- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Fortunately, we now know through research that all of that was inaccurate.
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_
And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_
Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?
And if people were permitted to drive cars, they might get drunk and kill somebody_The state may only enact a ban when it serves a compelling state interest. Irrational dislike of homosexuality does not meet that standard. Polygamy is reasonably prohibited based on the practical legal implications of marriage law. If legal, you could have one person marrying thousands of foreigners to bypass immigration and get them residency.
Since you invested so much time and effort to take this cheap-shot, I suppose a response is in order_That is probably especially important to you given your extreme xenophobia.
And if people were permitted to drive cars, they might get drunk and kill somebody_
Do you seriously believe the worse case scenario defense is a viable argument???
Since you invested so much time and effort to take this cheap-shot, I suppose a response is in order_
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_
And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_
Well of course Pas! This isn't about a shotgun wedding!Keep in mind that for Polygamy to be legal, each member of the marriage would likely have to consent.
Just as you have done here, society gave countless reasons why homosexuals shouldn't marry_Managing more than a few people like that would suggest a great deal of complication. That sort of abuse could be very complicated very fast, and imagine the risk that this person would take. If some of these immigrant spouses were irresponsible with loans, the original person could have their credit completely destroyed, as married couples often have a joint credit rating, for a mortgage for example. Intestate law could also end up denying this person's preferred heirs of their intended inheritance. Also likely this sort of abuse could lead to legalized polygamy being rethought. What's the harm in a threesome, but a fiftysome really doesn't satisfy the intentions of marriage. A gay couple does, a straight couple does, a group of three certainly could, a group of five might. Legal polygamy might not necessarily mean that a marriage can have as many people as one might want. There could still be a reasonable numerical limit. It just might not be two. A polygamous marriage might very much mirror an extended family, only they all have sex with each other. Or have sex with some of each other. But there's no reason why those six people couldn't take care of all their children together, share a house, and have a life together. But eleven people probably couldn't do that.
The basic DOMA doctrine makes no specific reference to SSM other than simply being "The Issue Of The Day"_No, I don't. Because it's my point that you seem to be supporting. Each of those issues are different and unrelated. DOMA and the current debate about SSM only deals with homosexuality. It has nothing to do with any of the other issues you referenced.
My point exactly, except that now those policies are no longer tolerated_Society also once believed that black people made excellent farm equipment and that a woman was property, owned her by father or her husband. Society maintains a lot of stupid ideas and it is excellent that we disabuse ourselves of such trite.
As long as it's not to the cheap-shot he took_ :wink:I second Rathi's explanation to your final query.
Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?
I'm very happy that you showed up Bobby_As a matter of morality, and of basic societal survival, it is the duty of any society to uphold and preserve those principles that are essential to the stability of that society and the well-being of the members thereof.
The family as the most basic unit of society, founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, is the single most basic, essential, and vital of such principles. No society of any size has ever deviated very far from this foundation, and survived; and no society ever will. Ours will not be an exception.
I'm very happy that you showed up Bobby_
As usual you've covered the bases well and there's little I can add_
Your wisdom and common sense are rarely seen in these strange times_
Many people appear to be in denial of the ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling_
I'm inclined to believe many of these "unions" are much more than just a possibility_
Maybe not right away but down the road, because that's the direction we seem to be headed_
Ha-Ha-Haaa! That was very cute elcapitan_lol humans are not going to marry animals.
do you horse take this woman to be your lawfully married wife.
lol crazy talk.
Do you seriously not care or simply don't believe society would ever allow it?Well, the concerns of busy-bodies are the concerns of government. I don't care if people want to marry their vibrator.
Do you seriously not care or simply don't believe society would ever allow it?
As a matter of morality, and of basic societal survival, it is the duty of any society to uphold and preserve those principles that are essential to the stability of that society and the well-being of the members thereof.
The family as the most basic unit of society, founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, is the single most basic, essential, and vital of such principles. No society of any size has ever deviated very far from this foundation, and survived; and no society ever will. Ours will not be an exception.
By the numbers: Same-sex marriage - CNN.comHere's a look at same-sex marriage in the United States, by the numbers:
36 -- The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional provisions.
6 -- The number of U.S. states that allow civil unions between same-sex couples, but not marriage: Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island. This number will go down to four this summer after Delaware's new marriage laws take effect in July and the Rhode Island laws do on August 1. (Some states that allow civil unions also ban same-sex marriage.)
12 -- The number of U.S. states that allow same-sex marriage, along with the District of Columbia: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
1,138 -- The number of federal benefits to marriage.
30.25% -- The approximate percentage of the U.S. population affected by Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings after same-sex marriage laws take effect in Delaware (on July 1, 2013) and Minnesota and Rhode Island (on August 1, 2013).
2001 -- The year the Netherlands made same-sex marriage legal. It was the first country in the world to so.
2003 -- The year that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to criminalize sodomy.
2004 -- The year that same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to do so.
14 -- The number of countries worldwide where same-sex marriage is legal in the entire country. They are: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.
3 -- The number of countries where same-sex marriage is legal in some areas: Brazil, Mexico and the United States.
27% -- The percentage of Americans who thought same-sex marriage should be legal in 1996, according to a May Gallup Poll.
53% -- The percentage of Americans who think it should be legal in 2013, according to the same poll.
3.5% -- The approximate percentage of Americans identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to 2011 research by the Williams Institute at UCLA.
646,000 -- The number of same-sex-couple households in the United States in 2010, according to the Census Bureau.
80.4% -- The percentage growth of same-sex couple households in the U.S. between 2000 and 2010, according to the Census Bureau.
10% -- The percentage of people identifying as LGBT living in the District of Columbia, according to a 2012 Gallup Poll. This is the highest percentage in the country.
1.7% -- The percentage of people identifying as LGBT living in North Dakota, according to a 2012 Gallup Poll. This is the lowest percentage in the country.
115,064 -- Number of same-sex couple households in the United States with children, according to the Census Bureau.
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_
And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_
I believe that's what we're attempting, preemptively, to do here Afro_And we'll address them if they ever come up. It's not as if there won't be rational discussion on the matter.
I was simply stressing a point, to which you overreacted by taking it way to serious and personal_Your heart must be filled with the love and compassion of Christ with a filthy insulting tongue like that.
I believe that's what we're attempting, preemptively, to do here Afro_
(a stitch in time, so to speak) :thumbs:
i was simply stressing a point, to which you overreacted by taking it way to serious and personal_
(lighten up dude)
Well, they were right in that SSM would never happen under the way their sociaty operated at the time the statement was made.There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_
And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_
Whether or not there's anything wrong with "gay marriage" is no longer the issue_Well, but you see, there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.
And the fact that things do indeed "change" is precisely what this thread was intended to deal with!Well, they were right in that SSM would never happen under the way their sociaty operated at the time the statement was made.
But things change.
Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?
a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead
Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?
Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?
The point of this thread is not about for or against anything, but about society's new found tolerance_This seems like a pretty silly question. For one thing, there are already laws against incest, bygammy and probably bestiality. *You seem to be having a hard time with same sex marriage. 2 people of the same species (humans) may get married. They may not be related as in brother sister, or any other combination.
Actually, if you think about it, it very well might "change that or effect it"_This already applies and same sex marriage doesn't change that or effect it in any way. They may not marry farm animals or appliances and the very idea that this is remotely possible is *a sign that you've been listening to too many homophobes.
I suppose you also believe people who are anti-amnesty for illegals are "xenophobes" as well_*a sign that you've been listening to too many homophobes.
You over-estimate the importance of homosexuals and their issues to most right-wingers_*You seem to be having a hard time with same sex marriage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?