- Oct 31, 2012
- 54,553
- 53,765
- 3,605
Polygamy should be legal
No, a secular state should not approve or disapprove of a sexual union period.
How bizarre is that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Polygamy should be legal
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.
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....
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.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.
The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..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 only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.
No it is not. If that is true, government is a part of EVERY contract.Well the problem is the government is part of the marriage contract.
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?
I agree.the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.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".Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.
Why? It's not discriminatory and the government has an interest in incentivising population replenishment.I agree.
We need to take away the child tax credit and the other government gifts given to marriages and breeding.
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.
Indeed, according to the judicially-legislated Obefgell 2015 & the core intent of the 14th Amendment's blind-equality it already is "legal".Polygamy should be legal
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 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.
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
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.the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.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".Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.
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.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?
relatives cause deformed offspring. Not sure that is an apple to apple comparison..The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..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 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?
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?
Why? It's not discriminatory and the government has an interest in incentivising population replenishment.I agree.
We need to take away the child tax credit and the other government gifts given to marriages and breeding.
relatives cause deformed offspring. Not sure that is an apple to apple comparison..The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..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 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?