Page 53 of 55 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #521
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Why should you or anyone else care if polygamy does become legal? What possible effect does it have on your life? Most people still won't be doing it and the ones that do were living together anyway. Why do we have to jump from one group to another trying to impose our will on them instead of just letting people live as they choose? Got Freedom?
    I have no problem so long as the federal government gets out of the marriage business all together. If the government isn't interested in defining the term then it has no business subsidizing it.

    When our citizens have rights and the freedom to live their lives as they choose, society benefits greatly. If we banned Christians (or whatever you identify with) from marrying, would that make America more or less free?
    That is a touchy-feely answer with no concrete foundation in reality. People have the right to live as they want, the government doesn't have to recognize their choices for them to live their lives.

    If the government defined marriage as being between two men it wouldn't change my life in the least, but then I don't live my life seeking approval from the government.

    It's funny how gay marriage and abortion are really the only facets of modern society where the Left seems at all interested in making a case for "freedom", though. Everywhere else the left is about eliminating freedoms.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  2. #522
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-09-16 @ 08:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Because of the legal argument used to legalize SSM. You don't have to legalize polygamy based on the US justification for SSM, the SCOTUS decision stripped away any solid definition of the word marriage.
    You are wrong. Here are excerpts from Kennedy's opinion:

    A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.

    ...

    These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

    ...

    No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.
    What’s in the same-sex marriage ruling - The Washington Post

    Marriage is as marriage was, two people, except that now both people can be of the same sex. The supreme court did NOT strip away any solid definition of marriage, only the old one that you like. The bible is not the legal ying and yang of this country. It is the constitution and the governing bodies.

  3. #523
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Why wasn't that true in any of the other countries? Stop dodging the question.
    You do realize that other countries have different laws than the US yes? Tell me how other countries outlaw polygamy and then show me how that correlates with US law and whether their solution fits with US law. If they avoid polygamy by defining marriage in anyway that excludes polygamists then their law is incompatible with the SCOTUS ruling.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  4. #524
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    My argument is not silly, you just fail to understand the gay marriage issue. Perhaps you would like to state why the supreme court should NOT have made it legal across the land. I will explain why they did make it legal. The characteristic of being gay is possessed by a large percentage of the worlds population and it always has been. Estimates vary from 5 - 10% of the population, both male and female. That would make being gay a normally observed human variation in the population. Normal is not bad. You may not understand it, you may not like it, you don't have to. But we all need to respect these peoples dignity as humans. If you think we were made by god, god doesn't make any junk. From the point of view of the state, marriage is not about romantic love, it is about legal rights and responsibilities; rights that people get to enjoy because they chose to commit to a relationship for life, and responsibilities they must live up to within the marriage and afterward if the marriage does not survive. If being gay in a normal human variation in a substantial part of the population, why should those people be denied the right to marry the person they chose?

    The mental health community states that being gay is normal, and we should not try to change the gay person, rather we should change the society so it does not view gay people as wrong or in need of being changed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
    First, nice straw man.

    Second, even larger majority of Americans are born unable to qualify for the Olympics in any even -- that too is normal -- that does not mean that we need to change the standards for Olympic qualifying, even if that means that the average American can't enjoy the lifestyle of an American Olympian.


    So, for correct reason, society has changed to recognize that being gay is a normal human variation, and these people should be entitled to all the rights that anyone else is entitled to. The supreme court has ordered the society to change, and that is good.
    Until the SCOTUS decision marriage wasn't a "right". This is one of those cases where the SCOTUS got it wrong. They states and the citizens of those states should have the right to define terms in their own laws. The SCOTUS ruling issued a blanket authorization without a definition of the term "marriage", and outlawed the ability of the state to define the term. "Marriage" has no real definition at this point and the ruling makes it illegal to attempt to define it since doing so will, by process, be denying marriages to people.

    But we are still in the realm of "one person marrying another person", or two in the marriage. There is no change to SS, because if the people were not gay and married a hetero partner they would pay in to cover that person, they pay into SS anyway, and so their gay partner is already covered, unless you can show that SS presumed a certain percentage of gay people who would not be covered.
    So if gay marriage was outlawed it wouldn't effect the amount of money that a gay couple could expect to get from Social Security?

    I await your reasons why polygamy should be allowed.
    Because the argument in favor of polygamy would use precisely the same argument as gay marriage. Since the argument is exactly the same then the new SCOTUS marriage ruling should be applied equally.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  5. #525
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    It provides greater security and stability for the children of same sex couples
    How so?
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  6. #526
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    You are wrong. Here are excerpts from Kennedy's opinion:


    What’s in the same-sex marriage ruling - The Washington Post

    Marriage is as marriage was, two people, except that now both people can be of the same sex. The supreme court did NOT strip away any solid definition of marriage, only the old one that you like. The bible is not the legal ying and yang of this country. It is the constitution and the governing bodies.
    Yes, so why can't a person who has entered into a marriage with one person enter into a marriage with another person? Kennedy's decision is only talking about the decision of two people to marry, if a husband and a wife both want to enter into a marriage with another person that isn't prohibited by Kennedy's argument.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  7. #527
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,646

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    How so?
    There is a great deal of research that has been done showing how the children of married parents are better off than the children of unmarried parents. You may be the only person I know who is not aware of this info.

    Benefits
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #528
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-09-16 @ 08:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Second, even larger majority of Americans are born unable to qualify for the Olympics in any even -- that too is normal -- that does not mean that we need to change the standards for Olympic qualifying, even if that means that the average American can't enjoy the lifestyle of an American Olympian.
    being an Olympian is not a moral imperative, so your point is immaterial.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator
    Until the SCOTUS decision marriage wasn't a "right". This is one of those cases where the SCOTUS got it wrong. They states and the citizens of those states should have the right to define terms in their own laws. The SCOTUS ruling issued a blanket authorization without a definition of the term "marriage", and outlawed the ability of the state to define the term. "Marriage" has no real definition at this point and the ruling makes it illegal to attempt to define it since doing so will, by process, be denying marriages to people.
    It was a right, that was not available to all couples who wanted to enter into a legal long term committed relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator
    So if gay marriage was outlawed it wouldn't effect the amount of money that a gay couple could expect to get from Social Security?
    No more than if there were no gay people. I have never seen where SS used the % of gay people in the population to set monthly tax rates for employee or employer.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator
    Because the argument in favor of polygamy would use precisely the same argument as gay marriage. Since the argument is exactly the same then the new SCOTUS marriage ruling should be applied equally.
    Wrong. I have shown the quotes from the Kennedy opinion, and it clearly states "two people" (post 522).

  9. #529
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    There is a great deal of research that has been done showing how the children of married parents are better off than the children of unmarried parents. You may be the only person I know who is not aware of this info.

    Benefits
    It's funny because your snide lmgtfy.com link ends up with...

    The first link discussing the benefits of children living with their married biological mother and father... which wouldn't be the case in a gay marriage.

    The second link is the Union of Catholic Bishops... what do you suppose their stance is?

    The third promoted the benefits of children living wit their biological parents (kids who grow up with their married biological parents have a higher rate of religiosity in adulthood, dontcha know)

    The fourth article is a WaPo article asking whether we are overestimating the benefit of marriage to children

    The fifth in an article at the Atlantic that reports on the benefits of intact families (married biological parents)

    At what point does this start being a point in your favor? Link six and seven.. hmm.. nope. More talk about intact families.

    I thought you had a chance with the 8th link but that Princeton site only said that there is no empirical evidence for the benefits of gay marriage for children...
    Last edited by jmotivator; 07-05-15 at 07:26 PM.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  10. #530
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,400

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    being an Olympian is not a moral imperative, so your point is immaterial.
    Please provide your definition of moral imperative and explain why gay marriage is and Olympic aspiration is not a "moral imperative".

    It was a right, that was not available to all couples who wanted to enter into a legal long term committed relationship.
    Nope, it wasn't considered a legal right until the SCOTUS decision, and there was nothing stopping a gay couple from entering into long term committed relationships.

    No more than if there were no gay people. I have never seen where SS used the % of gay people in the population to set monthly tax rates for employee or employer.
    As I already said, the only valid argument for gay marriage is the SS benefits. A gay couple living together without marriage would qualify for fewer social security benefits than if they were married. Therefore, with gay marriage comes an increase in SS payouts.

    Wrong. I have shown the quotes from the Kennedy opinion, and it clearly states "two people" (post 522).
    Right, but where does it say that each person is limited to one marriage?
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Posting Permissions

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