Just 5 days later: Man Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives

[BullKurtz]

I've claimed for years that putting up billboard pics in major cities of queers having anal sex would have stopped this "equality" horseshit in it's tracks. I suppose the city governments wouldn't have allowed billboards showing the kind of sordid activity they'd approved of by statute. So there's the dilemma....the disgusting behavior can't be shown but is expected to be respected.

Ridiculous.

Dyke.

 

[ChrisL]

I've claimed for years that putting up billboard pics in major cities of queers having anal sex would have stopped this "equality" horseshit in it's tracks. I suppose the city governments wouldn't have allowed billboards showing the kind of sordid activity they'd approved of by statute. So there's the dilemma....the disgusting behavior can't be shown but is expected to be respected.

Ridiculous.

Dyke.

Used douche.

 

[BullKurtz]

Used douche.

That your nickname?

 

[ChrisL]

Used douche.

That your nickname?

No, it's yours. Lol.

 

[Pop23]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

Arbitrary is key to this. To deny same sex siblings, without procreation used in denial of hetro siblings would be just that now. Prior it had merit, now none.

Same sex gay couples do not have the ability to procreate, so what legal reasoning is there to deny a license.

Same sex heterosexual couples , the same.

How then do you not extend the same "dignity" to any and all combinations without discrimination?

A legal paradox.

I refer you to post #296, and also the states can still put limitations on marriage certificates. They just cannot discriminate between same sex and opposite sex. I hope you are beginning to finally understand how wrong you are.

Yes, your point? All now is needed is one successfull suit.

You can't use the 14th amendment in one case and turn from it in the next.

Lawsuits will be filed, one is in works as we speak where the claim will be.

1 loves 2

2 loves 3

3 loves 1

All individuals loving other individuals, what reasonable legal reason do you have to deny 3 to enter a contract when there are no other contracts that limit the participants to 2.

What you do not understand is, that you, nor the state have a compelling state interest in denying this right to happiness or dignity.

Creating arbitrary rules will not stand unless you find that state interest.

States tried, didn't work.

It's a very weak argument.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Accepting same sex marriage does not entail accepting every form of marriage anymore than accepting different sex marriage requires accepting every form of marriage. It is possible to stop the slippery slope in a principled way. To use an analogy, just because women got the vote in 1920 (in the US) it does not follow that the right to vote must then be extended to babies, goats, or squirrels.

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

So, for example, we can forbid incestuous marriage by accepting the principle that closely related people should not marry. This would apply to same and different sex couples, so would seem to be a consistent application.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.

However, people can propose expansions to marriage and each would need to be argued on its own merit.

Also, arguments in favor of a type of marriage can be applied to expanding it in other ways. For example, if someone argues for same-sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could be used to justify incestuous marriage. But, of course, if someone argues for different sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could also be used to justify incestuous marriage. If someone argues that marriage is between a male and a female, then that could be used to argue for child marriages, compelled marriages, and also incestuous marriages-all it would require is that the people involved are a male and a female."

That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

 

[ChrisL]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

Arbitrary is key to this. To deny same sex siblings, without procreation used in denial of hetro siblings would be just that now. Prior it had merit, now none.

Same sex gay couples do not have the ability to procreate, so what legal reasoning is there to deny a license.

Same sex heterosexual couples , the same.

How then do you not extend the same "dignity" to any and all combinations without discrimination?

A legal paradox.

I refer you to post #296, and also the states can still put limitations on marriage certificates. They just cannot discriminate between same sex and opposite sex. I hope you are beginning to finally understand how wrong you are.

Yes, your point? All now is needed is one successfull suit.

You can't use the 14th amendment in one case and turn from it in the next.

Lawsuits will be filed, one is in works as we speak where the claim will be.

1 loves 2

2 loves 3

3 loves 1

All individuals loving other individuals, what reasonable legal reason do you have to deny 3 to enter a contract when there are no other contracts that limit the participants to 2.

What you do not understand is, that you, nor the state have a compelling state interest in denying this right to happiness or dignity.

Creating arbitrary rules will not stand unless you find that state interest.

States tried, didn't work.

It's a very weak argument.

It's not a weak argument at all. We can still oppose close family member marriages. There is no reason why we cannot, especially since such relationships are usually the result of child abuse.

 

[ChrisL]

"Accepting same sex marriage does not entail accepting every form of marriage anymore than accepting different sex marriage requires accepting every form of marriage. It is possible to stop the slippery slope in a principled way. To use an analogy, just because women got the vote in 1920 (in the US) it does not follow that the right to vote must then be extended to babies, goats, or squirrels.

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

So, for example, we can forbid incestuous marriage by accepting the principle that closely related people should not marry. This would apply to same and different sex couples, so would seem to be a consistent application.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.

However, people can propose expansions to marriage and each would need to be argued on its own merit.

Also, arguments in favor of a type of marriage can be applied to expanding it in other ways. For example, if someone argues for same-sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could be used to justify incestuous marriage. But, of course, if someone argues for different sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could also be used to justify incestuous marriage. If someone argues that marriage is between a male and a female, then that could be used to argue for child marriages, compelled marriages, and also incestuous marriages-all it would require is that the people involved are a male and a female."

That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

 

[BullKurtz]

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

That's how each person's views are formed....even a "used douche" man-hating shrew like you should know that.

 

[ChrisL]

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

That's how each person's views are formed....even a "used douche" man-hating shrew like you should know that.

Sorry, I think you seem more like a shrew. You can keep your personal beliefs and opinions. You just don't have the right to force them upon others. No one says you have to approve or like it.

 

[ChrisL]

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

That's how each person's views are formed....even a "used douche" man-hating shrew like you should know that.

You do know that the "shrews" are the ones screaming and crying about gay marriage?

 

[BullKurtz]

Sorry, I think you seem more like a shrew. You can keep your personal beliefs and opinions. You just don't have the right to force them upon others. No one says you have to approve or like it.

Queers are forcing their "lifestyle" (AIDS, Hep B, Herpes) on us, not the other way around, angry used-douche dyke.

 

[ChrisL]

You know what America stands for? FREEDOM! YEAH! Even for people you don't like.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, I think you seem more like a shrew. You can keep your personal beliefs and opinions. You just don't have the right to force them upon others. No one says you have to approve or like it.

Queers are forcing their "lifestyle" (AIDS, Hep B, Herpes) on us, not the other way around, angry used-douche dyke.

It's about freedom, dum-dum.

 

[BullKurtz]

You know what America stands for? FREEDOM! YEAH! Even for people you don't like.

My brother loaned Richie Havens a flat pick to replace the one he'd snapped in the middle of a song. Richie bought us both a beer after his set. You're still wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

You know what America stands for? FREEDOM! YEAH! Even for people you don't like.

My brother loaned Richie Havens a flat pick to replace the one he'd snapped in the middle of a song. Richie bought us both a beer after his set. You're still wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

And one more for good measure.

 

[BullKurtz]

 

[Pop23]

I will check back later for the link. I am quite sure there would be stipulations in there, just as there were against close relatives being married because, in most instances, such relationships are the result of child abuse. I have to get to work now. TTYL!

Translation: If Chris stays and talk about this much longer, you'll corner her that her objections to incest marriage are as arbitrary as she cited in you about your objections to gay marriage. Toodles! *Whew*! (won't be dodged quite so easily when it makes it back to SCOTUS though)

Arbitrary is key to this. To deny same sex siblings, without procreation used in denial of hetro siblings would be just that now. Prior it had merit, now none.

Same sex gay couples do not have the ability to procreate, so what legal reasoning is there to deny a license.

Same sex heterosexual couples , the same.

How then do you not extend the same "dignity" to any and all combinations without discrimination?

A legal paradox.

I refer you to post #296, and also the states can still put limitations on marriage certificates. They just cannot discriminate between same sex and opposite sex. I hope you are beginning to finally understand how wrong you are.

Yes, your point? All now is needed is one successfull suit.

You can't use the 14th amendment in one case and turn from it in the next.

Lawsuits will be filed, one is in works as we speak where the claim will be.

1 loves 2

2 loves 3

3 loves 1

All individuals loving other individuals, what reasonable legal reason do you have to deny 3 to enter a contract when there are no other contracts that limit the participants to 2.

What you do not understand is, that you, nor the state have a compelling state interest in denying this right to happiness or dignity.

Creating arbitrary rules will not stand unless you find that state interest.

States tried, didn't work.

It's a very weak argument.

It's not a weak argument at all. We can still oppose close family member marriages. There is no reason why we cannot, especially since such relationships are usually the result of child abuse.

Then argue that, you're not.

Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits.

 

[Kosh]

It's some righty wingnut trying to make a point, pubes.

Do you really expect anyone to be surprised that some clown would do this?

Says the far left drone!

If marriage is a "right" then it is a "right", not a "right" for a privileged few..