"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[Pop23]

The US Supreme Court is in the business of anticipating setting unwieldy future precedents in the current decisions it is pondering today. Polygamy between more than two consenting adults is off the table why exactly? Because more than two people consenting to marriage is "weird" or "icky" to the majority? More weird and icky than two men using the anus as an artificial vagina?

If sex has nothing to do with it then gays will be happy to know they can already legally marry...the opposite gender. And if love is the issue, then why can't a sister and brother both adults who love each other get married?

Because it's "icky"? You clearly don't understand the true meaning of marriage equality if you object to any of these adult-consenting arrangements.

The dynamics of Polygamy is far closer to the dynamics of the "Loving" decision. So clearly it should become law first.

Incorrect.

Loving concerned denying an interracial couple access to marriage law that the couple was eligible to participate in, a union of two equal partners, where race is irrelevant, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, a union of two equal partners, where gender is irrelevant, is likewise un-Constitutional.

Polygamy has nothing to do with marriage or the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law.

And the plaintiffs were?

 

[Silhouette]

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

So now you want to follow the law when it means disenfranchising a certain class [polygamists] from marrying. Meanwhile in California, Utah, Virginia and other states, the law isn't written to accomodate two same gendered people marrying. So now will you adhere as tightly to the written law when it doesn't serve your agenda?

Your hypocrisy is crystal clear on this matter. Whether or not you intended it to be... Only "equal rights" for certain consenting adults in love...but not others. Your number "two" is arbitrary. I hope you know that. I know you do. Walking the tightrope like you are serves your agenda right now in this moment as the 10th is set to hear argument in 1 1/2 days. But I guarantee you, the US Supreme Court will be thinking about polygamy very very much and how the number "2" is arbitrary when using "consenting adults in love" as the hinge to any decision...

 

[RandallFlagg]

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

Once again, your idiocy shows through. If two people of the same sex can "marry", then you are a hypocrite son-of-a-***** if you don'e allow three people to marry. Or four, or six.

You assholes have opened pandora's box - now deal with it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

So now you want to follow the law when it means disenfranchising a certain class [polygamists] from marrying. Meanwhile in California, Utah, Virginia and other states, the law isn't written to accomodate two same gendered people marrying. So now will you adhere as tightly to the written law when it doesn't serve your agenda?

Your hypocrisy is crystal clear on this matter. Whether or not you intended it to be... Only "equal rights" for certain consenting adults in love...but not others. Your number "two" is arbitrary. I hope you know that. I know you do. Walking the tightrope like you are serves your agenda right now in this moment as the 10th is set to hear argument in 1 1/2 days. But I guarantee you, the US Supreme Court will be thinking about polygamy very very much and how the number "2" is arbitrary when using "consenting adults in love" as the hinge to any decision...

Exactly. The law is fine as it accomplishes what these limp-wrists on the left want. Just make sure that no other "group" gets treated "fairly".

You can see through their bullshit like an open window.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

The Constitution used to accommodate slavery, state and federal law used to accommodate racial discrimination, so you are making a meaningless statement that covers up your bigotry. You are covering up the fact that you support denying consenting adults who love each other the right to marry.

You're missing the point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

It is an issue to me, you ******* bigot. Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who they can and cannot love?

I want my harem codified into law through marriage licenses.

So your argument is that the people who use 'redefining marriage' as an argument AGAINST same sex monogamy are simultaneously making an argument FOR legal civil polygamy?

Because afterall, even the Bible defines marriage as both monogamy and polygamy...

 

[martybegan]

It did with the photographer's Business.

Marty - honestly your theory isn't really aligning with the reality of things. As far as I know, only two cases really caught wind:

1.) A cake maker refusing service to a gay couple in Colorado
2.) A photographer refusing service to a gay couple in Arizona

First of all, this is two cases out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of businesses in the United States, and the billions of interactions they have with customers each year. I mean, you're probably more likely getting struck 20 times by lightning next week than know a business owner who's been "personally affected financially" by one of these cases. It's an extremely, extremely rare occurrence.

Secondly, both events happened in states where gay marriage was banned! Had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage being legal.

I don't think your business argument is resting on solid ground. But I'm open for discussion.

Every trend starts with a few cases. Look at the inquisition going on with the Modzilla guy.

 

[martybegan]

Honestly Marty, in cases where people make cakes, take photos - highly specialized and time consuming activities where you must intimately get to know your customers - I'm fine with them refusing business. Really, I say "whatever".

But honestly - Marty - my point was more along the lines of starting a business, perusing one's dreams, making money, day to day operations; is gay marriage really going to "CHANGE" all that in a significant way?

I think it's rational to think no, it won't.

It did with the photographer's Business.

Actually not.

Whatever happened to the New Mexico photographer was solely the responsibility of the business owner, having nothing to do with New Mexico’s public accommodations laws, which were determined to be proper, appropriate, and Constitutional.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory policy, and business owners are not in a position to decide what laws and policies they’ll obey and what laws and policies they’ll ignore. It is simply the nature of conducting business today, where business owners need to conduct themselves as responsible professionals, and accommodate the customers who seek their goods and services in a responsible, professional manner.

Citizens united has been found to be proper, appropriate and constitutional, same as the recent court decision. I guess that means you find both acceptable.

The point is this particular regulatory policy is idiotic, serves none of the public interest, and creates a situation where people have to either ignore their moral compass or go out of business.

This is all about progressives not being able to stand people with opposing belief structures, nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

Currently that is the problem, worst its being used ex post facto to put people out of business if they refuse to cater to gay couples.

What does that have to do with gay marriage, though?

Meaning, can't a gay guy who's not getting married ask for a non-legal "union cake" between him and his partner and the same scenario would ensue?

And in the case of that guy perusing the business, I wouldn't have sided with him. Kind of thought that was mean-spirited. But there are mean spirited gay, straight, people of all sorts.

The public accommodation lawsuits have been occurring in states without marriage equality. They are unrelated.

They are all related. its related to the fact that you can't stand people who hold beliefs counter to yours, and your only response is to ruin them and pound them into the ground.

 

[Seawytch]

What does that have to do with gay marriage, though?

Meaning, can't a gay guy who's not getting married ask for a non-legal "union cake" between him and his partner and the same scenario would ensue?

And in the case of that guy perusing the business, I wouldn't have sided with him. Kind of thought that was mean-spirited. But there are mean spirited gay, straight, people of all sorts.

The public accommodation lawsuits have been occurring in states without marriage equality. They are unrelated.

They are all related. its related to the fact that you can't stand people who hold beliefs counter to yours, and your only response is to ruin them and pound them into the ground.

The lawsuits occurred in states that have banned marriage equality. Public accommodation laws are unrelated to marriage equality. Public accommodation laws didn't really garner a lot of attention either...until they started applying to "they gheys".

 

[martybegan]

The public accommodation lawsuits have been occurring in states without marriage equality. They are unrelated.

They are all related. its related to the fact that you can't stand people who hold beliefs counter to yours, and your only response is to ruin them and pound them into the ground.

The lawsuits occurred in states that have banned marriage equality. Public accommodation laws are unrelated to marriage equality. Public accommodation laws didn't really garner a lot of attention either...until they started applying to "they gheys".

its all the same fascist wave.

 

[Seawytch]

They are all related. its related to the fact that you can't stand people who hold beliefs counter to yours, and your only response is to ruin them and pound them into the ground.

The lawsuits occurred in states that have banned marriage equality. Public accommodation laws are unrelated to marriage equality. Public accommodation laws didn't really garner a lot of attention either...until they started applying to "they gheys".

its all the same fascist wave.

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

 

[mal]

The lawsuits occurred in states that have banned marriage equality. Public accommodation laws are unrelated to marriage equality. Public accommodation laws didn't really garner a lot of attention either...until they started applying to "they gheys".

its all the same fascist wave.

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

Have you ever worn a Kilt?...



peace...

 

[martybegan]

The lawsuits occurred in states that have banned marriage equality. Public accommodation laws are unrelated to marriage equality. Public accommodation laws didn't really garner a lot of attention either...until they started applying to "they gheys".

its all the same fascist wave.

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

 

[Seawytch]

its all the same fascist wave.

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

Yes, wah wah wah...I have to eat at the same lunch counter as a black person. Wah.

 

[martybegan]

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

Yes, wah wah wah...I have to eat at the same lunch counter as a black person. Wah.

You are talking about customers. In the other cases a person is being forced to either work an event they do not approve of, an event all about a lifestyle they do not approve of, or go out of business.

All the deflecting your side has to do shows you have no point of logic, just emotion and a selfish need for approval.

 

[Seawytch]

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

Yes, wah wah wah...I have to eat at the same lunch counter as a black person. Wah.

You are talking about customers. In the other cases a person is being forced to either work an event they do not approve of, an event all about a lifestyle they do not approve of, or go out of business.

All the deflecting your side has to do shows you have no point of logic, just emotion and a selfish need for approval.

A customer is a customer a business is a business. If you want to be in the business of legal discrimination, you have to be a church.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, wah wah wah...I have to eat at the same lunch counter as a black person. Wah.

You are talking about customers. In the other cases a person is being forced to either work an event they do not approve of, an event all about a lifestyle they do not approve of, or go out of business.

All the deflecting your side has to do shows you have no point of logic, just emotion and a selfish need for approval.

A customer is a customer a business is a business. If you want to be in the business of legal discrimination, you have to be a church.

your point was about customer-customer interaction, which is not related to the debate in this thread. Again, a deflection because you have nothing better.

Any person should be able to have their right of association upheld, unless it involves the government or a government contract.

 

[Pop23]

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

Yes, wah wah wah...I have to eat at the same lunch counter as a black person. Wah.

Do you have to pee in the same restroom as a male. Shower with males at the gym?

Keep up

 

[Wildman]

Where is the government telling anyone who they can or cannot love? I know many people not married that love each other.

STILL....., why do gays want to get married ???????

why can't they just love and live together without the marriage banner over their bedroom doorway ?

many hetro couples live this way and have children together, with marriage far from their minds.

gays being "married" will not produce any damn thing nor does it prove any damn thing.


just my OPINION !!