Gay Marriage moving towards federal law

[Newby]

Because there is no right for group marriage in the US.

There is however a restriction on people to marry the ONE person they love.

You people are on the wrong side of histroy as always.

So, if they would then decide to form a group to get their rights, just like the gays did, you would be all for it then?

No because every where the group marriages have exsisted they end up abusing children sexually.

Its why its illegal fool

Oh, so now all polygamists are child molestors?? Didn't they say the same thing about gays and gay marriages?? Hmmm....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, you're for any adult polygamist relatiotionship? 10 people? 20 people? Is there any limit?

do you always go for the strawman instead of discussing real issues?

do you appreciate it when people talk about how christians want to take over secular schools and force us to live in a theocracy?

or is that exaggerating the circumstances as regards the norm?

It's a legitimate question Jillie, and you know it. Where do you draw the line and why?

Because she just got called on her bullshit. She knows all too well that society has the right to determine that which it deems acceptable and conversely, unacceptable.

This is all about the radical gay agenda... PERIOD.

 

[rightwinger]

No, it's not discrimination. I take it that you are a woman, as a woman you have the right to marry a man, just the same as any other woman in this country. Any man in this country has the right to marry a woman, it's the same for every man living here. The fact that you do not WANT to do so, does not make it discrimination. I am even for civil marriage for same sex couples, but I do not see it as a discrimination issue at all.

Are you still making that same nonsensical argument?

What you don't have is the right to marry the person you love...Who is the government to tell you who you are allowed to love?

So, everyone should have the 'right' to marry whomever/whatever/however many they love and have legal protection in certain areas of the law because of that? Really?

If they are consenting adults....yes

 

[rightwinger]

So, everyone should have the 'right' to marry whomever/whatever/however many they love and have legal protection in certain areas of the law because of that? Really?

yes... so long as we're talking about consent adults.

So, you're for any adult polygamist relatiotionship? 10 people? 20 people? Is there any limit?

If 10 people want to be married, how does that hurt anyone else? As long as they are consenting adults.....what business is it of yours or the government?

10 people are legally allowed to live together, have children together and share their finances.

It is only illegal if they are married

 

[Annie]

Seems states are in chaos on the issue, some say marry gays, while other say stick a fork in it, it is done. Next session look for gay marriage to be taken away from the states and made federal law.

Is Same Sex Marriage Next?
In an interview with The Advocate, President Obama sounds like he might soon publicly support same sex marriage.

Said Obama: "I'm wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I've wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples."

"And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I'm continually asking myself this question and I do think that -- I will make this observation -- that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don't understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there's greater resistance."

Is Same Sex Marriage Next?

Actually it was a press conference, not an interview with the Advocate. He's being 'all things' to all. That's what 'evolving' implies. Right now is not the time to go pro-gay marriage, fund raisers and voting coming up. Now after? Yeah, if he won in 2012, I'd say you are right. Don't you love it?

Hawaii-bound, Obama signals his opposition to gay marriage 'evolving' | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

 

[Barb]

It'd be about time. Equal rights, equal protection under the law, and not only for gay couples, but equal recognition under the the establishment law for churches and clergy who would willingly perform the ceremony for gay couples if the state would issue the license.

 

[WillowTree]

yes... so long as we're talking about consent adults.

So, you're for any adult polygamist relatiotionship? 10 people? 20 people? Is there any limit?

If 10 people want to be married, how does that hurt anyone else? As long as they are consenting adults.....what business is it of yours or the government?

10 people are legally allowed to live together, have children together and share their finances.

It is only illegal if they are married

The only drawback I see is that ten people fucking around all day can produce lots of children they can't feed and clothe.. now what?

 

[Jarhead]

yes... so long as we're talking about consent adults.

So, you're for any adult polygamist relatiotionship? 10 people? 20 people? Is there any limit?

If 10 people want to be married, how does that hurt anyone else? As long as they are consenting adults.....what business is it of yours or the government?

10 people are legally allowed to live together, have children together and share their finances.

It is only illegal if they are married

Sounds good to me. Im in. Where can I find one of these groups?

 

[Barb]

You have the right to be with whomever you want in whatever type of kooky relationship you want.... just as anyone else does

Government has no business in the realm of marriage... and should only be interested in the equal treatment of persons and legally recognized domiciles.... not forcing acceptance or liking or whatever else....

Great, thanks for the Libertarian stance, but how about we deal in realities? Legal, civil marriage is a government institution that is denied gay and lesbian couples. That is a FACT, a reality. Denying gays and lesbians equal access to that legal, civil marriage is discrimination. That means we DO NOT have the same legal right to that civil marriage that you do. That isn't equal rights.

No... it is not and should not be any government institution...

Having it in the hands of government forces acceptance or liking or whatever else you wish to call it... which is in opposition of freedom... something I will not stand for

It is not discrimination when you can freely be with or not be with whomever you choose... you just wish to advance an agenda by legislation and expansion of government... you just want to feel justified for your choice... sorry... government is not there for your feelings and neither is the rest of the citizenry...

Oh for Christ sake, Dave. You're really begging the question here, and you're smart enough to know better. There are legal rights that come with marriage that is recognized at the state and federal level, rights that don't have anything to do with "feelings," yours or anyone else's, but with equal protection under existing law. Your statement that the law should be out of ALL marriage, and the assbackwards connection that state recognition of the legality of same gendered marriages would be an extension of intrusions instead of the removal of intrusion is truly rhetorical contortion.

 

[Barb]

Glad to hear you are pro gay marriage

No.. I am not... but nice try... try a little reading comprehension

I am pro equal treatment by government in matters that government should be truly involved in... taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc....

No your an idiot who tries to frame a losing argument in such convoluted terms you confuse yourself.

People marrying whom ever they choose is government getting OUT of peoples way you complete brain twisted fool

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Truthmatters again.

 

[Truthmatters]

So, if they would then decide to form a group to get their rights, just like the gays did, you would be all for it then?

No because every where the group marriages have exsisted they end up abusing children sexually.

Its why its illegal fool

Oh, so now all polygamists are child molestors?? Didn't they say the same thing about gays and gay marriages?? Hmmm....

Have you ever studied polygamy you fool?

Why do you think its illegal then?

 

[Newby]

No because every where the group marriages have exsisted they end up abusing children sexually.

Its why its illegal fool

Oh, so now all polygamists are child molestors?? Didn't they say the same thing about gays and gay marriages?? Hmmm....

Have you ever studied polygamy you fool?

Why do you think its illegal then?

Seriously? Okay.

 

[Truthmatters]

Child Abuse and Polygamy

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Seems states are in chaos on the issue, some say marry gays, while other say stick a fork in it, it is done. Next session look for gay marriage to be taken away from the states and made federal law.

When I got married to my now ex-wife you know what fumed me? The fact we had to pay the government to get married through a marriage license. We have to have permission from the government to get married and pay them for that permission? What a crock of shit.

Hey.....business-is-business, and we are a capitalistic-country.

What you signed was (for-all-intents-and-purposes) a contract; needed for property-distribution, post-marriage.

How's that, for The State's "blessing", regarding nuptials?!!

(....While "conservatives" regard the whole trip as Holy Matrimony. )​

 

[Jarhead]

How is this a federal issue?

Oh, that's right.... EVERYTHING is a federal isue with the Statists.

It is a federal issue becuase a group of people who are American citizens are not afforded equal rights.

I am a happily married heterosexual conservative.

It is not right that my neighbor is not afforded the same rights I am. To me? It is not American.

I respect those that say that the word "marriage" has a certain traditional meaning to them.

But the time has come for them to let go of that and look at the bigger picture.

 

[DiamondDave]

Great, thanks for the Libertarian stance, but how about we deal in realities? Legal, civil marriage is a government institution that is denied gay and lesbian couples. That is a FACT, a reality. Denying gays and lesbians equal access to that legal, civil marriage is discrimination. That means we DO NOT have the same legal right to that civil marriage that you do. That isn't equal rights.

No... it is not and should not be any government institution...

Having it in the hands of government forces acceptance or liking or whatever else you wish to call it... which is in opposition of freedom... something I will not stand for

It is not discrimination when you can freely be with or not be with whomever you choose... you just wish to advance an agenda by legislation and expansion of government... you just want to feel justified for your choice... sorry... government is not there for your feelings and neither is the rest of the citizenry...

Oh for Christ sake, Dave. You're really begging the question here, and you're smart enough to know better. There are legal rights that come with marriage that is recognized at the state and federal level, rights that don't have anything to do with "feelings," yours or anyone else's, but with equal protection under existing law. Your statement that the law should be out of ALL marriage, and the assbackwards connection that state recognition of the legality of same gendered marriages would be an extension of intrusions instead of the removal of intrusion is truly rhetorical contortion.

For Fuck's sake, Barb

You can have equal treatment in government matters under law that does not involve marriage... leaving marriage out of government and in the hands of the religious or non-religious based institutions... keeping it OUT of government keeps government from forcibly making a citizen accept or tolerate or like or whatever, the situation of the 'marriage'....

Just because you wish to be labeled by government as a dog and get a dog license, you do not get afforded that.. even if you wish to be recognized as a dog... even if you wish others would recognize you as a dog...
Or if you wish to be called a man, because you FEEL you are one even though you have the double X chromosome... government should not tell you that you cannot walk around dressed as one, acting as one, or being with a woman like other men do.... because when government DEEMS you as such thru addition to the definition, government is then forcing others to accept you as such, treat you as such, or whatever... THAT is wrong and infringing on the freedoms of others.. while you have a right to act in that manner, you do not have the right to force others to accept or condone or approve of your actions...

 

[Barb]

Exactly.. thank you.

Because there is no right for group marriage in the US.

There is however a restriction on people to marry the ONE person they love.

You people are on the wrong side of histroy as always.

So, if they would then decide to form a group to get their rights, just like the gays did, you would be all for it then?

I would. Why the fuck not?
We wouldn't have the situation we do where some religious institutions allow multiple wives and only one of them (AND their seven or so children) being the responsibility of the husband. In those communities, the seconds, thirds, et cetera all traipse down to the welfare, HEAP, and food stamp offices to collect, ADDING to the husband's (and church / community) wealth off the taxpayer dime. If all of those marriages were recognized under state and federal law, then the freebies would be over, and the men would only be able to have the wives and subsequent children they could support. Bet a whole lot of church canon would change under such a system.

 

[rikules]

Seems states are in chaos on the issue, some say marry gays, while other say stick a fork in it, it is done. Next session look for gay marriage to be taken away from the states and made federal law.

Not with a Republican controlled House.

Gay marriage shouldn't be federal or state law or any kind of law at all because the government shouldn't be deciding who can or can't get married. If a church wants to marry gays then let them marry gays. If a church of another faith doesn't want to, then they don't. Why is this the government's decision at all?

When I got married to my now ex-wife you know what fumed me? The fact we had to pay the government to get married through a marriage license. We have to have permission from the government to get married and pay them for that permission? What a crock of shit.

The government needs to step aside altogether. No more deciding who can get married and no more special tax breaks and credits for married people. The union should be recognized strictly for legal purposes and nothing more.

"When I got married to my now ex-wife you know what fumed me? The fact we had to pay the government to get married through a marriage license. We have to have permission from the government to get married and pay them for that permission? What a crock of shit."


the government provides/ensure benefits for married people.

without a proper marriage license ANYONE could CLAIM to be married and receive benefits they might NOT actually be entitled to...?


I, personally , OPPOSE special rights for married people.
I don't think married people should get tax breaks, for example...

a married guy with 4 kids making $70k per year should pay the SAME TAXES as a single person making the same amount...

otherwise...it's socialism~

why should single people be punished just because some guy wants to get married?

 

[Ravi]

See... I am the one with the idea that supports true equal treatment and government non-intervention on matters that do not involved governmental operations.... and the GM supporters still don't like it... why?? simple... because it is not really about equal treatment.. it is about recognition, acceptance, advancing an agenda, and stickittothemanitis... it is about the government being used as a tool forcing those things

If you were really for equal treatment or government minding their own business you would have had a fit when the federal government took it upon themselves to define marriage.

 

[Newby]

Child Abuse and Polygamy

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse