To Hell with "Gay Marriage"!

[Oddball]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

 

[elvis]

any two adults should be able to enter into a legal contract, regardless of sex.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I love my I pod. But we can't marry. It is only a year old.

 

[Oddball]

any two adults should be able to enter into a legal contract, regardless of sex.

"Marriage" is also a statutory status.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

What do you mean by "statutory" marriages?

*not trying to be snarky, I really don't know, and would like to....

 

[Baruch Menachem]

In other words, nothing abusive like under age, incompetent of consent, that kind of thing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In other words, nothing abusive like under age, incompetent of consent, that kind of thing.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I'd prefer a situation where the government has nothing at all to do with marriage. But since they do, I see no reason that 2 men shouldn't be able to marry, or 2 women. "Love" isn't a qualifier, because anyone who lives in the real world realizes that plenty of heterosexual marriages are not made for "love" - but I still see no reason against it.

 

[Luissa]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

The interspecies arguement is always pretty stupid, usually that one is pulled out when you have nothing else.
As for polygamy, if someone wants to have mulitple wives that over the age of 18, then that is their business. It is also another arguement used when you have nothing else.

 

[Oddball]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

What do you mean by "statutory" marriages?

*not trying to be snarky, I really don't know, and would like to....

Statutory = State licensed.

I'm all for common law contractual agreements. Licensed marriages fall under statutory law.

Big difference.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

What do you mean by "statutory" marriages?

*not trying to be snarky, I really don't know, and would like to....

Statutory = State licensed.

I'm all for common law contractual agreements. Licensed marriages fall under statutory law.

Big difference.

Ok, thanks.

As I said before, I don't really think that the state should have anything to do with marriage. But since they do, why shouldn't the gays get it too?

 

[Oddball]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

The interspecies arguement is always pretty stupid, usually that one is pulled out when you have nothing else.
As for polygamy, if someone wants to have mulitple wives that over the age of 18, then that is their business. It is also another arguement used when you have nothing else.

My argument is and always will be about jurisdiction, viz. common vs. statutory laws.

Deal.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, thanks.

As I said before, I don't really think that the state should have anything to do with marriage. But since they do, why shouldn't the gays get it too?

Refuse to accept the premise and sue from that point.

Everyone wins.....Well, except for the state.

I can live with that.

 

[Luissa]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

What do you mean by "statutory" marriages?

*not trying to be snarky, I really don't know, and would like to....

Statutory = State licensed.

I'm all for common law contractual agreements. Licensed marriages fall under statutory law.

Big difference.

To clear things up, statutory law doesn't just have to with the state.
It is a written law and is at the national, state, and local level.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Dude man,

Stop it buddy!

You're mind fucking the liberals again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, thanks.

As I said before, I don't really think that the state should have anything to do with marriage. But since they do, why shouldn't the gays get it too?

Refuse to accept the premise and sue from that point.

Everyone wins.....Well, except for the state.

I can live with that.

I don't disagree with you. But I guess I don't have a personal enough investment in it (I have no desire to marry a man) to actually put the effort in.

 

[Oddball]

What do you mean by "statutory" marriages?

*not trying to be snarky, I really don't know, and would like to....

Statutory = State licensed.

I'm all for common law contractual agreements. Licensed marriages fall under statutory law.

Big difference.

To clear things up, statutory law doesn't just have to with the state.
It is a written law and is at the national, state, and local level.

Yer killin' me!

 

[Luissa]

Why shouldn't same-sex straight "couples", no mater their sexual proclivities, who love one another, be allowed to marry?

Animals?...Polygamy?...Minors?....Red herring.

Why should the completely unquantifiable and unverifiable standard of "love" be the guidepost by which any legal judgments should be made?

Qualifier: This scenario concerns ONLY statutory marriages.

Carry on........

The interspecies arguement is always pretty stupid, usually that one is pulled out when you have nothing else.
As for polygamy, if someone wants to have mulitple wives that over the age of 18, then that is their business. It is also another arguement used when you have nothing else.

My argument is and always will be about jurisdiction, viz. common vs. statutory laws.

Deal.

And you have been showed many times at a state level marriage is defined as a right, and Loving did rule on statutory marriage as you say. They ruled the state's written law/statutory law violated the Due Process clause and equal protection.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, thanks.

As I said before, I don't really think that the state should have anything to do with marriage. But since they do, why shouldn't the gays get it too?

Refuse to accept the premise and sue from that point.

Everyone wins.....Well, except for the state.

I can live with that.

I don't disagree with you. But I guess I don't have a personal enough investment in it (I have no desire to marry a man) to actually put the effort in.

What if I wanted to marry straight a man, whom I truly loved, and he wanted to marry me, just for the statutory privileges?

 

[Oddball]

And you have been showed many times at a state level marriage is defined as a right, and Loving did rule on statutory marriage as you say. They ruled the state's written law/statutory law violated the Due Process clause and equal protection.

If the Loving case affirmed any right to a state marriage license, we wouldn't be having this argument right now, would we?

 

[Luissa]

Refuse to accept the premise and sue from that point.

Everyone wins.....Well, except for the state.

I can live with that.

I don't disagree with you. But I guess I don't have a personal enough investment in it (I have no desire to marry a man) to actually put the effort in.

What if I wanted to marry straight a man, whom I truly loved, and he wanted to marry me, just for the statutory privileges?

Go ahead, straight couples do it all the time.