View Poll Results: What say you?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    27 27.84%
  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    20 20.62%
  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    6 6.19%
  • I donít care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    34 35.05%
  • My catís name is Mittens.

    10 10.31%
Page 51 of 73 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 725

Thread: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

  1. #501
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rolesville, NC
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    30,476

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    One man plus one woman is gender specific and that's the law in most states.
    That is a restriction, it is not how laws operate/function. In order to meet the "state interest" requirement of maintaining challenged restrictions, the state has to show a relevant state interest in it related to the way the laws involved actually function.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #502
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,406

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    It is not your right to have the government license anything you do. The government doesn't have to issue you a vendor's license, a fishing license, a driver's license, a doctor's license or any other license. Licenses are issued at the discretion of the state in ALL those categories because licenses aren't some automatic individual right and state sanctioned marriage is a license.
    But likewise no state can deny you these licenses based on certain criteria. You cannot be deny the license based upon age (except for being an adult in most cases), gender, religion, or race.

  3. #503
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 12:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    But likewise no state can deny you these licenses based on certain criteria. You cannot be deny the license based upon age (except for being an adult in most cases), gender, religion, or race.
    That is correct. It goes to the point I've made before. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman, having decided to enter into marriage together could be able to legally wed in every state of the Union regardless of their gender, religion, race or even the fact that both wore shirts to the Clerk of Court's office proclaiming gay pride.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  4. #504
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 12:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    That is a restriction, it is not how laws operate/function. In order to meet the "state interest" requirement of maintaining challenged restrictions, the state has to show a relevant state interest in it related to the way the laws involved actually function.
    You think of it as a "restriction". The state simply thinks of it as "marriage". One man and one woman isn't a restriction it's the definition of what a marriage is. It's not one man or one woman or two men or two women or three men and five women. It is one man and one woman joining together to form a single legal entity. It is opposites joined, not the same doubled. It's not a restriction - it is the nature of marriage. There may be other relationship models but they aren't marriage. Not in 37 states and not in most of the world. And until very recently throughout the span of modern history, NOT ANYWHERE.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #505
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You think of it as a "restriction". The state simply thinks of it as "marriage". One man and one woman isn't a restriction it's the definition of what a marriage is. It's not one man or one woman or two men or two women or three men and five women. It is one man and one woman joining together to form a single legal entity. It is opposites joined, not the same doubled. It's not a restriction - it is the nature of marriage. There may be other relationship models but they aren't marriage. Not in 37 states and not in most of the world. And until very recently throughout the span of modern history, NOT ANYWHERE.
    I think you have that backwards. I believe that polygamy was a way of life for many people until more recent times. Personally, I would not want to be involved in a polygamous relationship, but for those that would, as long as everything is legal, I don't see how anyone could object to it except for perhaps on a religious basis, which doesn't really count because you can't legislate morality.

  6. #506
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-08-14 @ 05:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,325

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I'm certainly not a "hardcore" activist. I just don't think it's a big deal.
    I see. That must explain why you're in multiple debates about gay rights. I guess it's just a passing interest, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I don't like the article you linked me to. There are no references to any of the data provided. I live in MA and I never heard of some of the things claimed in the article. There are PLENTY of things that are MUCH more concerning, expensive and wasteful, especially concerning the government and taxes.
    'Data' is difficult to come by these days. When the country has been going through a violent shove towards the Left, often times, all we have is our own observations to rely on. You can live in MA and still miss a lot of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    We are supposed to be the land of the free. When we say that certain people cannot be married because certain religious groups don't like it, don't agree with it, are disgusted by it, or whatever, that doesn't sound very much like freedom to me.
    We are supposed to enjoy liberty under the law, and the law can't please everyone, ChrisL. Do we want to live in a nation of extremely loose laws (lawlessness in some cases), or do we want to tighten things up with sound morals and personal discipline? you seem to prefer the former

  7. #507
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    I see. That must explain why you're in multiple debates about gay rights. I guess it's just a passing interest, huh?
    This is a debate site. I find it an interesting topic to debate. Posting on a debate website about a particular issue certainly wouldn't qualify someone as a "hardcore" activist. It's not like I join protests, donate money or really participate in any other way for the cause.

    'Data' is difficult to come by these days. When the country has been going through a violent shove towards the Left, often times, all we have is our own observations to rely on. You can live in MA and still miss a lot of things.
    No, it is simply that there are accusations made on that particular link with absolutely nothing to back them up. No links to articles. It was simply a poor choice as far as a link.

    We are supposed to enjoy liberty under the law, and the law can't please everyone, ChrisL. Do we want to live in a nation of extremely loose laws (lawlessness in some cases), or do we want to tighten things up with sound morals and personal discipline? you seem to prefer the former
    No, I don't want the government involved in people's personal lives or decisions as long as they are not hurting someone else.

  8. #508
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rolesville, NC
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    30,476

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You think of it as a "restriction". The state simply thinks of it as "marriage". One man and one woman isn't a restriction it's the definition of what a marriage is. It's not one man or one woman or two men or two women or three men and five women. It is one man and one woman joining together to form a single legal entity. It is opposites joined, not the same doubled. It's not a restriction - it is the nature of marriage. There may be other relationship models but they aren't marriage. Not in 37 states and not in most of the world. And until very recently throughout the span of modern history, NOT ANYWHERE.
    Wrong. Some people think of it as "marriage". The state knows that this is simply a restriction which is why the state doesn't argue circular logic, like you are doing. It is like arguing that because the state defined marriage as "between people of the same race" that the definition of marriage is "a union of people of the same race". Circular logic.

    Not allowing a woman to marry a woman because she is a woman is a restriction. A restriction that the state cannot legitimately show furthers any state interest.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #509
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 12:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Wrong. Some people think of it as "marriage". The state knows that this is simply a restriction which is why the state doesn't argue circular logic, like you are doing. It is like arguing that because the state defined marriage as "between people of the same race" that the definition of marriage is "a union of people of the same race". Circular logic.
    That is incorrect. What marriage is.... is what it is. Since we defined it, there is no circular logic in telling you it is exactly what we defined it to be. YOU may want a different definition but YOU don't dictate that definition. You could call marriage a union between a dog and a cat and it still would be the union of one man and one woman since that's what THE STATE defines it to be and because it's the state definition that counts. Why that's the state definition is something you may quibble about but we're dispensing with the assertion that it is circular logic to say that marriage is what the state defines it to be.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  10. #510
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rolesville, NC
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    30,476

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That is incorrect. What marriage is.... is what it is. Since we defined it, there is no circular logic in telling you it is exactly what we defined it to be. YOU may want a different definition but YOU don't dictate that definition. You could call marriage a union between a dog and a cat and it still would be the union of one man and one woman since that's what THE STATE defines it to be and because it's the state definition that counts. Why that's the state definition is something you may quibble about but we're dispensing with the assertion that it is circular logic to say that marriage is what the state defines it to be.
    You have already been shown to be incorrect on this. Marriage is not a set thing based on the genders of those involved. Just because this is what you are used to, doesn't make it true. It is already defined as between two people, regardless of their sexes. It is only your personal definition that is at odds with this. Legally though a personal definition has no place. Legally marriage is defined in how it functions, not who is allowed to enter into the relationship.

    This is why those state definitions, when challenged, are not holding up in court.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 51 of 73 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •