View Poll Results: which are Constitutional rights?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • SSM

    12 23.53%
  • polygamy

    0 0%
  • both

    18 35.29%
  • neither

    18 35.29%
  • undecided/other

    3 5.88%
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 152

Thread: the right to marry whoever

  1. #61
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    166,771

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    All that said government should not be in the business of marriage it should be a legal contract between consenting adults no matter how many there are. I do not want the government involved in my love relationships period. The personal legal contract would take care of all you mentioned. No need for government IMO.
    I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  2. #62
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    58,340

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary
    We could just repeal the inheritance tax. It doesn't bring in much revenue and it doesn't stop wealth growth of those so called rich people. It's just a feel goody tax for liberals to drool over.

  3. #63
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Neither of these laws carries any real consideration for risk factor. As noted before if two sisters get it on, they are in violation of the laws above, but there is no blood risk factors in play. . . . A blood related couple could well end up with no risk factors. The issue with consanguineous reproduction is the higher probability that both participants acquired a given genetic trait from the parents that will result in a birth defect. But that also means that there is a probability of one or both not having that trait. If it is a trait that needs only one gene, i .e. a dominant gene, then that person is a risk whether they engage in consanguineous reproduction or not.

    Any law that is concerned about a given level of risk, would have that law apply to both consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples.
    I mean, you can certainly dream up scenarios where things fall within the law that aren't risky or outside of the law that are risky, but you get the idea, right? They're designed to align pretty well with the genetic risk rather than the moral taboo.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Additionally, the Kentucky laws clearly states that non blood related relatives, step and adopted, are also prohibited. Again no real concern about risk factors.
    No, you're reading it backwards. It says it includes blood relationships only- without regard to non-blood relationships.

  4. #64
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    58,340

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Same sex couple are sexually compatible with each other. Well some are, and some aren't just as some opposite sex couples are not sexually compatible. Your "puzzle pieces" idea a a red herring at best. Procreation is nothing when it comes to sex or marriage. Outside of procreation the male/female thing is meaningless, save in light of one's personal religious calling. Intimacy occurs regardless of the genders involved. Additionally, intimacy can refer to the physical or emotional aspects, or even both. I've been physically intimate with women and not emotionally, while I am emotionally intimate with my husband but not physically.
    Well, without procreation there isn't continuation of the species, and without same sex relations there isn't ummmm... ummm..well, I got nothing. Entire functions of the human body and organs were made with heterosexual sex in mind and not a damn one was put in place for homosexual sex. That should probably tell you something.

  5. #65
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    05-14-17 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary
    I agree the laws about marriage and the benefits to a spouse validate what you say. So what you are saying is true. But there should be no special favors issued to a spouse. A relationship between people in love should be their business. The government should not be involved at any level. A personal contract should be all that is required. But what you say is true granted but should IMO not be the case.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  6. #66
    Actually I am.
    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,388

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    Government should not be in the marriage business.
    Dang, girlie. Where the hell have you been?

    Welcome back!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky
    It's easy to be a Conservative, until you need help.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug
    Asking Sarah Palin to head up the Department of Education is like asking Hitler to head up a human rights advocacy group.

  7. #67
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    05-14-17 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfly View Post
    Dang, girlie. Where the hell have you been?

    Welcome back!
    Thank you for the lovely welcome. I have had my hands full with a lot of things. I will be trying to get back more frequently. Happy to see you still keeping up the good fight.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  8. #68
    Actually I am.
    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,388

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    Thank you for the lovely welcome. I have had my hands full with a lot of things. I will be trying to get back more frequently. Happy to see you still keeping up the good fight.
    Glad to see you here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky
    It's easy to be a Conservative, until you need help.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug
    Asking Sarah Palin to head up the Department of Education is like asking Hitler to head up a human rights advocacy group.

  9. #69
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe



    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    30,595

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    This ruling finally grants equality for the last minority that has been legally discriminated against into the 21st century. Along with the overturning of DOMA, this ruling finally gives homosexuals equal rights to openly serve in the military, to marry and receive all the legal and financial benefits therein, to have their relationships treated with dignity. My only disappointment is that Roberts voted with the SCOTUS bigots, that I'd long since written off as ever voting to grant full equality under the law to homosexuals.

    As for the rest of this poll, I vote "yes", consenting adults should have the right to marry each other regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or familial relationships (although genetic problems and the "ick" factor make this a fairly rare potential). Polygamy? If they are consenting adults and not brain-washed teenagers, of course. Who the hell are any of us to proclaim edicts about who somebody else has the right to love, and how they choose to create their family?

  10. #70
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,377

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    I mean, you can certainly dream up scenarios where things fall within the law that aren't risky or outside of the law that are risky, but you get the idea, right? They're designed to align pretty well with the genetic risk rather than the moral taboo.
    That's my point is that many of the laws do not limit themselves to blood and thus are not about the genetic risk. Nor are there any laws which address potential birth defect chances by non-consanguineous procreation that are equal to or higher in probability of a first generation consanguineous procreation, which would be the lowest possible probability for incest. If they were only worried about the genetic factor then why not limit it to a procreation law vice marriage, and why expand it to non-consanguineous couples?


    No, you're reading it backwards. It says it includes blood relationships only- without regard to non-blood relationships.
    Oh really? Let's look at it again
    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Sure, for example, Kentucky's law is:

    "530.020 Incest.
    (1) A person is guilty of incest when he or she has sexual intercourse or deviate
    sexual intercourse, as defined in KRS 510.010, with a person whom he or she
    knows to be an ancestor, descendant, uncle, aunt, brother, or sister. The
    relationships referred to herein include
    blood relationships of either the whole
    or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by
    adoption, relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and relationship of
    stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild
    "
    In Kentucky's case, they are limiting the non-consanguineous relation up and down generational lines, and not including siblings. Louisiana specifically limited their laws to blood relations only, thus allowing those whose ties are only legal to still engage in sex or marriage. I had noted many states, not all.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •