A National Majority Now Disagrees With The Theocons About Gay Marriage

[Tock]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks; details count.

In all fairness, to play the advocate of el Diablo, at least an incestuous relationship is capable of producing life. Can't say the same thing about homosexual relationships.

So?
Does Mr. El Diablo insist that only couples capable of reproduction should have the right to marry? Surely not . . .

Plus, given the rampant egotism of the human race who wouldn't wanna fvck someone as close to themselves as possible?

Anyone with a bunch of dysfunctional family members like mine, for one . . .

[Act of God]

So?
Does Mr. El Diablo insist that only couples capable of reproduction should have the right to marry? Surely not . . .

No, of course not. What I do not like is people who think they can pick and choose which perversions (defined as: a change to what is unnatural or abnormal) are "ok" and which are not. The fact that being gay is now chic` really has no bearing on its legitimacy.

A lot of my gay friends totally dodge the "would you support polygamy?" question, because they still feel like they have the right to say "ohh, that's wrong" while preaching that their way of life is normal and should be accepted.

F that double standard.

[Tock]

A lot of my gay friends totally dodge the "would you support polygamy?" question, because they still feel like they have the right to say "ohh, that's wrong" while preaching that their way of life is normal and should be accepted.

F that double standard.

As far as "morality" goes, I don't care if people want a polygamous relationship, as long as everybody is of legal marrying age, and marries voluntarily. I can't imagine that any Fundamentalist Christians would object, since such relationships are approved in the Bible.

One problem, though, would be if businesses formed polygamous marriage relationships to get around limitations inherent in corporations and business partnerships and LLC's. No telling what sort of problems that would generate . . .

[Act of God]

As far as "morality" goes, I don't care if people want a polygamous relationship, as long as everybody is of legal marrying age, and marries voluntarily. I can't imagine that any Fundamentalist Christians would object, since such relationships are approved in the Bible.

One problem, though, would be if businesses formed polygamous marriage relationships to get around limitations inherent in corporations and business partnerships and LLC's. No telling what sort of problems that would generate . . .

Here's the problem, we're talking about LOVE here. If we are going to allow gays these rights based on their right to love and happiness we can't deny anyone else that right, especially based on logistics (like dealing with property rights, inheritance, taxes, etc...). If the argument is "love is what is important" than it has to be of the same importance across the board.

So its time to man up, do we allow ALL consenting adults who proclaim love to be together or do we stay with the traditional man-woman? I'm personally turned off by the thought of two men together, I like the idea of multiple women, and I'm indifferent about siblings (I'm an only child, so I'm sure I don't "get it" like others would). You either have to allow it all, or deny it all. No more of this "well being gay is cool now, so we'll allow THAT" bullshit.

[Tock]

Here's the problem, we're talking about LOVE here.

Not really . . . lots of people get married for reasons other than love.

We're talking about legal recognition of relationships here. The thought occurred to me a while ago that people might substitute a marriage relationship for a partnership to avoid taxes or to prevent a business partner from testifying against him in court. Or something else, who knows . . .
All I'm saying here is that polygamous marriage laws could be used by criminals to avoid legal problems, and I haven't given the issue much thought. I will say, however, that if a way can be found to ensure that marriage laws for polygamists are not abused for criminal or commercial purposes, sure, I'd be in favor of 'em. Why not, as long as eligibility requirements were the same as for monogamous marriages?

If we are going to allow gays these rights based on their right to love and happiness we can't deny anyone else that right

The right to marry is based on Constitutional rights, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "the right to love and happiness."
Then again, the Constitution does not address each and every right we are entitled to; it only addresses the relatively short list of rights that our Federal government guarantees. For instance, US citizens have the right to paint our toilets purple. The US Constitution does not address that issue. the 14th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."




"

If the argument is "love is what is important" than it has to be of the same importance across the board.

Love is important--to people. But, it's irrelevant to the law. Whether or not 2 people love each other makes no legal difference.

[Act of God]

The right to marry is based on Constitutional rights, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "the right to love and happiness."
Then again, the Constitution does not address each and every right we are entitled to; it only addresses the relatively short list of rights that our Federal government guarantees. For instance, US citizens have the right to paint our toilets purple. The US Constitution does not address that issue. the 14th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

First of all, I was referring to people's arguments supporting gay marriage, not the legal basis of it.

Secondly, I think you need to go back to school or at least take a history class. The constitution serves to limit the government. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, nor can it be capable of. A government is incapable of giving what it does not possess. While I understand that you can wrongly assume so, that is not what the document is speaking of. The founding fathers declared that we are all born with certain rights and the constitution prevents a tyrannical government from taking them. They government doesn't allow us to have guns, "god" does. The constitution prevents the government taking them away from us (in theory).

Thirdly, there is no right to marriage (hetero, homo, poly, or otherwise). In fact, it is clearly stated that any power or jurisdiction specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people. As there is no mention of marriage in the constitution the federal government has no standing to make any laws, rules, encumbrances, or contracts regarding the same.

[DSM4Life]

First of all, I was referring to people's arguments supporting gay marriage, not the legal basis of it.

Secondly, I think you need to go back to school or at least take a history class. The constitution serves to limit the government. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, nor can it be capable of. A government is incapable of giving what it does not possess. While I understand that you can wrongly assume so, that is not what the document is speaking of. The founding fathers declared that we are all born with certain rights and the constitution prevents a tyrannical government from taking them. They government doesn't allow us to have guns, "god" does. The constitution prevents the government taking them away from us (in theory).

Thirdly, there is no right to marriage (hetero, homo, poly, or otherwise). In fact, it is clearly stated that any power or jurisdiction specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people. As there is no mention of marriage in the constitution the federal government has no standing to make any laws, rules, encumbrances, or contracts regarding the same.

Prepare for Tock's wrath !