Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

originally posted by: skeptikal1
It is important that liberals attempt to read the constitution and understand the freedoms in guarantees to to all Americans,

That's rich! Let me explain something to you regarding this statement:

originally posted by: skeptikal1
I really resent discrimination against my right to marry several very attractive women, especially since I am sure they would all consent readily to marrying me.

You are not being discriminated against. NO ONE has the legal right (at this time) to marry more than one partner. Only if SOME people could do it and others couldn't, would there be a case of discrimination. When SOME consenting adults can marry and others cannot, that's discrimination.

a reply to: Annee

Why only 2?

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: Annee

Why only 2?

Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?

Should we really care if more than two consenting adults want to marry each other, or if polygamy advocates see the LGBT movement as an inspiration?

I personally don't see a thing wrong with polygamy, but it's not discriminatory that it is illegal at this time. Hopefully, it's the next step to freedom.

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: Annee

Why only 2?

Do you not read posts?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Wrong. If people with one conception of marriage enjoy the benefits of marriage, others with a different conception of marriage should have the same right or it discriminates against them. Clear logic is important!

a reply to: skeptikal1

It's not discrimination if something is illegal for ALL people, such as polygamy.

As of now, allowing heterosexual people to marry and not homosexuals....that's discrimination.

See the difference? One group is allowed to enjoy a freedom but others are not.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Marrying a same sex partner is the same as marrying a cat to these people. Gays are immoral animals to the homophobes.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Wrong again. The idea that polygamy is wrong (and illegal) was based on the idea that it did not fit with the traditional judeo-christian concept of marriage. Now that we have decided to legitimize gay marriage, which is also inconsistent with this definition, we must admit all other conceptions of marriage, or we are discriminating. Again, clear logic is of primary importance in reaching our conclusions!

a reply to: skeptikal1

Sheepslayer247 explained it perfectly. Polygamy is a totally separate issue. Allowing gays to marry is identical to letting blacks and whites marry. Two consenting adults is the key. Bigots fought against interracial marriage just like they fought against gay marriage.

I don't have a problem with polygamy and you are correct about Judeo Christian origins but it's completely separate. If you believe in polygamy you may want to start fighting for it. Best of luck.

a reply to: tavi45

That may be the way some people look at it, but who cares what they think? Our personal feeling do not trump individual liberties and equal application of the law.

a reply to: skeptikal1

Perhaps we have a different definition of discrimination. For us to say that there is discrimination against polygamy, we would have to allow some groups of people to practice polygamy, and prohibit other groups. Correct?

The law is equally applied to everyone.....therefore no discrimination.

Now if you want to make the case that the illegality of polygamy represents a biased, religious-based belief that does not reflect the current state of American culture, then I may agree.

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Wrong again. The idea that polygamy is wrong (and illegal) was based on the idea that it did not fit with the traditional judeo-christian concept of marriage. Now that we have decided to legitimize gay marriage, which is also inconsistent with this definition, we must admit all other conceptions of marriage, or we are discriminating. Again, clear logic is of primary importance in reaching our conclusions!

NO.

Currently tax structure, benefits, and "other" --- both business and government are set up for a 2 person Legal Marriage.

What a hetero couple legally has TODAY, can not be denied to a gay couple. NOTHING changes with a 2 person marriage.

While I fully support the right to multiple partner marriage ----- it presents a whole other "ball game" when introducing Legal ---- and all that accompanies that legal status.

Do I think it needs to be figured out? Yep! But, as said, that's a whole other "ball game".

BREAKING: Kan. Judge OK's Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

A judge in the state's most populous county orders that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples, while the governor and attorney general seek to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage.

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: Annee
BREAKING: Kan. Judge OK's Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

A judge in the state's most populous county orders that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples, while the governor and attorney general seek to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage.

www.advocate.com...

Good. It's nice to see a judge allowing people to practice their rights without injecting their personal, political or religious beliefs.

I hope other judges and politicians notice that this is inevitable.

For those that apply for a marriage license, either hetero or gay, I wish them a long, happy marriage.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Wrong again. The idea that polygamy is wrong (and illegal) was based on the idea that it did not fit with the traditional judeo-christian concept of marriage. Now that we have decided to legitimize gay marriage, which is also inconsistent with this definition, we must admit all other conceptions of marriage, or we are discriminating. Again, clear logic is of primary importance in reaching our conclusions!

NO.

Currently tax structure, benefits, and "other" --- both business and government are set up for a 2 person Legal Marriage.

What a hetero couple legally has TODAY, can not be denied to a gay couple. NOTHING changes with a 2 person marriage.

While I fully support the right to multiple partner marriage ----- it presents a whole other "ball game" when introducing Legal ---- and all that accompanies that legal status.

Do I think it needs to be figured out? Yep! But, as said, that's a whole other "ball game".

Well said and argued.

a reply to: Leonidas

Annee is pretty strong in her stances. She almost took me down once even though I was on her side (I used sarcastic hyperbole). Much respect to her.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Leonidas

Annee is pretty strong in her stances. She almost took me down once even though I was on her side (I used sarcastic hyperbole). Much respect to her.

I tend to be very direct.

And honestly, I sometimes have a little trouble understanding your position/point. You kind of fluctuate.

But, I think we've figured out were mostly on the same page.

a reply to: Annee

Eh I lack concrete positions on most things. I generally play devils advocate. My true positions in most any issue are so far from mainstream its not worth discussing. I'm clearly for gay rights though as I'm not self hating and I turned out gay :p

In general though I believe in equality and compassion and all the stuff bible thumpers are supposed to believe in.

I was about to share one of my deeply held views but I'd rather not since I'm sure I'd lose credibility

End of the day, I'm guided by empathy. That's why I fluctuate a lot. I can understand intimately the motivations and beliefs of any position. I understand why people hate gay people very well. Hatred is never ever the right answer though. If people could realize that we could be building a utopia right now instead of getting the same exact problems we've had for all of history.

Hopefully that clarified things but probably not. I've been misunderstood since I was in elementary school. I still have yet to meet someone who does, including my family friends and lovers. Either way I'm glad to see people fight for what's clearly and obviously right. Once again, much respect.

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Wrong again. The idea that polygamy is wrong (and illegal) was based on the idea that it did not fit with the traditional judeo-christian concept of marriage. Now that we have decided to legitimize gay marriage, which is also inconsistent with this definition, we must admit all other conceptions of marriage, or we are discriminating. Again, clear logic is of primary importance in reaching our conclusions!

Yes..."Clear logic" is important and your argument is not premised in logic, clear or otherwise.

Discriminating between the number 2 and any number greater than or less than 2 is a mathematical truth and fundamentally sound logic, because the number 3 or 4 is not 2...nor is the number 1.

Thus for the legal definition of marriage (which is the topic) neither a single, unmarried person, nor 3 or more people can declare themselves legally married under the law in the USA.

That is MATH...the way that MATH is enforced in law (For all citizens) can not discriminate in it's application or enforcement.

You are bemoaning that Math discriminates between 2 and numbers greater or less than 2?

Logic fail...

a reply to: tavi45

I'm actually more like you in real life. An all water sign that is open to all ideas, and accepting of most.

Perhaps less patient due to age.

I experienced discrimination as a female growing up in the 50s, with a disabled mother. But, my mother was also a dreamer who saw the sunshine, not the clouds.

IMO --- the majority of Christians (and other) has probably come around to accepting sexual orientation is a natural birth difference. That it's not a choice.

I think the USSC made the right decision in accepting the rulings of the lower courts, at this time. It leaves them wiggle room if they ever need it.

Marriage equality seems to be a done deal, for the most part. The Bible Belt may take a little longer, but they will have to accept it.

a reply to: Annee

I'm not big on astrology as it applies poorly to me. IIRC Leo is a fire sign that is courageous and loves the spotlight. I'm generally pretty cowardly and avoid attention as if it were a plague. Then again perhaps I've just been corrupted.

I'm incredibly open to ideas. I love chatting with my clearly insane CT friend because all ideas can have truth and validity at least in part. It's a shame the sexual abuse he endured as a child and the emotional abuse by his peers and authority figures shattered his mind. I accept all people even the rich entitled ones I rail against because anyone with empathy and an open mind can see past the superficial.

Equality for gays is a no brainer. No one chooses to be gay. I didn't even realize it was an option until my 20s when a friend of a friend jumped my bones and it all suddenly made sense. Before that my friends and family all assumed i just had no sex drive (the only outward hint of my being gay whatsoever was that I didn't talk about girls or try to sleep with them). I myself said i was asexual when pressed about the lack of a sex life (and believed it in my own head despite years of fantasizing about male classmates and dozens of other signs).

My life would be most fulfilled (by mainstream standards) if I were straight and worshipped money. My life is much harder for realizing that happiness does not come from external sources and embracing my true self in every regard.

That being said I've emerged from my 10 year period of exploring the world and myself (not just the gay part, in fact least of all the gay part) and suffering hatred and condescension from friends and family, as a man who is trusted and respected by everyone I come into contact with. My own family has gone from labeling me a failure to absolute shock at my seeming over night transformation.

Sorry for rambling but I think maybe the astrology was right after all. I do want to shine like the sun now.

PS. Aren't you being dramatic? Women aren't oppressed and disabled people deserve what they got. Lol just kidding. It's a shame we still have to convince people to care about others (I was greatly disappointed to hear that more people cared about that Spanish nurses Ebola dog more than any human being with Ebola). It's an absolute endorsement of the human spirit that a woman like your mother could teach you to see light among all the darkness. It's certainly challenging to spread the message of love without becoming angry or hating people. I'm basically on here to practice spreading the word of love and empathy. I still carry far too many negative emotions to do it right but I'm getting there bit by bit. It's always nice to see others doing the same. Stay positive and don't forget even bigots are people. No one is innately evil but many are misinformed.

Much love and respect for you Annee. Fight the good fight.