A question for those who support gay marriage

reply to post by WolfofWar

If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, should banning bigamy and polygamy also be unconstitutional as well?

This all depends on whether or not there are financial benefits to be had or not and how marriage is defined.

If people want to be together then they have every right to do so, be it for a week a year of 50 years.

I currently have four wives and pretty good ones at that, they take it in turns to get the house work and child care done and provide diverse sex so I don't have to go looking elsewhere to get my needs met.

I would highly recommend any man getting a few wives as long as he can afford to as there are huge benefits to be had.

If you want to feel safer in the world and protect your way of life you need to have as many children as you can, so it makes sense to have as many wives as you can to help raise them in your way of thinking.

The more gay men that get married the better it is for straight men because it leaves more women available for you to breed with.

I would highly recommend that anyone that is in a minority social group to have several wives, many domestic disputes revolve around sex or rather the lack of, with multiple wives you don't have this problem thus giving more time to focus on the things that are important.

reply to post by intrepid

"Sex is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal?"

Because there won't be a secretary or checkout girl left in the country, but there again isn't marriage a from of prostitution?

When a couple go to the divorce courts money matters are resolved, if their not married there is little legal protection.

As it stands in many western countries the biggest beneficiary from a divorce is the woman and if were honest and think hard about it most men get married for regular sex.

So, ultimately traditionally women have got married for material gain and men have got married falsely believing they will have regular sex.
Surely this is prostitution, exchanging sex for financial/material gain or perceived security. ?

Originally posted by spikey

I neither support nor do i oppose gay marriage.

But the above statement is ridiculous.

Where is the logic that supports a link between homosexuality and pedophilia or bestiality? That's patently anti-homosexual propaganda, perpetrated by those that use fear and ignorance as a tool to spread hate.

It's a common talking point for opponents of gay marriage. It's not an accurate talking point, but it is one regardless.

The idea of marriage, at least the traditional concept, is one of a monogamous union. Where does your interpretation of gay = polygamy come into the issue?

Well it's a rather simple analogy. If gay marriage is legalized nationwide it now opens up the precedence to look at other "fringe" relationships, like polygamy and bigamy.

Homosexual marriages don't automatically mean polygamous marriages...why do you say it's fair to compare them so?

Because both are a redefinition of the social standard of marriage in western tradition. If the courts determine that gay marriage can be legal, then the standards of marriage can be re-evaluated.

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Opposition to these marriages is based in fear, arrogance and ignorance, and they need to STFU. They are saying,"If you don't believe as me, than you are in the wrong."

Which is exactly what you and your kind are saying as well!

The government needs to recognize americans right to do whatever we want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself. You wanna do drugs(fairly safely), have a homosexual marriage, or buy the services of a licensed and willing prostitute go ahead. Didn't Jefferson write something about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? what ever happened to that?

Originally posted by Acidtastic
I think consenting adults should be able to do what ever the heck they like. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Acidtastic]

So if person A wanted to be killed by person B and person B wanted to kill person A that makes it all right? Just asking since you brought the "whatever the heck they like" into the equation.

Originally posted by black cat

So if person A wanted to be killed by person B and person B wanted to kill person A that makes it all right? Just asking since you brought the "whatever the heck they like" into the equation.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there is a difference between sex and murder. Just a guess.

I agree that marriage should be allowed "HOWEVER".. there should be consequences for such actions.. first off, you should never, EVER, be allowed to have children, second, if you already have kids, they should be immediately removed from you, simply because your pushing a "self destructive" system of life upon a child.. that is "Child Abuse"..

It's simple people.. if you play the game, you have to pay the price.. you want a same sex life? .. then you simply live and die with no progeny to pass your experiences to, as it is a biological impossibility to have kids if your women to women, man to man (defeats the purpose of offspring potential does it not?)

reply to post by sdcigarpig

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
The government has an estimate amount of money they think they can collect from you.
So marriage is an investment for the future. With a gay marriage the investment isn't producing anything worth collecting, so special rights will never bring up any profit.

Is that what you believe?

I know that we are all a slave to society. I know that there are people that take advantage of others. Money is the one thing that labels everything with a prize tag and people are willing to kill for it. Lots of money can give you power. Like the power to allow gays to get married, or not.

What I believe is that money has become the most important thing in many peoples lives and a gay marriage would fail to produce another cash cow.
So... I think it is possible.

Originally posted by Annee
I personally support ALL marriages of adult consent.

Right Now - we need to stick with making 2 adults any gender legal - - then we can work on the multiples.

Here is a scenario: I am married to a man 21 years younger then me. He is a great man. In 20 years of marriage he has never made me feel old or unloved.

But I am getting older. I will soon be 65. It is a great responsibility to keep a marriage alive and fresh - - so that both partners are happy.

I have told him - he needs to find a younger "wife" (in addition to me). Neither of us believe in having affairs. We both support honestly in our marriage.

I do not want him ending up like Paul McCartney - - - being alone after a long very devoted partner has passed - - - and hooking up with a nut bar.

-----------------------------------------------------

The perfect solution for us - would be to bring a "sister wife" into our marriage. I am very devoted to the welfare and happiness of my husband. I want to be instrumental in choosing a "sister wife" for him.

I do not appreciate that this is not recognized as legal marriage.

However - one Equal Rights issue at a time. Gays have been persecuted long enough.

First off AMEN! Gays and Lesbians MUST have the same rights as us heteros in the eyes of Government (if not someone else's version of God) and afforded all the rights as any of us.

On poly marriage: that is a perfect example of a benefit to recognizing the rights of every human being to "the pursuit of happeness" including poly marriage.

Another one is this, ala Heinlein's "Line Marriages": in a "normal" 2 person marriage with kids - what if one partner dies?

That leaves the kids to be reared either without a father or a mother, and doubles the burden on the surviving spouse.

If you have 3 guys married to 6 women, or 6 guys and 3 women, and a ton of kids and one parent dies, sure there is loss of one of them with the pain that means for all; but there is comfort too - still there are moms to hug you, and still there are dads to teach you what it means to be a man, or vice versa for the daughters.

This isn't a fun and games sex thing, although that's attractive - I am a guy

It's a loving commitment to the entire family; it means extended security if one loses a job, or gets sick, and it shares the work if there is a special needs child or a disabled parent.

I don't think this would ever become the norm, because what I envision is a genuine love and commitment - you'd litterally marry the entire adult family and adopt all the kids. But I think for rare people, it could be wonderful.

Anyway, great points Annee and thank you!


[edit on 7-8-2010 by mydarkpassenger]

Originally posted by Jamesack
I agree that marriage should be allowed "HOWEVER".. there should be consequences for such actions.. first off, you should never, EVER, be allowed to have children, second, if you already have kids, they should be immediately removed from you, simply because your pushing a "self destructive" system of life upon a child.. that is "Child Abuse"..

It's simple people.. if you play the game, you have to pay the price.. you want a same sex life? .. then you simply live and die with no progeny to pass your experiences to, as it is a biological impossibility to have kids if your women to women, man to man (defeats the purpose of offspring potential does it not?)

Dude, we've come a long way from being breeding stock hoping to become hunter-gathers - it's not the Prime Directive anymore.

How is being gay or lesbian "A self-destructive" lifestyle except at the hands of bigots and homophobes? As for children, the evidence is in: you are born straight or born gay, so how in hades does that affect a kid raised by two people who love the kid and each other?

"There should be Consequences" "Not allowed to have have children" and having your kids removed..

Uh, why stop there? Let's nip this "self destructiveness" in the bud, let burn 'em at THE STAKE as soon as they say "I do"

Edit: Glad nobody died and made you God.






[edit on 7-8-2010 by mydarkpassenger]

Originally posted by Jamesack
first off, you should never, EVER, be allowed to have children, second, if you already have kids, they should be immediately removed from you, simply because your pushing a "self destructive" system of life upon a child.. that is "Child Abuse"..

This shows just how little you know about child abuse if you think having two dads or two moms is even in the same ballpark as people beating their children literally to death or locking them in bathrooms for months.

______________

Back to the OP, what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business. Two men, two women, whatever. Their life, their business. Getting any more than two people in a marriage brings on a whole host of other issues though; inheritance, benefits, taxes, etc. If being in a relationship with two or more other people is how someone gets their jollies, more power to them. Again, their life, their business. I'm just not sure that permitting marriage of three or more people is really worth the trouble it would cause when it came to everything else that would have to be figured out for it to work if they later wanted to divorce or if one or more died.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily against the idea if that's what consenting adults want to do. It's the details required for it to work that make me wary.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Jenna]

Originally posted by WolfofWar

The overturning of Prop 8 has set precedence that will be looked upon by the Supreme Court and other district courts across the nation. It is unconstitutional to prohibit consenting adults to marry. This means marriage is no longer defined as a civil union of a man and a woman, but of consenting adults.

If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, should banning bigamy and polygamy also be unconstitutional as well?

It is likewise unconstitutional for a single judge to throw a legal vote in the state of California.

If the law is somehow changed to make gay marriage legal, then bisexual polygamists have an argument that three or more are allowed to marry each other.

If bisexual polygamy is made legal in California, then those who want to marry anything or anyone they want have an argument that they, too, are free to marry anything or anyone they want.

This could mean that California becomes a state where not you can marry anything or anyone you want, but that does not mean you are still married to anything or anyone you want if you cross the California state line.

Now we get into federal law versus state law. A question that has been raised in Arizona about an immigration law that mirrors the federal law. A judge ruled that Arizona can't pass a law independent of a federal law.

If Arizona can't pass a law independent of a federal law, then it is questionable whether California can pass a law independent of a federal law.

And this goes for the question of the potential legalization of marijuana in California. Such a law would go against federal law.

Can each state pick and choose which laws they want that are independent of federal laws?

The Supreme Court sure is going to be busy.

Vote for conservative candidates in November. Just in case Obama gets to name another court justice. Remember Judge Bork.

Anyone at anytime should have the right to exchange vows. True marriage is from the heart. Legal marriage is mostly for income tax purposes and name changes, another way for the govt to keep up with what your doing. If you live as a partner with someone you should be able to file taxes together whether you are legally married or not, just show proof of address on your tax form. IMO

Originally posted by earl call
If bisexual polygamy is made legal in California, then those who want to marry anything or anyone they want have an argument that they, too, are free to marry anything or anyone they want.

Your argument is severely flawed. Consenting adults marrying each other will not pave the way for people to marry "anything or anyone they want". Only adults can give consent to marry someone. Animals, children, and inanimate objects cannot consent to anything, least of all marriage.

Originally posted by earl call

It is likewise unconstitutional for a single judge to throw a legal vote in the state of California.

If the law is somehow changed to make gay marriage legal, then bisexual polygamists have an argument that three or more are allowed to marry each other.

Actually it's not unconstitutional for a judge to throw a legal vote. the point of the judicial system.

Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States' between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [Note: this clause was modified by the 11th Amendment, but for my purposes, we don't need to go into that further]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

When appealed to the courts, a citizen may request a court to overlook a law or previous judicial decision of a lower court. A higher court's sole responsibility is to ensure that pre-existing laws are not in conflict of the current law and the law adheres to precedents and constitutional guidelines. The process goes up all the way to the Supreme Court, who acts as final arbiter of the contested item. In the case of Prop 8, it was ruled that it was in direct violation of the protections of the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution. Now one must appeal to a higher court to contest.

It's pretty much a pristine example of exactly how the courts are supposed to work and what their role is.

reply to post by WolfofWar


I hear this system is in place even in Haiti. Wyclef Jean claims to bypass the requirement of living in Haiti for five years before running for office, because Wyclef Jean claims to be a roving ambassador.

Up the court ladder.

If a judge who happens to be a pedophile throws out the laws on Pedophilia in the State of California....then what?


If Gay Marriage is Legal, Then.....
.......So is Bisexual Polygamy


The Bisexual Polygamist Opening Credits
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by earl call
reply to post by WolfofWar

 

If a judge who happens to be a pedophile throws out the laws on Pedophilia in the State of California....then what?

then it goes up to a higher court system. The pedophile judge would get so much flak that an investigation would come swiftly upon him, and the ruling would quickly be overturned by the Court of Appeals.

Straw man is straw.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
[
The pedophile judge would get so much flak that an investigation would come swiftly upon him, and the ruling would quickly be overturned by the Court of Appeals.

Straw man is straw.

Wait a minute. Like, we have a president who was born in Kenya and you think the media is going to make a big deal out of a judge who is a pedophile?

I think not.

The media embraces perverse behavior.

reply to post by earl call


Poor analogy that shows a very weak understanding of law.

Even if he was born in Kenya, his mother was a US citizen. All children born of US citizens are considered natural born citizens. Dred Scott v Sandford already establishes that a person may receive natural born citizenship via birth of a citizen.

He could have been born in Kenya and lived there for 42 years, he is still a natural born citizen.

straw man argument is REALLLY straw.