Gay Marriage Supporters: Hateful bigots

Exactly. It's none of our business.

 

...first off, I don't have a problem with gays and gay relationships, my problem is with the term "marriage"..."marriage" has been defined by our society as "1 man, 1 woman" (or to be more accurate by anthropology definitions "1 male, 1 female")...that is the standard for marriage in the USA...as I have said many, many times, if same-sex relationships don't fit into the definition of marriage then we as a society need to come up with something that fits their needs...I mean when someone says "partner" you know they aren't talking about a heterosexual relationship...I'm 110% for getting the gays something like marriage, but not marriage, that's already taken...


Kabuki Joe

 

High marks for intellectual honesty. You rock the casbah!

 

...if it's none of our business then why do we know?...if it's none of my business and I know then someone isn't keeping it to themself and that makes it my problem...


Kabuki Joe

 

Not sure why you quoted my question if you weren't going to answer it.​

 

Very good point.

 

It's also none of your business that your neighbors are a mixed race couple, are Jewish, drive an expensive car, or are a December-May aged couple. Your not having any right to make their life your business doesn't some how require them to hide that life from you.​

 

Liberals For Obama, Less Family No Values

 

...I know my neighbor on the one side has drinking problems for 2 reasons, #1 the police have come and taken him away a couple of times and #2 he threatened to shoot me and my dogs when he was stumble-down drunk...my other neighbor is from India, I know this from looking at him...the neighbor behind me is Mexican with a bunch of kids, I know this from looking at them...the only one that is a problem is the drunk, the other 2 are nice family guys that don't bother anyone and keep to themselves...


Kabuki Joe

 

you only know cause homophobes are trying to deny them their right to marry, if not for the homophobes we would hear about them no more then heterosexuals that want to marry

 

So everyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe?

 

Or a bigot. Take your pick.

Anyway, I think any consenting adult should be allowed to marry another consenting adult, or adults. How people arrange their personal affairs is no business of the government's.

 

So the problem with the one guy isn't that he failed to hide his alcohol problem, it's because he threatened to shoot you and your dogs? I don't think anyone would hold that against you. I'd have a problem with him if he threatened to shoot me regardless of whether he was Indian, an alcoholic, Mexican, or gay.​

 

I must commend you on your unparalleled ability to babble nonsensically. In this regard, you truly have no equal.

 

How can you tell? I guess I didn't get my Kabuki Joe Secret Decoder Ring.

 

Which has precisely nothing to do with this topic.

 

No, some are. Some aren't. But you are all antilibertarian authoritarian statists.

 

You're preaching to the choir. But for me, it's all or nothing. No gay marriage without polygamy. I'm all in or not at all.

 

Im all for anything that doesn't harm some innocent/non consenting person. I dont like and would stand up and fight for the children that they indoctrinate, but as long as its just a "plural marriage" we are discussing, then be my guest. You have my blessing and you are going to need it with several wives.

Polygamist(which are mainly or exclusively mormon) tend to indoctrinate their children into Mormonism, LGBT don't indoctrinate their kids into being gay. Religion is a choice, being gay is not.

 

I respect the intent there, but honestly it's not the same. First there's a fundamental issue of freedom of association. There's a significant constitutional difference between telling someone who they can marry and telling them how many times they can marry.

There's also a functional difference. Same sex couples can marry now, using exactly the same laws we already have on the books. Likely every issue of marriage they might run into, is already worked out and systems are in place. That's a big reason why same sex couples want to marry -- they want those legal solutions. In contrast, there are countless logistic and legal issues that will be created from allowing folks to merge their lives with more than one person at once or sequentially. We can't just flip a switch like we could with same sex marriage -- you're talking a substantial investment in just figuring out what people would want it to be.

Also, legal precedent exists for limiting the size of partnerships for exactly those logistical reasons. For example California LLC's may be limited to 6; S Corps to 100; marriages to 2.

It's possible, even without the constitutional motivation of freedom of association, we could work out a system to support non-exclusive marriage (and I'm fine at looking into it). We'd have to as a society weigh the considerable cost of all that new legislation. But in the end, wouldn't we just be changing the number from 2 to something else? 5, 10, 25 ... ?

I mean if we set no limit it would be possible for everyone person in this nation to be part of one marriage. Our courts would break long before we got there.​

 

Gay marriage isn't the same as heterosexual marriage, either. So what?

 

So... the limitation based on gender is not necessary, is unconstitutional, and can be removed with one court order. Limiting the size of a marriage is necessary (maybe not a 2 but at some number), it's constitutional, and just changing it a little would be a staggeringly expensive endeavor.

You did read the post you quoted right?​

 

So it's OK to violate peoples' civil rights if it costs too much not to do so? And who says limiting the size of a marriage is necessary? And limited to what size? Who decides that?

 

Yes, it's ok to violate people's civil rights if it costs too much money. The civil rights are provided by the government, the government has limited funds, it always has and always will limit what civil rights it provides based on funding.

I said it was necessary. If you think otherwise... well you might be right. But I don't see how. If our court system can't handle LLC's larger than 6 or S Corps larger than 100, how do you think it's going to handle it when all of Kentucky decides to marry each other?

As to who decides "the size"? I don't care. The point that there is no constitutional difference between limiting a marriage to 2 or X holds, regardless of what you want X to be. A more significant difference is we have a system that works for 2; we need a whole new one for X.​

 

In what ways do you think the marriages of same-sex couples differ from those of opposite-sex couples, and how are those differences relevant to whether their marriage should or shouldn't enjoy equal civil recognition?