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

[Harryhands]

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 **** 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 **** 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..

Not nearly as much as you might think.

 

[alang1216]

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....

Depends, what is the state's interest in forbidding these unions? If it is not culturally accepted that is a poor reason. If there are health concerns that is a good reason.

 

[TNHarley]

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 **** 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 **** 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?

I dont care about liberal narrative. My narrative is the constitution and individual liberty.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Not according to any liberal I know. However, if you entangle marriage and reproduction be prepared to forbid barren or post-menopausal women from marrying.

 

[OKTexas]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

 

[Harryhands]

According to the liberal narrative, marriage and reproduction are mutually exclusive.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept known as reality in which that might as well be true as that has been true for the vast majority of human history when you didn't need a blessing or a license to make babies, and you still don't..

 

[Harryhands]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

 

[TNHarley]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

There shouldnt be any benefits.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

There shouldnt be any benefits.

Yep. same goes for mortgage deductions and such. It is time to quit using the tax code for social engineering.

 

[OKTexas]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

 

[Harryhands]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.

 

[TNHarley]

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens.

LOL
ok bro. We get it. We are all disconnected from reality

 

[Harryhands]

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens.

LOL
ok bro. We get it. We are all disconnected from reality

The vast majority are. Reading what gets said here proves that in spades.

 

[mdk]

I love this idea that we have no future unless the state gives its citizens incentives to procreate. People have been having children since the dawn of time without having the government subsidize their children.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

Babies are getting made regardless, that is not really a concern. And if we start to run low we can only kill a half a million a year instead of the million we are killing now before they are born.

 

[Harryhands]

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

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

Babies are getting made regardless, that is not really a concern. And if we start to run low we can only kill a half a million a year instead of the million we are killing now before they are born.

The need for induced abortion could be knocked down to a few thousand a year, if the will was there and common sense used instead of religion and the other nonsense.

 

[Syriusly]

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. r

You have been making that delusional claim for a couple years now- what is stopping you from challenging polygamous marriage bans in court?

You really are all over the place on this.

You claim that Gays cannot marry- because it would harm their imaginary future children- supposedly depriving their imaginary future children of either a mother or a father.

I guess that means you are for Polygamous marriage- since of course that makes sure that imaginary future children will have at least one mother and father- maybe more!

If you want to campaign for Polygamy- go for it- the first step is for you to take your husband and sister wife into court and file a challenge.

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 164937

We have to give credit to Silhouette- she is very green- she recycles all of her propaganda lies.

 

[Syriusly]

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".

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

And again- you are just lying.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- Obergefell is merely the latest. States still have the ability to set rules- and those rules have always been subject to the Constitution.

You just don't like it that the Supreme Court overturned this marriage law.