Uh Oh

[ConHog]

I'm not debating the legalities with either of you. This is kinda one of those things that either you think is ok, not ok, or should be ok only because it would be wrong not do. Me, just don't want no part of it. I'm of the belief that kids are best with a mother and a father - not 2 fathers, not 2 mothers, not 1 father and 4 mothers. We all have our opinions, and I'm just of the opinion that these behaviors are the beginning of letting society go further and further down the shithole. If you guys, and others, think there is no reason to prevent this stuff in society, I sure won't be out there with a taser trying to stop you, but I sure as hell won't be one of those trying to push for it and accept it and demand they have rights.

So, you're saying it's okay to take away rights when YOU think it's best for society Jim. Can't you see that? What happens when someone decides telling Jim to shut up is what is best for society and you're looking for the rest of us to insist that you have your rights?

Either we ALL have rights, or none of us do.

[jimnyc]

I've never seen what exactly is so wrong with Polygamy, i mean, if three consenting adults want to marry, thats considered illegal, but, say for example, a married man cheats on his wife with a mistress, that is legal? Why should the one that involves lying, hurt, and oath breaking be fine, while the other that is a foundation build on trust and love be deemed unacceptable?

Btw, while cheating on your spouse is legal, it can still have ramifications. You can lose support and a lot more in divorce proceedings and many pre-nups protect against cheating as well. And I also don't think polygamy is built on trust and love. Many say the same about homosexuals. Many of them see both of them as a path to their perversions. If someone was TRULY in it for trust and love, they would do so with one partner - or they're not in love.

[OCA]

Btw, while cheating on your spouse is legal, it can still have ramifications. You can lose support and a lot more in divorce proceedings and many pre-nups protect against cheating as well. And I also don't think polygamy is built on trust and love. Many say the same about homosexuals. Many of them see both of them as a path to their perversions. If someone was TRULY in it for trust and love, they would do so with one partner - or they're not in love.

Jimbo at least with queers its never ever been about love or marriage as i've stated time and again, here is some ironclad proof:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_163721.html

[DragonStryk72]

Btw, while cheating on your spouse is legal, it can still have ramifications. You can lose support and a lot more in divorce proceedings and many pre-nups protect against cheating as well. And I also don't think polygamy is built on trust and love. Many say the same about homosexuals. Many of them see both of them as a path to their perversions. If someone was TRULY in it for trust and love, they would do so with one partner - or they're not in love.

OR, they have a different definition of love than you do, Jim. This is where a lot of hypocrisy does jump up, cause see if I've got this straight: You love and trust your kid, so that means you don't love and trust your wife? Or do you not love your kids, cause your wife got there first? If you were married previously, doesn't that mean that by the definition, you can't love or trust whichever woman you end up with next? How much love and trust can you give people before you run out? Is there a ration in effect?

Okay, now, I don't even vaguely pretend to be someone who would go for polygamy, or even polyamory. I've done the threesome thing before, and it's just not all it's cracked up to be. I will focus to focus on mastering one woman, but I don't see why everyone has to follow that lead. You claim morality, Jim, but even the bible has polygamy, by more than one servant of God.

[gabosaurus]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

[fj1200]

Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?

Can you show where the right to straight marriage is codified in the Constitution?

[ConHog]

Can you show where the right to straight marriage is codified in the Constitution?

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

[OCA]

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

Its up to the states dumbass.

Did you and Juanita go get blood tests when you married her? Sure you did, a GOVERNMENT requirement.

When they pronounce you man and wife they say " by the power vested in me by God and the great state of (whatever)".......marriage sure is a government function dumbfuck, state givernment.

God I swear! You are dumber than a box of bricks.

[Nell's Room]

Its up to the states dumbass.

What right do the people in a State have to decide who can and cannot marry?

[jimnyc]

Sure.

Marriage is a religious establishment , not a government establishment. Telling consenting adults they can't marry is a violation of their first amendment rights.

Yes, that includes homosexuals, and bigamists. It does not include children though because they legally can not consent.

/thread

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

[OCA]

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

[fj1200]

I don't believe so myself, as Loving had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or marriages that were not recognized. You can't unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs and claim they are covered.

Interracial marriage was the question before the court so of course they didn't mention gay marriage. I can unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs if the principle is the same. I'll look more if Loving has been used specifically But Olson and Boies argued the Prop 8 case in CA:

To commemorate the 44th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's decision that that struck down laws that forbade African Americans and whites from marrying, AFER's co-counsel in the Prop. 8 case, Ted Olson and David Boies, recorded a special message. They talk about how the Loving case set an important precedent for the current fight for marriage equality.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ols...#ixzz1wwj4IN4k

Unfortunately it's in video form.

Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

No, you're the one claiming some sort of straight marriage "right" where one is clearly absent. A ban certainly can violate COTUS if someone is denied Equal Protection. You're trying to have it both ways.

[ConHog]

Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone else but you'll sure as hell go to the pokey if you don't pay your taxes for a few years.

Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)

[jimnyc]

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)

Where is this 1st amendment violation occurring? What religion is being told what they call marriage is illegal?

[OCA]

Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.

No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.