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

[Skylar]

Cuz we all know that entering into a contract for illegal purposes (incest is illegal in all fifty states) is, in itself illegal.

OK, good point. So follow the logic here:

1. If it's true that children cannot be involved in a contract with adults that harms them (illegal: see Infancy Doctrine The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer), and,

That's not the Infancy Doctrine. The 'Infancy Doctrine' is entertainment law about child actors and the employment contracts that the child themselves enter into. Children aren't married to their parents, killing your entire argument.

There's no 'constitutional crisis'. Just your typical pseudo-legal nonsense and obvious confusion about basic legal concepts.

2. Children are implicitly are involved in marriage which anticipates their arrival as sharers (divorce handling their rights to the contract mother/father separately from the adult's whims or wishes) and

Nope. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Says the USSC.

3. People cannot enter into a contract for illegal purposes, and

There's nothing illegal about same sex marriage. Says who? Says the USSC that has found the right to marry extends to same sex couples as well.

A right is not a crime.

4. Gay marriage (contract) harms children by psychologically depriving them of either a mother or father for life, then

Nope. The courts have found that denying same sex couples harms their children. Thus, by your own logic.....banning same sex marriage harms children and is thus illegal.

You literally have to ignore yourself to hold your position.

5. Gay marriage contracts are illegal and it is illegal to enter into them since they harm children and deprive the state and the children in that state of the benefits they pay in order to secure both necessary mother and necessary father to the children anticipated/implicitly involved.

Nope.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage doesn't deny anything to anyone. If a gay couple has kids and marry- the only thing that changes is that the kids have more legal protections- and suffer less harm.

And you hate that. You always advocate for what will cause harm for the children of gay couples.

So according to you, possessing a contract which banishes any children implicitly involved from either a mother or in your case ,a father for life, is "not harming anyone".

According to the Supreme Court, denying same sex marriage harms children.

"Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Nor is any marriage predicated upon children or the ability to have them.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Killing your argument yet again. Try again. This time while not ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court is your 'legal' argument.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.

Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.

 

[Skylar]

Inspired here: Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry.

Can you show me where the Obergefell ruling says this? Or are you quoting yourself as the Supreme Court again?

Remember, you citing yourself as the law has nothing to do with the law.

Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. With the new contract saying "no mother or father for life, banishment, for any child involved" the state no longer gets its traditional share of that contract.

Not one state requires married couples to have children. Killing your entire argument. Nor can any marriage be predicated on procreation or the ability to have kids, per the Supreme Court.

Killing your entire argument again.

It was an illegal contract revision, Obergefell.

Yawning.....no it wasn't. But its cute that you think the Supreme Court's ruling is void because you say so.

Um, how's that working out for you?

 

[JoeB131]

Not legally. Why can't polygamists get legally married Joe? Answer the question.

Because they are already married to someone else, legally.

It's not a question of caring. It's a question of precedent and inclusion in the 14th Amendment.

I'm not asking if you care if polygamists can legally marry. I'm asking if you BELIEVE, DEDUCE, SURMISE OR THINK that polygamists can already legally marry based on the fact that other minority sex kinks "legally" can?

Well, let them make an argument in front of the 9 wise men and women in Washington, and we'll find out.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.

Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.

In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.

They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.

 

[Syriusly]

Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities.

Then we need to give a psych test to every married couple and take kids away from the crazy ones. Given that 18% of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness, you are going to be reassigning a lot of kids.

Or you can mind your own fucking business. If you don't like the gay stuff, don't do the gay stuff. Just because you are unhappy doesn't mean you have to inflict your unhappiness on others.

. However there is a contract in "gay marriage" that explicitly expresses that it will (not may, but will) deprive any children involved for life of either a mother or father...

And as always you are just lying. There is no such contract. There are marriage contracts- between two people- not any imaginary future people.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, I don't have any opinion on Polygamy one way or the other. I think if some fool wants to marry two women, that's perfectly fine. Kids aren't going to care.

.

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

LOL- since you have been making the lie that Obergfefell legalized polygamy for a couple years now- no one should be surprised you are trying to do it again.

Polygamy is illegal.

If you have a problem with that- you can do what gay couples and mixed race couples did- you can go to court to marry your husband and sister wife legally.

 

[Skylar]

Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities.

Then we need to give a psych test to every married couple and take kids away from the crazy ones. Given that 18% of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness, you are going to be reassigning a lot of kids.

Or you can mind your own fucking business. If you don't like the gay stuff, don't do the gay stuff. Just because you are unhappy doesn't mean you have to inflict your unhappiness on others.

. However there is a contract in "gay marriage" that explicitly expresses that it will (not may, but will) deprive any children involved for life of either a mother or father...

And as always you are just lying. There is no such contract. There are marriage contracts- between two people- not any imaginary future people.

Exactly. Two people get married the contract is between them. Not non-existent children and their parents.

Which makes all the babble about 'Infancy Doctrine' all the more absurd. As children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. They never have been.

 

[Syriusly]

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

wouldn't know, has anyone made a legal argument about Polygamy that addresses those issues?

Seems to me that you have a pretty argument against polygamy. you can't marry someone if you are already married to someone else.

You know that if some minority sex kinks get special protections ALL of them do. .

First Silly wants to talk about marriage- now she wants to talk about sex kinks. She is all over the place.

Her sexual kinks are none of our business- and despite the efforts of the Christian Right- now it is legally not the governments business- not since Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[Syriusly]

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

wouldn't know, has anyone made a legal argument about Polygamy that addresses those issues?

Seems to me that you have a pretty argument against polygamy. you can't marry someone if you are already married to someone else.

But why? The State would have to show what interest in denying such. There is no such interest.

If you don't think that there is any reason to deny polygamous marriage then I can understand why you are for it.

That of course has nothing to do with marriage between a gay couple.

 

[Syriusly]

It's funny how you profess to be clever about precedent and law when it suits your argument and then feign ignorance when it doesn't. Do you suddenly have an attack of the vapors?
You know that if some minority sex kinks get special protections ALL of them do. You know how the 14th Amendment is about blind-equality. You know judges cannot arbitrarily favor some in the same category while arbitrarily denying others in the same category. It's OK. I know you know all this.

So exposed, answer the question.

Uh, guy, you are babbling. The argument against polygamy is "you're already married".

Not legally. Why can't polygamists get legally married Joe? Answer the question.

Because its against the law Silhouette.

If you disagree with the law- you can go to court to argue you should be able to marry your husband and your three sister wives.

Now- do you think polygamy should be legal Silhouette?

 

[Syriusly]

In fact, according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment, ANY minority repugnant deviant sex kink can marry. .

If fact again you are just lying. According to Obergefell States cannot deny a same gender couple their marriage rights.

And has nothing to do with sex. No matter how obsessed with sex you are.

 

[Syriusly]

But why? The State would have to show what interest in denying such. There is no such interest.

Actually, there is in terms of survivors benefits, legal liablity, etc.

Jesus Christ, imagine if Social Security had to deal with a Polygamist who had 8 wives and died with a big silly smile on his face!

Why just 8 wives? Could be 8 men? Or 8 partners

But that’s semantics. We already address that when forming LLCs and a multitude of corporations.

The “partners” address this at formation and others must agree before joining or walking away.

This is all addressed in current existing law.

So again, what is the compelling state interest in denial? Here’s the answer.

NONE

So you are in favor of polygamous marriage- fine. Go for it- go to court to marry your 8 wives.

Here is the thing- you and Silhouette and the others that are pissed off that gay couples can marry now- of course don't care about polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage- you are just pissed off you can no longer legally deny marriage to gay couples.

So once again- if you want polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage to be legalized- go for it. Take that test case to court. Show the courage and tenacity of the gay couples- walk into court announcing you believe it is your constitutional right to marry your mother.

Go for it.

I have no objection at all to you pursuing what you believe is your constitutional right to marry you mother.

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamy should be legal

If it is consensual.....why does anyone care

Now, I’d hate to see it legal, but current law makes it appear that it should be, Right?

Why would you hate to see it legal- but you can't think of any reason it should be illegal?

 

[Syriusly]

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.

Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.

In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.

They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.

Are they 'purely arbitrary' reasons?

And no- no not in effect- it is still illegal for you to marry your mother- or your 8 sister wives.

But if you think you do have the right- and that the reasons you can't marry your mother are 'purely arbitrary'- then take your case to court.

Stand up proudly in court with your mother and announce your Constitutional right to marry your mother.

Let us know how it turns out.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage doesn't deny anything to anyone. If a gay couple has kids and marry- the only thing that changes is that the kids have more legal protections- and suffer less harm.

And you hate that. You always advocate for what will cause harm for the children of gay couples.

So according to you, possessing a contract which banishes any children implicitly

According to me- there is no marriage contract which requires, guarantees or banishes any current, future or imaginary children

Despite what the voices in your head tell you.

 

[Pop23]

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.

Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.

In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.

They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.

Are they 'purely arbitrary' reasons?

And no- no not in effect- it is still illegal for you to marry your mother- or your 8 sister wives.

But if you think you do have the right- and that the reasons you can't marry your mother are 'purely arbitrary'- then take your case to court.

Stand up proudly in court with your mother and announce your Constitutional right to marry your mother.

Let us know how it turns out.

Yet you supply no reason why they aren’t arbitrary?

Well, shit for brains, that was your argument in support of gay marriage.

Excluding it was based on arbitrary reasoning.

And now you change your mind?

Interesting, but then again, you’re a moron after all.

 

[Syriusly]

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.

Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.

In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.

They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.

Are they 'purely arbitrary' reasons?

And no- no not in effect- it is still illegal for you to marry your mother- or your 8 sister wives.

But if you think you do have the right- and that the reasons you can't marry your mother are 'purely arbitrary'- then take your case to court.

Stand up proudly in court with your mother and announce your Constitutional right to marry your mother.

Let us know how it turns out.

Yet you supply no reason why they aren’t arbitrary?

Well, shit for brains, that was your argument in support of gay marriage..

Well shit for brains that was never my argument for marriage equality for gay couples.

If you think that laws against you marrying your mother are 'arbitrary'- then you logically are against such laws.

Are you against laws prohibiting you from marrying your mother- or do you support having laws in place that forbid you to marry your mother?

Since you think such laws are 'arbitrary'?

 

[Pop23]

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. With the right NOT to have children in a marriage well established by legal precedent.

Obliterating your 'intent' argument. You're imagining mythic 'requirements' of same sex couples that don't exist for anyone else. Such requirements don't exist.

In fact, no state requires anything but consent of the parties for a legal marriage.

They do exclude a couple thing for purely arbitrary reasons. The number of individuals and closely related family members. So in effect, anyone can Marry anyone, or any group of people, because basing law on arbitrary reasons is not constitutionally sound.

Are they 'purely arbitrary' reasons?

And no- no not in effect- it is still illegal for you to marry your mother- or your 8 sister wives.

But if you think you do have the right- and that the reasons you can't marry your mother are 'purely arbitrary'- then take your case to court.

Stand up proudly in court with your mother and announce your Constitutional right to marry your mother.

Let us know how it turns out.

Yet you supply no reason why they aren’t arbitrary?

Well, shit for brains, that was your argument in support of gay marriage..

Well shit for brains that was never my argument for marriage equality for gay couples.

If you think that laws against you marrying your mother are 'arbitrary'- then you logically are against such laws.

Are you against laws prohibiting you from marrying your mother- or do you support having laws in place that forbid you to marry your mother?

Since you think such laws are 'arbitrary'?

I love watching you squirm. You don’t have any reasoned argument against because YOU MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT WORKS IN ITS FAVOR!

Lol, so you can’t come up with a reason family members can’t marry? So all you got is..........

Go to court?

God, I’d hate to be you.

Reduced to a long winded troll