Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Votto]

Polygamy should be legal

No, a secular state should not approve or disapprove of a sexual union period.

How bizarre is that?

 

[Silhouette]

The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..
The only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.

Please cite in the US Constitution where sexual kinks/behaviors have enumerated protections? I've scoured that document and cannot find even a single word nor allusion to any such protections ANYWHERE.

If you are going to cite court opinions as your basis for claiming protections, be aware that courts cannot add fundamentally new language to the US Constitution. Only Congress (Legislature) can do that.

 

[Votto]

Civil unions should be available to anyone capable of consent (no kids or animals) and can include any number of either sex.

So fathers can marry adult daughters, adult grandsons can marry grandfathers, adult brothers can marry adult sisters....

Only if they are gay.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Marriage is a contract. Consenting adults enter contracts every single day. Those contracts can be between two parties or multiple parties, as long as the parties have the legal capacity to enter a contract.

The SCOTUS fucked up by not expanding the Contract Clause as "Privileges and Immunities" under the 14th Amendment.

That's my only complaint with the Obergefell decision.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a contract. Consenting adults enter contracts every single day. Those contracts can be between two parties or multiple parties, as long as the parties have the legal capacity to enter a contract.

The SCOTUS fucked up by not expanding the Contract Clause as "Privileges and Immunities" under the 14th Amendment.

That's my only complaint with the Obergefell decision.

Please read this thread's OP The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer and then expound upon what you just said.

But be aware that SCOTUS cannot expand/add language to the US Constitution. Only Congress can do that. Does that clear up your confusion as to why SCOTUS didn't do that?

 

[TheDude]

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

While the narrative suggests marriage is about love and love only, the INTENT of marriage was in accord with universal law for purposes of reproduction and survival It's was also intended to support stability, economics and nation building. Gay marriage is a contradiction, and it's a slap in the face to tradition, normalcy and common sense.

The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..
The only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.

Can we conclude close relatives should marry too? How come it's not unconstitutional for our govt. to tell them to fuck off? What arguments supporting gay marriage don't apply to marriage between close relatives?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well the problem is the government is part of the marriage contract.

No it is not. If that is true, government is a part of EVERY contract.

 

[Silhouette]

Can we conclude close relatives should marry too? How come it's not unconstitutional for our govt. to tell them to fuck off? What arguments supporting gay marriage don't apply to marriage between close relatives?

Or marriages of the polyamorous (polygamist) kink? The answer is "none". There can be no argument arbitrarily favoring one minority sex kink over another. Nor banning adult fathers from marrying adult sons. It's "their kink"..... Once the majority is taken out of deciding about social behaviors, one minority is as potent as another in telling the majority to fuck off.

 

[g5000]

Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.

Well the problem is the government is part of the marriage contract. So like welfare benefits, marrieds have to abide by certain rules they set in order to get benefits. That ability to set rules was ripped away in Obegefell 2015. So now the subdominant contract parties (marrieds) are ripping off the states' share of the contract which used to be "pay for father/mother homes for children's best development".

the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.

I agree.

We need to take away the child tax credit and the other government gifts given to marriages and breeding that are subsidized with higher tax rates on everyone.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's simple:

Marriage is a contract.

Article I, section 10, clause 1.:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It's right there. Plain as day.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I agree.

We need to take away the child tax credit and the other government gifts given to marriages and breeding.

Why? It's not discriminatory and the government has an interest in incentivising population replenishment.

 

[Silhouette]

It's simple:

Marriage is a contract....Article I, section 10, clause 1.:.....No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It's right there. Plain as day.

It says "...or Law imparing the Obligation of Contracts". The state is involved in a contract it extends benefits for. States also contract with private work companies to build roads and on and on. They pay an agreed amount $ and the hired parties perform to their duties. It's the same with marriage. The states paid for mothers & fathers to be in homes for the best shot for kids. "Gay marriage" ripped that benefit away, promising instead to use the contract to banish kids involved for life from either a mother or father.

 

[mdk]

Polygamy should be legal

Indeed, according to the judicially-legislated Obefgell 2015 & the core intent of the 14th Amendment's blind-equality it already is "legal".

Then why did the Brown Family sue if polygamy is already legal? The Supreme Court refused to hear their case last January. They argued they should be allowed to marry based on their religious freedom and the right to privacy. Why don't you support their religious freedom? Or do religious freedoms only apply if you're a baker? lol

 

[Harryhands]

The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..
The only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.

Please cite in the US Constitution where sexual kinks/behaviors have enumerated protections? I've scoured that document and cannot find even a single word nor allusion to any such protections ANYWHERE.

If you are going to cite court opinions as your basis for claiming protections, be aware that courts cannot add fundamentally new language to the US Constitution. Only Congress (Legislature) can do that.

Using your example the choice to be kinky is as protected as the choice to be Catholic. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that certain kinds of choices are protected.

The laws that protect religious persons from the discrimination are the same as those that protect race, disability, age, military status, and sexual orientation, none of which is in the Constitution but all of which are constitutional. And so ends that argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Then why did the Brown Family sue if polygamy is already legal? The Supreme Court refused to hear their case last January. They argued they should be allowed to marry based on their religious freedom and the right to privacy. Why don't you support their religious freedom? Or do religious freedoms only apply if you're a baker? lol

Polyamory isn't based in religion. I know plenty of men who are atheists who would like more than one woman in their bed "legally". Since this is their kink and if the women consent, how is it not already legal? Because the majority objects to this particular sex kink but is OK with men using each other's lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina?

 

[Harryhands]

Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.

Well the problem is the government is part of the marriage contract. So like welfare benefits, marrieds have to abide by certain rules they set in order to get benefits. That ability to set rules was ripped away in Obegefell 2015. So now the subdominant contract parties (marrieds) are ripping off the states' share of the contract which used to be "pay for father/mother homes for children's best development".

the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.

Can we all try living in the real world, please, and deal with what is? Marriage is state-approved contract between two competent adults free to make said contractual obligation. It's not three, or five, or 82, it's two. If we as a society decide to allow more than two, fine and dandy but for now it is two and the state signs off on the deal because the contract has very wide implications nearly all of which involve the state and the status of the spouses.

 

[Harryhands]

Then why did the Brown Family sue if polygamy is already legal? The Supreme Court refused to hear their case last January. They argued they should be allowed to marry based on their religious freedom and the right to privacy. Why don't you support their religious freedom? Or do religious freedoms only apply if you're a baker? lol

Polyamory isn't based in religion. I know plenty of men who are atheists who would like more than one woman in their bed "legally". Since this is their kink and if the women consent, how is it not already legal? Because the majority objects to this particular sex kink but is OK with men using each other's lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina?

The anus is not an artificial vagina. It's the third of three holes men like to stick their dicks in. If men had a vagina gay men would fuck that as well.

When a straight woman takes it up the ass neither she nor the man are thinking of it as an artificial vagina.

And men can take 100 women into their bed legally. All they'd be breaking is the bed and the fire code.

 

[TNHarley]

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

While the narrative suggests marriage is about love and love only, the INTENT of marriage was in accord with universal law for purposes of reproduction and survival It's was also intended to support stability, economics and nation building. Gay marriage is a contradiction, and it's a slap in the face to tradition, normalcy and common sense.

The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..
The only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.

Can we conclude close relatives should marry too? How come it's not unconstitutional for our govt. to tell them to fuck off? What arguments supporting gay marriage don't apply to marriage between close relatives?

relatives cause deformed offspring. Not sure that is an apple to apple comparison..

 

[mdk]

Then why did the Brown Family sue if polygamy is already legal? The Supreme Court refused to hear their case last January. They argued they should be allowed to marry based on their religious freedom and the right to privacy. Why don't you support their religious freedom? Or do religious freedoms only apply if you're a baker? lol

Polyamory isn't based in religion. I know plenty of men who are atheists who would like more than one woman in their bed "legally". Since this is their kink and if the women consent, how is it not already legal? Because the majority objects to this particular sex kink but is OK with men using each other's lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina?

Polygamy is based in religion if you're a fundamentalist Mormon or Muslim. You can have as many women in your bed legally right now if you so wish. The goverment doesn't stop consenting adults from having threesomes, foursomes, or whatever.

 

[TheDude]

I agree.

We need to take away the child tax credit and the other government gifts given to marriages and breeding.

Why? It's not discriminatory and the government has an interest in incentivising population replenishment.

Obviously, but somehow the obvious runs well above some heads. A govt. should also take interest in sound morals & stability.

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

While the narrative suggests marriage is about love and love only, the INTENT of marriage was in accord with universal law for purposes of reproduction and survival It's was also intended to support stability, economics and nation building. Gay marriage is a contradiction, and it's a slap in the face to tradition, normalcy and common sense.

The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..
The only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.

Can we conclude close relatives should marry too? How come it's not unconstitutional for our govt. to tell them to fuck off? What arguments supporting gay marriage don't apply to marriage between close relatives?

relatives cause deformed offspring. Not sure that is an apple to apple comparison..

According to the liberal narrative, marriage and reproduction are mutually exclusive. What happened to that rhetoric? Ah that's right, it's just a BS tool to justify gay marriage.

But I'll play. Are you prepared to prevent an unrelated couple genetic disorders from marrying? If not, how did you come to the conclusion that logic doesn't apply to close relatives?