Polygamy vs. Homosexual Marriage

[devildog 0]

Quote

I guess that ignorance is indeed bliss.

My cousin certainly can't marry the man he has been in a loving stable relationship with for 33 years. If one gets sick... the other since he is not family can and has been excluded by hospital staff... the list is ENDLESS of the rights that they do not have because of the bigoted assholes who run their state government..
Ign

I can't marry a man either.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I guess that ignorance is indeed bliss.

My cousin certainly can't marry the man he has been in a loving stable relationship with for 33 years. If one gets sick... the other since he is not family can and has been excluded by hospital staff... the list is ENDLESS of the rights that they do not have because of the bigoted assholes who run their state government..
Ign

I can't marry a man either.

So.. you lied when you took the oath...got it...

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I guess that ignorance is indeed bliss.

My cousin certainly can't marry the man he has been in a loving stable relationship with for 33 years. If one gets sick... the other since he is not family can and has been excluded by hospital staff... the list is ENDLESS of the rights that they do not have because of the bigoted assholes who run their state government..
Ign

I can't marry a man either.

So.. you lied when you took the oath...got it...

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :)

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I guess that ignorance is indeed bliss.

My cousin certainly can't marry the man he has been in a loving stable relationship with for 33 years. If one gets sick... the other since he is not family can and has been excluded by hospital staff... the list is ENDLESS of the rights that they do not have because of the bigoted assholes who run their state government..
Ign

I can't marry a man either.

So.. you lied when you took the oath...got it...

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :)

No...the CONSTITUTION never did.... enough with the PHALACIES already.
The fact that our country suffers from the sad reality that we were founded by various groups of religious whackjobs that got kicked out of England for their out of the ordinary beliefs.. or get added to the burn pile is where the bigotry stems from.

It must really gall you that they are going to finally accept openly gay men with youin serving their country....... homopohbes all over the service must be in fear of the showers

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :)

No...the CONSTITUTION never did.... enough with the PHALACIES already.
The fact that our country suffers from the sad reality that we were founded by various groups of religious whackjobs that got kicked out of England for their out of the ordinary beliefs.. or get added to the burn pile is where the bigotry stems from.

It must really gall you that they are going to finally accept openly gay men with youin serving their country....... homopohbes all over the service must be in fear of the showersI really don't care if a gay man serves or doesn't. Anyone is welcome in my Corps as long as they are held to the same standards as everyone else.

And, just so we're both clear, you've still yet to list a single right I have someone else doesn't.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :)

No...the CONSTITUTION never did.... enough with the PHALACIES already.
The fact that our country suffers from the sad reality that we were founded by various groups of religious whackjobs that got kicked out of England for their out of the ordinary beliefs.. or get added to the burn pile is where the bigotry stems from.

It must really gall you that they are going to finally accept openly gay men with youin serving their country....... homopohbes all over the service must be in fear of the showers

I really don't care if a gay man serves or doesn't. Anyone is welcome in my Corps as long as they are held to the same standards as everyone else.

And, just so we're both clear, you've still yet to list a single right I have someone else doesn't.

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

(Assuming you're heterosexual)

You have the right to marry the one you love which entitles you to all the benefits only extended to married couples.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

I think the problem Amazon is having is seperating state law from the Constitution of the united states of America.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit gays from marrying or wedding their chosen partner.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

(Assuming you're heterosexual)

You have the right to marry the one you love which entitles you to all the benefits only extended to married couples.

I have the right to marry a non-immediate family member female. I do not have the right to marry just anyone because I love them. Any other male is afforded that same right.

edit: I could, for example, be in love with my sister, but I can't marry her. Nor can I marry the Eiffel tower, a cat, or a snake (all three of which, btw, have been involved in marriages at one point in time), no matter how much I love any of them.

double edit: the above rights are more, "I am legally allowed to marry / not marry..." The rights come into play where we all have the right to equal treatment / protection under the law. As such, marriage laws are equally applied in the above (which was my point)

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

I think the problem Amazon is having is seperating state law from the Constitution of the united states of America.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit gays from marrying or wedding their chosen partner.

Correct. In fact, it's made quite clear that anything not specifically stated is left to the states.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

I think the problem Amazon is having is seperating state law from the Constitution of the united states of America.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit gays from marrying or wedding their chosen partner.

Correct. In fact, it's made quite clear that anything not specifically stated is left to the states.

So you do in fact SUPPORT BIGOTRY


Its the American way

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Re: genetic mutation in say a brother / sister pair.

Isn't there a big problem in the Amish communities, which have interbred for several hundred years, and which all originated from only a few hundred members centuries ago?

I still don't see that as a good reason to prohibit relatives from marrying, as long as they are aware of the risks. And since most people do not do that, it wouldn't become a widespread problem like the small Amish community experiences.

[Bolas 5]

I'll revise and clarify additionally.

(I'm assuming you're heterosexual, interested in human relationships, and not with immediate family members or anyone underage)

You have the right to marry any one you love which entitles you to all the benefits only extended to married couples.

Quote

I have the right to marry a non-immediate family member female. I do not have the right to marry just anyone because I love them. Any other male is afforded that same right.

Why should the gender of the other person matter?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,384]

>AFAIK, every citizen in the US has the same rights as I do, felons excluded.

And children, and some criminals who are not felons.

[billvon 2,384]

>I can't marry a man either.

And at one point you couldn't marry someone of another race. We fixed that error, and are in the process of fixing the error you mention.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Re: genetic mutation in say a brother / sister pair.

Isn't there a big problem in the Amish communities, which have interbred for several hundred years, and which all originated from only a few hundred members centuries ago?

I still don't see that as a good reason to prohibit relatives from marrying, as long as they are aware of the risks. And since most people do not do that, it wouldn't become a widespread problem like the small Amish community experiences.

http://www.biochemgenetics.ca/plainpeople/view.php

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I guess that ignorance is indeed bliss.

My cousin certainly can't marry the man he has been in a loving stable relationship with for 33 years. If one gets sick... the other since he is not family can and has been excluded by hospital staff... the list is ENDLESS of the rights that they do not have because of the bigoted assholes who run their state government..
Ign

I can't marry a man either.

So.. you lied when you took the oath...got it...

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Constitution supports my position at the moment, not yours. Thanks for playing, however :)

How does the Constitution support your position?

Where within the Constitution is marriage between any persons mention?

I would imagine that you believe the U.S. Constitution provides the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If so, you would be wrong. It does not. Neither does it state that America is a "free country." No one fights for "freedom." When I served in the military, I was under the impression that that is what I was serving to preserve. The more I learned about the Constitution, the more I realized that "freedom" was not a part of the document.

It is amazing just how little the majority of Americans know about the U.S. Constitution or that the D.O.I. is merely a list of charges against King George lll and the parliament.

It is my belief that any person wishing to serve in the military must first be able to write an essay on the U.S. Constitution and the D.O.I. or pass a class with a 90% or better grade. You should at least know what you are actually protecting.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obtuse much???... you know a hell of a lot of our fellow Americans don't have the same rights you do.. but you are just fine with that.Don ya just gotta love that biblical hypocrisy that still holds sway in so much of America.

Then name one. You're currently batting 0 for 1

I think the problem Amazon is having is seperating state law from the Constitution of the united states of America.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit gays from marrying or wedding their chosen partner.

Correct. In fact, it's made quite clear that anything not specifically stated is left to the states.

So you do in fact SUPPORT BIGOTRY


Its the American way

I support applying laws equally. Glad we finally agree rights are the same.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

How does the Constitution support your position?

Where within the Constitution is marriage between any persons mention?

It doesn't, which only supports my point. In the amendments, there is the right to equality under the law, which is where most people seem to be heading. Currently that equality is certainly being used in terms of who any person, regardless of orientation, can legally marry. The original thread to this that you missed due to pruning was Amazon claiming that people had the right (in the Constitution no less) to marry anyone they wanted (among other things). I'm just pointing out that's not true whatsoever.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

>I can't marry a man either.

And at one point you couldn't marry someone of another race. We fixed that error, and are in the process of fixing the error you mention.

If you look at the time line of it, you once could marry interracially, as the law allowed it. Anti-miscegenation laws then slowly came into being, altering who was legally entitled to marry, thus violating the 14th amendment by unequally applying an existing law (who can marry) to the population. When the courts began to rule that way, they never said, "You have the right to marry anyone and everyone, therefore interracial marriage is okay." They struck down the anti-miscegenation laws, which again, altered the application of existing law at the time they were brought into effect.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[DanG 1]

Your argument that since everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, everyone is being treated equally is technically true. It is also not on point. If the government passed a law that said everyone must sing a perfect pitch version of Ave Maria in order to vote, would you argue that the law was just and fair, since everyone is being treated equally? If you did, you argument might be technically correct, but again not on point. Your perception of what constitutes equal treatment is not determinative of fairness.

- Dan G

[devildog 0]

Quote

Your argument that since everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, everyone is being treated equally is technically true. It is also not on point. If the government passed a law that said everyone must sing a perfect pitch version of Ave Maria in order to vote, would you argue that the law was just and fair, since everyone is being treated equally? If you did, you argument might be technically correct, but again not on point. Your perception of what constitutes equal treatment is not determinative of fairness.

My argument started as a rebuttal to Amazon's list of rights found in the Constitution. I was simply pointing out that not to be the case. As to your example, one might ask, what does singing Ave Maria have to do with what the law sees as marriage? The answer, as I'm sure you know, is nothing. Therefore, we'd say it's a silly idea and certainly an unfair one. Now, what does the idea of both polygamy, homosexuality, and incest have to do with the idea of how the law sees marriage? Everything, as the law currently defines (in most places) marriage to be between two consenting, non-immediately related, opposite sexed persons of a specific age (and only 2).

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

How does the Constitution support your position?

Where within the Constitution is marriage between any persons mention?

It doesn't, which only supports my point. In the amendments, there is the right to equality under the law, which is where most people seem to be heading. Currently that equality is certainly being used in terms of who any person, regardless of orientation, can legally marry. The original thread to this that you missed due to pruning was Amazon claiming that people had the right (in the Constitution no less) to marry anyone they wanted (among other things). I'm just pointing out that's not true whatsoever.

Well, I basically agree with you at some level as I do with Jeanne, at some level.

The constitution does not protect the institution of marriage nor does it provide rights to any one group or another. The issue is not a matter of constitutional rights and the federal government should wash it's hands of the matter.
The issue is a State matter as wording in the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments alludes to such.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[DanG 1]

It's called an analogy.

The point of the analogy is to show that equal treatment is not the same as fair. If I were required to sing Ave Maria at perfect pitch in order to vote, I would never get to vote. I would consider that unfair. An opera singer (you, analogously) would argue that since you have to pass the exact same test, we are both being treated equally. That argument is just as valid as your equal treatment argument about restrictive marriage benefits.

- Dan G