Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[dilloduck]

and if it's not equal just change around the meaning of words and create poor pitiful victims until someone changes a law.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument.

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it

The key thing here is "successful argument". No one is arguing for polygamy right now at all. No one is bringing a court case against bigamy laws.

Key words "right now"

Okay. Next week, next month. There's no real constituency for polygamy, dude.

 

[dilloduck]

The poor polygamists are hiding in the closets. Polyphobes are everywhere just waiting to mock them. Have you seen the beating Mormans are taking these days ? Hopefully one day they will be freed like the homosexuals were.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage equality is marriage elasticity and end with marriage extinction.

Masha Gessen lesbian activist.

 

[JoeB131]

The poor polygamists are hiding in the closets. Polyphobes are everywhere just waiting to mock them. Have you seen the beating Mormans are taking these days ? Hopefully one day they will be freed like the homosexuals were.

Your cult isn't taking a beating when one of it's members gets nominated as the candidate of a major political party.

 

[martybegan]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Incorrect.

Marriage law is written to accommodate two equal adult partners who have made a commitment to build a life together recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is violated when the state seeks to disallow same-sex couples from entering into a marriage contract they're eligible to participate in.

That's not the case with three or more persons, for whom there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration. No Equal Protection Clause violation manifests because there's no 'marriage law' to 'disallow' three or more persons from entering into.

Consequently, bringing to the debate demagoguery such as 'polygamy' or 'plural marriage' does in fact fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

The lack of a law does not prevent rights from being protected, at least that's the current path we seem to be on.

Again, all the reasons used to advocate SSM can be used identically to advocate Plural marriage.

 

[martybegan]

[
How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

Every state in the unions has an anti-bigamy law.

The underlying behavior is illegal.

Anti-bigamy laws are usually predicated on the other parties not knowing they are married to someone else who is married. Its the inherent fraud that makes bigamy a crime, not just a violation of a contract.

 

[Pop23]

[
Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument.

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it

The key thing here is "successful argument". No one is arguing for polygamy right now at all. No one is bringing a court case against bigamy laws.

Key words "right now"

Okay. Next week, next month. There's no real constituency for polygamy, dude.

It only takes 1 (or at least 3)

 

[Pop23]

"Stop Calling It Marriage Equality"

Nonsense.

It is indeed about equality:

Equal protection of the law, equal access to the law, equal treatment under the law.

Same sex coupling would require no protection under Roe V Wade.

Equality ?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument.

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it

The key thing here is "successful argument". No one is arguing for polygamy right now at all. No one is bringing a court case against bigamy laws.

Key words "right now"

Okay. Next week, next month. There's no real constituency for polygamy, dude.

It only takes 1 (or at least 3)

Not really.

 

[PratchettFan]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

It isn't a slippery slope, just an equitable application of law. If three women and five me want to enter into a marriage contract, that is their business. If the state is going to be in the marriage business, then they need to do so without discrimination. Other than using the courts to resolve contractual disputes, the government has no business in it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

Every state in the unions has an anti-bigamy law.

The underlying behavior is illegal.

Anti-bigamy laws are usually predicated on the other parties not knowing they are married to someone else who is married. Its the inherent fraud that makes bigamy a crime, not just a violation of a contract.

I'm pretty sure the Mormons knew exactly who they were or weren't married to.

 

[martybegan]

[
How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

Every state in the unions has an anti-bigamy law.

The underlying behavior is illegal.

Anti-bigamy laws are usually predicated on the other parties not knowing they are married to someone else who is married. Its the inherent fraud that makes bigamy a crime, not just a violation of a contract.

I'm pretty sure the Mormons knew exactly who they were or weren't married to.

What Fundie mormons do now is have one "wife" and the rest just co-habitate. and only in states with Mormons are the laws set around knowing plural marriage, not true bigamy, with its implied fraud.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

What's wrong with defining legal civil marriage, if the original definition under the law is biased and represents a clear violation of civil rights?

We redefined being a black person in America after the Civil War. Was that a crime?

 

[rightwinger]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

 

[martybegan]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

 

[martybegan]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

What's wrong with defining legal civil marriage, if the original definition under the law is biased and represents a clear violation of civil rights?

We redefined being a black person in America after the Civil War. Was that a crime?

And that was done via amendment subsequent legislation. What is happening now (except in states that legislated the change) is running to a judge and having said judge make crap up.

 

[R.D.]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

What's wrong with defining legal civil marriage, if the original definition under the law is biased and represents a clear violation of civil rights?

We redefined being a black person in America after the Civil War. Was that a crime?

Well it doesn't, but as the op states that ship has sailed.

But the valid point is you've only redefined it to support gay marriage to the exclusion of other groups who may wish to marry. Where is the equality for those other groups?

 

[rightwinger]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes