.

But you're just digging a hole for yourself.

If gay marriage is implemented it will either be by the legislature, elected by the people somehow in a vote by some people in the legislature, or by the executive, elected by the people, or the judiciary which is chosen by the people who are elected.

It's all, sort of, democratic. So, you'd have to support gay marriage with this argument.

I already said that I would. I just want all voices to be heard.

Really? The amount of to-ing and fro-ing from you is incredible, tomorrow it'll be another story. So you'd let this supposed moral compass disappear if the will of the people says that the moral compass is plain wrong?

the moral compass of a society is set by the members of that society, with the majority view prevailing. In current parlance its called democracy. Thats all I want on the gay marriage issue, a societal consensus, not a govt dictate.

Exactly what the citizens of Virginia wanted back when they wanted mixed race marriage to be illegal.

No 'societal consensus' for some 20 odd years on mixed race marriages, yet most of us- most of us- agree that the State of Virginia should not have been making it illegal for the Lovings to be married in Virginia.

So much for the 'majority view prevailing'

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only, he must first extricate it from his incredibly tight sphincter.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

spoken like a true buttfucker

Did you know that some of the most vocal homophobes turned out to be closet homosexuals? Your disgust may be a form of disguise?

Top 5 homophobes who turned out to be gay City Pages

nope, not a chance. but continue the fantasy if it somehow helps you to justify your anormality.

Yep....that's what Craig kept insisting, when caught red handed.....

is Craig the poster boy for gay marriage? a men's room toe tapper, you should be so proud.

An ultra-Conservative toe-tapper.

 

[mdk]

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions?

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

How exactly are you being treated like a second class citizens because gays are getting married?

not what I said, not even close. try reading it again.

How are those people that find gay marriage a human aberation being treated like second class citizens? I am not being snarky by the way, I am honestly curious.

 

[Redfish]

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

First, a polygamist can marry who they please, another consenting adult.

Transitioning from couple marriage to polygamy isn't about who the person can marry, it's about how many can be married to each other. A different premise.


******************************************************************

Secondly, there are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.

>>>>

what do you want to bet that the lawyers will be in favor of polygamy? after all, lawyers are all about $

 

[Redfish]

spoken like a true buttfucker

Did you know that some of the most vocal homophobes turned out to be closet homosexuals? Your disgust may be a form of disguise?

Top 5 homophobes who turned out to be gay City Pages

nope, not a chance. but continue the fantasy if it somehow helps you to justify your anormality.

Yep....that's what Craig kept insisting, when caught red handed.....

is Craig the poster boy for gay marriage? a men's room toe tapper, you should be so proud.

An ultra-Conservative toe-tapper.

he was a closet gay, what does his politics have to do with it? He lied to his wife, family, and voters. He is a slimeball. But Barney Frank running a gay brothel is ok with you because he is a libtard, right?

 

[mdk]

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

It does not. I found this quote to be most illuminating though:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving

one persons opinion. what makes it more significant than the opinion of any other american?

Not anymore then yours or mine, legally speaking. The opinions of the courts matter way more and they don't seem to be agreeing with you. Thank goodness for that as well.

 

[Redfish]

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions?

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

How exactly are you being treated like a second class citizens because gays are getting married?

not what I said, not even close. try reading it again.

How are those people that find gay marriage a human aberation being treated like second class citizens? I am not being snarky by the way, I am honestly curious.

when you demand that they change what they believe or receive punishment from the government. you do know about the baker case?

 

[Redfish]

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

It does not. I found this quote to be most illuminating though:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving

one persons opinion. what makes it more significant than the opinion of any other american?

Not anymore then yours or mine, legally speaking. The opinions of the courts matter way more and they don't seem to be agreeing with you. Thank goodness for that as well.

I bet you disagree with the Ferguson and NY grand juries, right? and you would probably join those looting if you had the opportunity. My point? not all court decisions are agreed to by all of the people. OJ ring any bells?

 

[mdk]

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

How exactly are you being treated like a second class citizens because gays are getting married?

not what I said, not even close. try reading it again.

How are those people that find gay marriage a human aberation being treated like second class citizens? I am not being snarky by the way, I am honestly curious.

when you demand that they change what they believe of receive punishment from the government. you do know about the baker case?

I've made my position on public accommodation laws quite clear in the past. I think they should be done away with (except for essential services like transportation, lodgings, gas stations, hospitals etc) and let the free market decide if people wish to support a public business that refuses to serve certain segments of society.

 

[Redfish]

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Oh, you're still wiling away with this decrepit argument?

Firstly it was a majority vote. It wasn't the majority will of the people.

Brown v. Board of education which ended segregation was NOT based on a majority vote in congress, but in the Supreme Court. The ending of slavery was done by the president.

But you're just digging a hole for yourself.

If gay marriage is implemented it will either be by the legislature, elected by the people somehow in a vote by some people in the legislature, or by the executive, elected by the people, or the judiciary which is chosen by the people who are elected.

It's all, sort of, democratic. So, you'd have to support gay marriage with this argument.

I already said that I would. I just want all voices to be heard.

Really? The amount of to-ing and fro-ing from you is incredible, tomorrow it'll be another story. So you'd let this supposed moral compass disappear if the will of the people says that the moral compass is plain wrong?

the moral compass of a society is set by the members of that society, with the majority view prevailing. In current parlance its called democracy. Thats all I want on the gay marriage issue, a societal consensus, not a govt dictate.

Exactly what the citizens of Virginia wanted back when they wanted mixed race marriage to be illegal.

No 'societal consensus' for some 20 odd years on mixed race marriages, yet most of us- most of us- agree that the State of Virginia should not have been making it illegal for the Lovings to be married in Virginia.

So much for the 'majority view prevailing'

the majority view changes over time. all I am saying is we need to let the majority decide these societal issues, as it did on slavery, women voting, prohibition, viet nam, and who sits in the whitehouse.

 

[Redfish]

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

How exactly are you being treated like a second class citizens because gays are getting married?

not what I said, not even close. try reading it again.

How are those people that find gay marriage a human aberation being treated like second class citizens? I am not being snarky by the way, I am honestly curious.

when you demand that they change what they believe of receive punishment from the government. you do know about the baker case?

I've made my position on public accommodation laws quite clear in the past. I think they should be done away with (except for essential services like transportation, lodgings, gas stations, hospitals etc) and let the free market decide if people wish to support a public business that refuses to serve certain segments of society.

We agree.