CDZ Marriage is for all mature willing companions

[Damaged Eagle]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

It shouldn't matter nor should it be any of the governments business how people form their marriage groups, much less who's having sex with who, so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

It's time for the government to get out of my families business because we're all mature willing companions and want to form a marriage grouping of our choosing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You are actually correct. The government is empowered to keep people from being harmed, not to keep them from being weirded out.

 

[Syriusly]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

So you don't support removing such marriage laws from the books?

 

[jwoodie]

Civil marriage is a contractual arrangement designed to promote stable family units. As such, it imposes certain rights and responsibilities on the parties involved. Unfortunately, it has been turned into a political football which is losing its significance every day.

 

[Syriusly]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

So you don't support removing such marriage laws from the books?

I am all for you pursuing what you believe are your Constitutional rights.

Let us know how it goes. Action speaks louder than words.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

The battle for mixed race couples was won for all mixed raced couples in one battle and applied too all races.

As I see it the battle for mature adults to choose how they wish to form a marriage group should be applied equally to all mature willing companions. Unless the government is now going to say the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to people with different sexual preferences who wish to form other types of marriage groups. If the government refuses the same opportunity to form marriages to all mature willing companions as they choose the government has left itself open to civil rights suit of epic proportions.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Syriusly]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

View attachment 73753

The battle for mixed race couples was won for all mixed raced couples in one battle and applied too all races.

The battle for same gender couples was won for all same gendered couples in one battle and applied to all genders.

Looking forward to hear how your battle goes.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

View attachment 73753

The battle for mixed race couples was won for all mixed raced couples in one battle and applied too all races.

The battle for same gender couples was won for all same gendered couples in one battle and applied to all genders.

Looking forward to hear how your battle goes.

The battle against DOMA in Iowa was fought and won over two things. First was allowing people of different 'sexual preferences' to marry and secondly the benefits such an arrangement confers to the spouses. Those two things were the primary issues brought before the justices for their case.

What is a sexual preference? I believe you'll find the definition for sexual preferences applies to a great many different things.

As for the benefits conferred to my children by forming a marriage arrangement with me... That's pretty self evident.

In the next few years be sure to watch for news from Iowa on the issue of marriage.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Civil marriage is a contractual arrangement designed to promote stable family units. As such, it imposes certain rights and responsibilities on the parties involved. Unfortunately, it has been turned into a political football which is losing its significance every day.

My arrangement offers lots of stability...

There would be no court battle over my taking custody of my spouses (son or daughter) children since they (my grandchildren) would already be my children though marriage if something happened to my spouse (son or daughter) and the spouse they had children with.

*****SMILE*****

 

[320 Years of History]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

??? Do you really mean what that sentence implies? Platonic or not, WTF? Are you and they just too poorly informed to realize the non-platonic benefits of marriage can be conferred by a contractual agreement that is not a marriage?

 

[GaryDog]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

So you don't support removing such marriage laws from the books?

Your race, sexual orientation, religion, etc., are all suspect classes that require judicial review when discrimination is involved.

Your numbers (ie more than 2) don't suggest to me you're a "suspect class".

That being said, I don't have a problem with polygamy if, as has been the usual practice, it's not used to enslave young girls.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

So you don't support removing such marriage laws from the books?

Your race, sexual orientation, religion, etc., are all suspect classes that require judicial review when discrimination is involved.

Your numbers (ie more than 2) don't suggest to me you're a "suspect class".

That being said, I don't have a problem with polygamy if, as has been the usual practice, it's not used to enslave young girls.

Enslaving anyone has nothing to do with consensual.

I just don't care who consents to do what with whom, and more importantly don't believe the government should either.

 

[GaryDog]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

So you don't support removing such marriage laws from the books?

Your race, sexual orientation, religion, etc., are all suspect classes that require judicial review when discrimination is involved.

Your numbers (ie more than 2) don't suggest to me you're a "suspect class".

That being said, I don't have a problem with polygamy if, as has been the usual practice, it's not used to enslave young girls.

Enslaving anyone has nothing to do with consensual.

I just don't care who consents to do what with whom, and more importantly don't believe the government should either.

If they're under a certain age then by law they cannot consent. That's been polygamy's practice and it was protected by religion for centuries. Still is in some places.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

??? Do you really mean what that sentence implies? Platonic or not, WTF?

Are you now saying it is the governments business to deny mature willing companions the right to form marriages as they choose?

That doesn't sound very progressive or enlightened.

Are you and they just too poorly informed to realize the non-platonic benefits of marriage can be conferred by a contractual agreement that is not a marriage?

No. The argument was utilized to justify the recension of DOMA in Iowa. Why? Because many businesses and agencies place more weight in a spouses approval or disapproval vice some person who has a contractual agreement. There is also the fact that many benefits, such health insurance, can not be extended by such a contractual agreement they are only available to the spouse.

Besides... When I die there are definitely benefits extended to any spouse I have when dealing with the government that a contractual agreement can not offer and never will.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you now saying it is the governments business to deny mature willing companions the right to form marriages as they choose?

No. I didn't make a statement of any sort. I asked a question.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is also the fact that many benefits, such health insurance, can not be extended by such a contractual agreement they are only available to the spouse.

Besides... When I die there are definitely benefits extended to any spouse I have when dealing with the government that a contractual agreement can not offer and never will.

Which ones are you thinking of? Many of them require one to be a dependent, not a spouse, although, being a spouse negates the need to be a dependent. But then what are you wanting to do? Marry all your children?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Are you now saying it is the governments business to deny mature willing companions the right to form marriages as they choose?

No. I didn't make a statement of any sort.

It sounded as though you were attempting to make some sort of statement.

I asked a question.

As did I.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You are welcome to pursue your objective using the same recourse that mixed race couples and gay couples pursued- you can attempt to change the law legislatively or go to the courts and attempt to make the case that your Constitutional rights are being taken away.

Let us know how it goes.

So you don't support removing such marriage laws from the books?

Your race, sexual orientation, religion, etc., are all suspect classes that require judicial review when discrimination is involved.

Your numbers (ie more than 2) don't suggest to me you're a "suspect class".

That being said, I don't have a problem with polygamy if, as has been the usual practice, it's not used to enslave young girls.

Enslaving anyone has nothing to do with consensual.

I just don't care who consents to do what with whom, and more importantly don't believe the government should either.

If they're under a certain age then by law they cannot consent. That's been polygamy's practice and it was protected by religion for centuries. Still is in some places.

And that has what to do with my statement, in which I SPECIFICALLY posted about CONSENSUAL relationships. That precludes minors, as well as a host of other peoples from participating.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There is also the fact that many benefits, such health insurance, can not be extended by such a contractual agreement they are only available to the spouse.

Besides... When I die there are definitely benefits extended to any spouse I have when dealing with the government that a contractual agreement can not offer and never will.

Which ones are you thinking of?

What difference does that make to you?

All you have to know is that they're all "mature" willing companions who desire to marry me.

Many of them require one to be a dependent, not a spouse, although, being a spouse negates the need to be a dependent.

If all my children are "mature" they are no longer dependents now are they?

But then what are you wanting to do? Marry all your children?

Yes

*****CHUCKLE*****