Next.. Group Marriage

[OODA_Loop]

I love how people keep saying this is being forced on them. How so?
Do you now have to enter in a same sex marriage?
What really is being forced, his your beliefs on someone else and the federal government. The government should not be allowed to tell you what sex your spouse has to be. And you shouldn't be allowed to use the federal government to define marriage in your opinion.

My grandmother has lived with my aunt for over 25 years contributing to a singular household.

Should they have all the benefits of Federally recognized co-habitation ?

 

[Avatar4321]

Three topics in two days about the IDENTICAL slippery slope argument about polygamy.

Are you guys on the same mass email list? Watching the same TV demagogue? What is it?

It's a logical extension to the argument that has been used to force marriage to be redefined for same sex relationships. No on needs mass email lists. All one has to do is think about it to be curious.

You mean argument to remove, the current restrictions on marriage that limit marriage to same sex relationships. Not a subtle difference.

No I mean force.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know no proponent of universal marriage that is opposing polygamous marriage, Avatar, here in our state. No one.

If you do, that makes the first.

Then you clearly havent been reading the threads here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about our state.

And you know as well as I do that we do not represent general America on this forum. General America is not nearly as wacked as is our membership, including you and me.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am talking about our state.

And you know as well as I do that we do not represent general America on this forum. General America is not nearly as wacked as is our membership, including you and me.

What the heck are you talking about now?

Ive never claimed to represent general America. I represent myself and I argue for what I think is right and just. And sometimes for the sheer entertainment value of seeing people react to a position.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's a logical extension to the argument that has been used to force marriage to be redefined for same sex relationships. No on needs mass email lists. All one has to do is think about it to be curious.

You mean argument to remove, the current restrictions on marriage that limit marriage to same sex relationships. Not a subtle difference.

No I mean force.

The current laws "forced" the gays to not marry. Why should the heteros get to restrict the rights of gays to get married? Because they have the majority? You have rights but they end when they hurt others. How is a gay marriage hurting hetero marriages? Restricting life of gays (marriage is a part of life) is no different than banning gays from speaking cause you don't like what they are saying.

 

[Avatar4321]

You mean argument to remove, the current restrictions on marriage that limit marriage to same sex relationships. Not a subtle difference.

No I mean force.

The current laws "forced" the gays to not marry. Why should the heteros get to restrict the rights of gays to get married? Because they have the majority? You have rights but they end when they hurt others. How is a gay marriage hurting hetero marriages? Restricting life of gays (marriage is a part of life) is no different than banning gays from speaking cause you don't like what they are saying.

No. They didn't. Homosexuals were and still are able to form whatever private relationship they want. The currently laws just didn't recognize those relationships as marriages. Which of course, makes sense considering the fundamental definition is a union between a man and a woman.

You can argue that bogus rhetoric all you want. But that's not an accurate depiction of the issue at hand and it never will be. Your argument is based on a lie. And it's sad how many people are decieved by it.

I mean heck your argument is that "the government shouldn't be involved in our private lives so ensure that happens by forcing the government to sanction our relationships". It''s a purely emotional argument that has no basis in reason and is self contradictory.

If you want to enter into a same sex relationship. Fine. If you want to call it marriage go ahead. No one can stop you from doing that. What you dont have the right to do is overturn legitimate laws and force the government to sanction your relationships. This statist nonsense has to stop.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You mean argument to remove, the current restrictions on marriage that limit marriage to same sex relationships. Not a subtle difference.

No I mean force.

The current laws "forced" the gays to not marry. Why should the heteros get to restrict the rights of gays to get married? Because they have the majority? You have rights but they end when they hurt others. How is a gay marriage hurting hetero marriages? Restricting life of gays (marriage is a part of life) is no different than banning gays from speaking cause you don't like what they are saying.

Because gays are weirdos that have sex with the same sex?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No I mean force.

The current laws "forced" the gays to not marry. Why should the heteros get to restrict the rights of gays to get married? Because they have the majority? You have rights but they end when they hurt others. How is a gay marriage hurting hetero marriages? Restricting life of gays (marriage is a part of life) is no different than banning gays from speaking cause you don't like what they are saying.

No. They didn't. Homosexuals were and still are able to form whatever private relationship they want. The currently laws just didn't recognize those relationships as marriages. Which of course, makes sense considering the fundamental definition is a union between a man and a woman.

You can argue that bogus rhetoric all you want. But that's not an accurate depiction of the issue at hand and it never will be. Your argument is based on a lie. And it's sad how many people are decieved by it.

I mean heck your argument is that "the government shouldn't be involved in our private lives so ensure that happens by forcing the government to sanction our relationships". It''s a purely emotional argument that has no basis in reason and is self contradictory.

If you want to enter into a same sex relationship. Fine. If you want to call it marriage go ahead. No one can stop you from doing that. What you dont have the right to do is overturn legitimate laws and force the government to sanction your relationships. This statist nonsense has to stop.

"By the power vested in me by the state of __________, I now pronounce you man and wife"

Those words are said because marriage is a contract....recognized by the state. There is no reason.....outside of nutty religious ones ( which are made up anyway) why the state should not recognize this contract if the parties are of the same sex.

Please. Your arguments are just holy. Like Swiss cheese.

 

[RKMBrown]

No I mean force.

The current laws "forced" the gays to not marry. Why should the heteros get to restrict the rights of gays to get married? Because they have the majority? You have rights but they end when they hurt others. How is a gay marriage hurting hetero marriages? Restricting life of gays (marriage is a part of life) is no different than banning gays from speaking cause you don't like what they are saying.

No. They didn't. Homosexuals were and still are able to form whatever private relationship they want. The currently laws just didn't recognize those relationships as marriages. Which of course, makes sense considering the fundamental definition is a union between a man and a woman.

You can argue that bogus rhetoric all you want. But that's not an accurate depiction of the issue at hand and it never will be. Your argument is based on a lie. And it's sad how many people are decieved by it.

I mean heck your argument is that "the government shouldn't be involved in our private lives so ensure that happens by forcing the government to sanction our relationships". It''s a purely emotional argument that has no basis in reason and is self contradictory.

If you want to enter into a same sex relationship. Fine. If you want to call it marriage go ahead. No one can stop you from doing that. What you dont have the right to do is overturn legitimate laws and force the government to sanction your relationships. This statist nonsense has to stop.

I see so your homophobia allows you to personally bar gays from entering a contractual agreement and this makes sense to you.

 

[JoeB131]

They won't push it for Mormons but would for muslims

Damn right. Mormons are ******* scary.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Well, under Sharia Law, a Muslim male may have as many as four wives. By telling Muslims that they can only have one, is denying them their religious right.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And.............

 

[francoHFW]

OP- LOL- Two consenting adults, chumps. Where the HELL do get this idiocy? Pub dupes- right off the wall these days. Years ago, they just believed BS like the GOP was the party of business and farmers, now all this bs too. So dumb, dupes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about our state.

And you know as well as I do that we do not represent general America on this forum. General America is not nearly as wacked as is our membership, including you and me.

What the heck are you talking about now?

Ive never claimed to represent general America. I represent myself and I argue for what I think is right and just. And sometimes for the sheer entertainment value of seeing people react to a position.

Do you live in a bubble of unreality, Avatar? Do you think that you are normal mainstream?

You have nothing to of import other than to yourself say about others right to marry. You speak not for America. You speak not for God.

You need to come back to reality. We do this by a constitutional Republic and democratic voting and protecting minority rights.

Neither your or your co-religionists' civil or religious liberties are being infringed.

You need to let this go for you own sanity.

 

[Locke11_21]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

The left and Democrats won't stop there either. They will try to protect pedophiles, too......oh wait....Democrats have already done that. Remember how Democrats Alcee Hastings and Jackie Speirer wanted pedophilia classified as a sexual orientation and protected under the Hate Crimes bill? Republican rep. Steve King did everything he could to block this heinous act, but the Democrat controlled House, and Senate passed the "Pedophile Protection Act" and Democrat president Obama signed it into law. Ha.....the party "for the children".....yeah "for" children being sexual objects for sick-minded perverts. Give the left and Democrats time....children are next.

You seem somewhat confused. The vast majority of pedos are Republicans and we all know Dems won't want to protect Republicans.

No confusion at all. I provided fact, and there is nothing that can change the facts. Both parties have had these perverts in them, but it was Democrats in the house, senate and presidency that passed the protection act under the hate crime bill. The most recent perverts are Democrat Senator Bob Menendez, and, Democrat ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman.....both like their prostitutes very young. You don't have to like it, you just have to live with it. Thanks for responding in tone to what I originally posted.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am talking about our state.

And you know as well as I do that we do not represent general America on this forum. General America is not nearly as wacked as is our membership, including you and me.

What the heck are you talking about now?

Ive never claimed to represent general America. I represent myself and I argue for what I think is right and just. And sometimes for the sheer entertainment value of seeing people react to a position.

Do you live in a bubble of unreality, Avatar? Do you think that you are normal mainstream?

You have nothing to of import other than to yourself say about others right to marry. You speak not for America. You speak not for God.

You need to come back to reality. We do this by a constitutional Republic and democratic voting and protecting minority rights.

Neither your or your co-religionists' civil or religious liberties are being infringed.

You need to let this go for you own sanity.

Jake. Seriously, are you taking drugs or something? You're posts the last few days are complete irrational. Why on earth would you ask a question of whether I think I am normal mainstream in response to a post where I explicitly point out that I don't claim to be. It makes no sense to ask a question that was already answered.

If that was the only thing you've been doing, I wouldn't be so concerned about you. But you've also brought up some unconnected argument about evangelical heresies in a discussion about how to resolve family & inheritence disputes if we eliminate government involvement in marriage. A discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

On top of that you have been arguing that the government has the power to ban people from exercising their First amendment rights because they think they are going to be disruptive and seem to think that by doing this you are upholding the First amendment.

These are some completely irrational responses to discussions going on. They don't make any sense from anyone, especially you. Are you alright? I am seriously worried about you because despite any differences we have, I think you are a good man and i have no desire to see anything bad happen to you.

Jake your behavior and your reasoning make absolutely no sense here. Im very worried about you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next.. Group Marriage

Next: conservative demagoguery.

 

[Avatar4321]

I see so your homophobia allows you to personally bar gays from entering a contractual agreement and this makes sense to you.

Have you people lost all ability to reason? You really think just trying to pretend i fear gays invalidates anything I've said or proves you to be correct?

I am seriously dumbfounded how deep the rabbit hole has been going lately.

 

[Luissa]

I love how people keep saying this is being forced on them. How so?
Do you now have to enter in a same sex marriage?
What really is being forced, his your beliefs on someone else and the federal government. The government should not be allowed to tell you what sex your spouse has to be. And you shouldn't be allowed to use the federal government to define marriage in your opinion.

My grandmother has lived with my aunt for over 25 years contributing to a singular household.

Should they have all the benefits of Federally recognized co-habitation ?

Did they get married?