Why can't these People be Married together?...

[JakeStarkey]

Government recognizes marriage in order to ensure that mothers and children are supported.

If folks want hetero, homo, polyandry, or polygamy as a marriage style, sure.

Just remind us, in "two man marriage", which one is mother?

Immaterial.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you are wrong. the argument for gay marriage is that these people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The exact same argument WILL be made for bigamy and polygamy. They will have precedent on their side in court.

Gay marriage is step 1 towards the destruction of our society.

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

So you would agree to "civil marriage" in between father and his adult son, Or mother with her adult daughter. You said it, equal protection.

No, you might, but that is not NYcarbiner implied at all.

However, your implication that such relationships could be set up is feasible under civil unions.

Why are you so hung up on sex?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not much

Polygamy would still be extremely rare. You would not have a rush of people seeking to embrace it. You are basicaly moving someone from the single column to the married column. Divorces are always messy no matter what you do

Beyond the "yuk" factor, I see polygamy as none of my business and it does no harm

Tom is "married" to Louise, Mary, Jenny, and Joan. together the 5 of them have 10 kids, 4 cars, and a large house.

Louise and Mary decide that they are really lesbians and decide to divorce the rest of them. 2 of the kids have tom and louise as biological parents and 1 has mary and tom as biological parents.

One of the cars was given to the family by Louise's parents.

Tom has a business that earns 200K per year.

Louise was married to tom for 10 years, Mary and Jenny for 8 and 7, and Joan for 4.

Please describe the property settlement, child care arrangements, and alimony after the divorce.

Well, father kills himself, mothers will go on Welfare and get Medicaid, while kids will get Obamacare. They all will get Obamaphones.

You won't have to give yours up. Promise.

 

[Ame®icano]

Government recognizes marriage in order to ensure that mothers and children are supported.

If folks want hetero, homo, polyandry, or polygamy as a marriage style, sure.

Just remind us, in "two man marriage", which one is mother?

Immaterial.

How come? You wrote it yourself, see bold above.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

So you would agree to "civil marriage" in between father and his adult son, Or mother with her adult daughter. You said it, equal protection.

No, you might, but that is not NYcarbiner implied at all.

However, your implication that such relationships could be set up is feasible under civil unions.

Why are you so hung up on sex?

I haven't mentioned it anywhere. That part came from you. Nice try, though.

 

[Ame®icano]

Tom is "married" to Louise, Mary, Jenny, and Joan. together the 5 of them have 10 kids, 4 cars, and a large house.

Louise and Mary decide that they are really lesbians and decide to divorce the rest of them. 2 of the kids have tom and louise as biological parents and 1 has mary and tom as biological parents.

One of the cars was given to the family by Louise's parents.

Tom has a business that earns 200K per year.

Louise was married to tom for 10 years, Mary and Jenny for 8 and 7, and Joan for 4.

Please describe the property settlement, child care arrangements, and alimony after the divorce.

Well, father kills himself, mothers will go on Welfare and get Medicaid, while kids will get Obamacare. They all will get Obamaphones.

You won't have to give yours up. Promise.

Oh, you wanna play that way?

I already gave it to your mom. I run out of cash, but she takes anything.

Asshole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you are wrong. the argument for gay marriage is that these people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The exact same argument WILL be made for bigamy and polygamy. They will have precedent on their side in court.

Gay marriage is step 1 towards the destruction of our society.

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

So you would agree to "civil marriage" in between father and his adult son, Or mother with her adult daughter. You said it, equal protection.

Obviously ignorance of the Constitution and its case law is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Marriage as contract law is not written to accommodate persons related to each other by blood, just as an adult father and his adult daughter may not marry. And because marriage as contract law does not accommodate all blood relationships equally, excluding no particular class of persons in a blood relationship, there is no Equal Protection Clause ‘violation.’

The state is at liberty to exclude persons from entering into a marriage contract provided the exclusion is applied to everyone equally, is pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, and is predicated on objective facts and evidence, such as prohibiting fathers from marrying daughters, siblings marrying, or plural marriage.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into a marriage contract absent any changes to that contract law, that is not true for fathers marrying their adult sons. Moreover, laws prohibiting same-sex couples are un-Constitutional because they seek to disadvantage homosexuals only, lack a legitimate legislative end, and are devoid of facts and evidence in support of the prohibition.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

So you would agree to "civil marriage" in between father and his adult son, Or mother with her adult daughter. You said it, equal protection.

Obviously ignorance of the Constitution and its case law is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Marriage as contract law is not written to accommodate persons related to each other by blood, just as an adult father and his adult daughter may not marry. And because marriage as contract law does not accommodate all blood relationships equally, excluding no particular class of persons in a blood relationship, there is no Equal Protection Clause ‘violation.’

The state is at liberty to exclude persons from entering into a marriage contract provided the exclusion is applied to everyone equally, is pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, and is predicated on objective facts and evidence, such as prohibiting fathers from marrying daughters, siblings marrying, or plural marriage.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into a marriage contract absent any changes to that contract law, that is not true for fathers marrying their adult sons. Moreover, laws prohibiting same-sex couples are un-Constitutional because they seek to disadvantage homosexuals only, lack a legitimate legislative end, and are devoid of facts and evidence in support of the prohibition.

First of all, my response was to "gay marriage" argument. Where have I said anything about father marrying daughter? I clearly said father/adult son and mother /adult daughter. Also, I haven't said they have to be gay, nor that they will have sexual relationship. And last, there is nothing in Constitution that define marriage, so if you're calling up on The Constitution or law that refers to it, you better cite the law or provide link to it.

 

[Flopper]

Oh what an idiot you seem to be. But let me try. Since the dawn of time males and females have committed to each other in order to bring children into the world and raise them in a committed, secure, and loving relationship, to teach them right from wrong, to give them stability and purpose in life.

group marriage cannot produce stable well adjusted children, there are just too many contradictions to it, too many complexities.

We see the same problems in one parent families, moms raising kids without fathers or husbands. society suffers when traditional families are not present.

If you disagree with that, fine. I am done with you and you foolish views of life and just about every thing else.

you are one stupid post from my ignore list.

Just what I expected from your childlike responses......pablum

The same arguments have been used against interracial marriages and gay marriage......We know the children will be harmed
With no supporting data

The key to a family is love and a safe stable environment

Many traditional families cannot provide that. Yet the religious right refuses to allow non-traditional families to try.......because they "know"

children from gay and interracial marriages do have more problems in life. that is a known fact. throw in 5 mothers and who knows what these kids will become.

But do children from gay and interracial relationships, loveless marriages, or single parents raising kids without a spouse have more problems in life than children from gay and interracial marriages? That is the choice that these families face.

 

[Flopper]

So you would agree to "civil marriage" in between father and his adult son, Or mother with her adult daughter. You said it, equal protection.

Obviously ignorance of the Constitution and its case law is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Marriage as contract law is not written to accommodate persons related to each other by blood, just as an adult father and his adult daughter may not marry. And because marriage as contract law does not accommodate all blood relationships equally, excluding no particular class of persons in a blood relationship, there is no Equal Protection Clause ‘violation.’

The state is at liberty to exclude persons from entering into a marriage contract provided the exclusion is applied to everyone equally, is pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, and is predicated on objective facts and evidence, such as prohibiting fathers from marrying daughters, siblings marrying, or plural marriage.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into a marriage contract absent any changes to that contract law, that is not true for fathers marrying their adult sons. Moreover, laws prohibiting same-sex couples are un-Constitutional because they seek to disadvantage homosexuals only, lack a legitimate legislative end, and are devoid of facts and evidence in support of the prohibition.

First of all, my response was to "gay marriage" argument. Where have I said anything about father marrying daughter? I clearly said father/adult son and mother /adult daughter. Also, I haven't said they have to be gay, nor that they will have sexual relationship. And last, there is nothing in Constitution that define marriage, so if you're calling up on The Constitution or law that refers to it, you better cite the law or provide link to it.

There is nothing in this article about marriage, gay marriage or irrational marriage. This is about a women with kids who chose to live with her boyfriend and ex-husband. All the rest is figments of the imagination of posters.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

if it was not illegal to own a tank, a bazooka, a howitzer, or an atomic bomb some people would own them. people would be sliding down that slippery slope and buying such weapons. Laws are made to protect society from such things.

It's not laws that prevent criminals from owning nukes and tanks; it's the sheer fucking COST and inability to conceal PRODUCTION.

 

[mal]

Gay marriage does absolutely nothing to open the door for polygamy. Gay marriage does not involve marrying multiple partners.

you are wrong. the argument for gay marriage is that these people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The exact same argument WILL be made for bigamy and polygamy. They will have precedent on their side in court.

Gay marriage is step 1 towards the destruction of our society.

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

2 Sisters is just as "Equal"... Fact.

And could you cite the SCOTUS making your argument?



peace...

 

[Ame®icano]

Obviously ignorance of the Constitution and its case law is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Marriage as contract law is not written to accommodate persons related to each other by blood, just as an adult father and his adult daughter may not marry. And because marriage as contract law does not accommodate all blood relationships equally, excluding no particular class of persons in a blood relationship, there is no Equal Protection Clause ‘violation.’

The state is at liberty to exclude persons from entering into a marriage contract provided the exclusion is applied to everyone equally, is pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, and is predicated on objective facts and evidence, such as prohibiting fathers from marrying daughters, siblings marrying, or plural marriage.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into a marriage contract absent any changes to that contract law, that is not true for fathers marrying their adult sons. Moreover, laws prohibiting same-sex couples are un-Constitutional because they seek to disadvantage homosexuals only, lack a legitimate legislative end, and are devoid of facts and evidence in support of the prohibition.

First of all, my response was to "gay marriage" argument. Where have I said anything about father marrying daughter? I clearly said father/adult son and mother /adult daughter. Also, I haven't said they have to be gay, nor that they will have sexual relationship. And last, there is nothing in Constitution that define marriage, so if you're calling up on The Constitution or law that refers to it, you better cite the law or provide link to it.

There is nothing in this article about marriage, gay marriage or irrational marriage. This is about a women with kids who chose to live with her boyfriend and ex-husband. All the rest is figments of the imagination of posters.

There is a question in OP: "Who are you to Judge and tell them they can't be Married?" That's what started the conversation.

Where did you see me commenting or quoting OP article? You haven't, since I was only replying to other people posts.

 

[Ame®icano]

you are wrong. the argument for gay marriage is that these people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The exact same argument WILL be made for bigamy and polygamy. They will have precedent on their side in court.

Gay marriage is step 1 towards the destruction of our society.

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

2 Sisters is just as "Equal"... Fact.

And could you cite the SCOTUS making your argument?



peace...

You have better chance logging into ACA website than getting answer on that.

 

[Noomi]

If they all marry each other, who makes the decisions when something happens to one of them?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you are wrong. the argument for gay marriage is that these people are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The exact same argument WILL be made for bigamy and polygamy. They will have precedent on their side in court.

Gay marriage is step 1 towards the destruction of our society.

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

2 Sisters is just as "Equal"... Fact.

And could you cite the SCOTUS making your argument?



peace...

And you’re still just as ignorant of marriage law. Fact.

And one need only cite your posts to make the argument.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not the argument. The argument for same sex marriage is an equal protection argument.

The Constitution requires that laws apply equally to all situations that are the same, or sufficiently similar. Recognizing a civil marriage that 2 people can enter into but only if one is man and one is a woman violates equal protection because a marriage of two men or two women is a sufficiently similar situation and thus deserves the same civil recognition.

2 Sisters is just as "Equal"... Fact.

And could you cite the SCOTUS making your argument?



peace...

And you’re still just as ignorant of marriage law. Fact.

And one need only cite your posts to make the argument.

So, when asked to cite SCOTUS and The Constitution, you backed down.

OK, cite the marriage law that support your argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If they all marry each other, who makes the decisions when something happens to one of them?

Which explains why three or more people can’t ‘marry’ one another.

In fact, there isn’t even any ‘bigotry’ or ‘discrimination,’ as there is no law to accommodate plural marriage; consequently, there is no equal protection ‘violation’ when there is no law to disallow persons from accessing.

 

[rightwinger]

If they all marry each other, who makes the decisions when something happens to one of them?

Rock, paper, scissors

 

[Noomi]

If they all marry each other, who makes the decisions when something happens to one of them?

Rock, paper, scissors

I imagine that would cause a lot of fights...