Page 10 of 37 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 367

Thread: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

  1. #91
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Where have you been? It already IS recognised as an orientation. What do your think the acronym LGBT stand for?
    Since when has bisexual meant the need to be involved with one of each gender? I've always understood it to mean someone who is attracted to both the same sex and the opposite sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    At least this is an honest assessment. What you predict is a slope the gay marriage folks swore we would never slide down. As to that last, gay marriage was ushered in NOT to combat gender bias but to for sexual orientation. They tried at first to argue on gender basis but were defeated in the courts who said DOMA doesn't discriminate against gender.
    Same-sex marriage proponents swore up and down that same-sex marriage would not lead to what I described, and I'm saying that while we'll get there it won't be because of a precedent set by same-sex marriage.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  2. #92
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Since when has bisexual meant the need to be involved with one of each gender? I've always understood it to mean someone who is attracted to both the same sex and the opposite sex.
    So, since we've decided that sexual orientation is one of the protected classes, why cannot someone who needs both get married? See how that goes? The only argument against it are those same arguments used unsuccessfully against gay marriage. The path has been blazed.

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Same-sex marriage proponents swore up and down that same-sex marriage would not lead to what I described, and I'm saying that while we'll get there it won't be because of a precedent set by same-sex marriage.
    They already are, that's the subject of the OP.

  3. #93
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Wrong entirely on the first and the second.
    You and I can't get married. Are we gay?

    As for the second, can't wait to tell my wife she's legally obligated to have sex with me.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #94
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So, since we've decided that sexual orientation is one of the protected classes, why cannot someone who needs both get married? See how that goes? The only argument against it are those same arguments used unsuccessfully against gay marriage. The path has been blazed.
    It's almost like you're not reading what I'm saying. There is no sexual orientation, either legally recognized or not, in which one requires a partner of each gender in order to be fullfilled.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    They already are, that's the subject of the OP.
    Actually, no, that isn't the subject of the OP at all. The judge's decision had nothing whatsoever with whether or not multiple-partner marriages are entitled to legal recognition
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #95
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You and I can't get married. Are we gay?
    Again, if you read the rulings allowing gay marriage where they have previously been disallowed, you'll see they have to do with sexual orientation, NOT gender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    As for the second, can't wait to tell my wife she's legally obligated to have sex with me.
    In every state I know of withholding of sex from a spouse is grounds for a divorce.

  6. #96
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    It's almost like you're not reading what I'm saying. There is no sexual orientation, either legally recognized or not, in which one requires a partner of each gender in order to be fullfilled.
    You're obviously not up to speed on the whole bisexual orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Actually, no, that isn't the subject of the OP at all. The judge's decision had nothing whatsoever with whether or not multiple-partner marriages are entitled to legal recognition
    The judge made his decision based upon the precedent set by the gay marriage decisions. Polygamists are not yet at the point the gay marriage folks have attained, but every decision for gay marriage brings them closer.

  7. #97
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,534

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality.
    That's news to the judicial system. Almost every court decision overturning bans on same-sex marriage is based on discrimination against sexuality, not gender. Those include the supreme court decisions in:

    MA
    CA
    IA
    NJ

    And a smattering of district courts in other states.

    Hawaii is the only state's Supreme Court to have based a ruling on gender discrimination, and even there, it was only on a remand, not a full disposition of the case.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #98
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    You're obviously not up to speed on the whole bisexual orientation.
    You know what, as crazy as your interpretation of bisexuality sounds, I'll bite. Point me to something that brings me "up to speed."

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    The judge made his decision based upon the precedent set by the gay marriage decisions. Polygamists are not yet at the point the gay marriage folks have attained, but every decision for gay marriage brings them closer.
    Absolutely patently false. From the article linked to in the OP:

    U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
    Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.
    The judge's decision had absolutely nothing to do with precedent sent by "the gay marriage decisions" (whatever the hell those are), and had nothing to do with legal recognition in any way shape or form.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #99
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Again, if you read the rulings allowing gay marriage where they have previously been disallowed, you'll see they have to do with sexual orientation, NOT gender.
    Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #100
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,534

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
    MA, according to its supreme court:

    The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual.... Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution.
    CA, according to the landmark Perry case:

    Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    CONCLUSION

    Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California

    has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
    IA, according to its supreme court:

    We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.
    NJ, according to its supreme court:

    Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 10 of 37 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •