Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 201
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriagePage 9 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

...if we allow Gays to marry, then you open the door to any others being allowed to marry, regardless of age, familial relationship, number of spouses, etc..because they have "Chosen" that lifestyle.....


This is sublimely silly.

As for being a "chosen lifestyle," homosexuality has apparently been a part of the human "experience" for millennia. There is evidence of this from the Neolithic:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/07-04-2011/117498-Third_Sex_prehistoric_skeleton_found-0/

And Native Americans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

If "chosen" means that people are born with same sex orientation and they decide to life that "lifestyle," why shouldn't they? Only religious zealots and people fearful of their own sexual orientation would have a problem with this.

Perhaps we should do away with marriage altogether! We should have "civil unions" and take religious elements out of living together.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 202
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/8/2012 12:22:42 PM
Perhaps we should do away with marriage altogether! We should have "civil unions" and take religious elements out of living together.

That would solve many a problem... Too bad so many in the "man-woman only" camp are over-invested in the word "marriage"...

Far too many of them depend and rely far too heavily on that definition for validation (both self- and social) for that to happen anytime soon... Their entire sense of self/social validity is so intertwined with the "man-woman marriage" concept that they would be lost (existentially) without it...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 203
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/8/2012 4:48:23 PM

This is sublimely silly.


Why? If it were unconstitutional for any state to discriminate against same-sex partners in its marriage laws, I don't know what reasonable basis there would be for its laws against polygamy and adult incest. Maybe you can explain what reason a state would still have for discriminating against these other unconventional forms of marriage. I can't imagine.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 204
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/8/2012 5:12:05 PM
Why? If it were unconstitutional for any state to discriminate against same-sex partners in its marriage laws...

Why are you trying to reframe the poster's point into one she did not make...? She makes NOT ONE mention of "unconstitutional"...

Go back and reread the post... There is not one mention of it... If you can point it out for me it will give me an excuse to buy some reading glasses...

No...? well, perhaps that is because her point is essentially the same as the OP... "Are homosexuals persons as equally deserving of liberty as other persons ?"...

Heck, even the topic says nothing about the Constitution...

Go back and reread the OP... There is not one mention of "Do homosexuals have a Constitutional right to marry?"... If you can find that question (or even the word "Constitution") in the OP then you can count on an immediate apology from me...

The question is: "Are homosexuals persons as equally deserving of liberty as other persons"...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 205
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/8/2012 11:03:07 PM
Why are you trying to reframe the poster's point into one she did not make...? She makes NOT ONE mention of "unconstitutional"...


I'm not; and she didn't have to. Someone had said that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to other forms of unconventional marriage which are now illegal. The poster called that "sublimely silly." I think it's anything but.

This thread is about New York becoming the sixth state to authorize same-sex marriages in its laws. Claiming those concerns are silly makes sense only if you are arguing what your own state's law on same-sex marriage should be. Then it IS just a question of who thinks what is right.

But it's disingenuous to act like that's all there is to this. It's as if the people who supported the Roe suit forty-odd years ago had claimed their only concern was making it easier for the women of Texas to get abortions. Abortions were already legal with few conditions in some states. No--what the supporters of abortion on demand wanted was for the Supreme Court to hold it was a constitutional right, so that ALL states would have to allow it. And they finally got their wish.

The same thing is going on now. It's safe to say most advocates for same-sex marriage aren't just making a moral argument for what their own states should do. They like to claim they are, though, because states are pretty much free to decide what kind of marriage they do or don't allow.

For example, a state might choose to authorize same-sex marriage but keep incestuous marriage illegal. That would be the state's decision, and no big problem. But if the Supreme Court ever declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right, so that no state could refuse to authorize it--which is what the cheerleaders for this really want--that would be very hard for a state to do.

Declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right would do more than just "open the door" to polygamy, bigamy, incestuous marriages (and a lot of other things.) The only halfway plausible constitutional objection to a state marriage law which excludes same-sex partners would be that it's not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. But if a state has no legitimate interest in preventing same-sex marriage, how can it have any in preventing bigamous or polygamous or incestuous marriages, either?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 206
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 1:11:49 AM
Just replace "same sex" marriage with "inter-racial" marriage and you get the gist of the reactionary thinking involved in this debate. The US championed anti-miscegenation laws, and many states had them on the books until a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

To equate consensual marriage between races, sects, or sex with pedophilia, incest or bestiality ignores the vast difference between victimless acts and non-consensual acts. I personally don't care if people want to engage in consensual polygamy or bigamy if it is consensual. Polygamy Divorce Court would be highly entertaining.

At stake are the plethora of rights and benefits currently enjoyed by hetero-marriage couples. Why is a certain class of people denied these rights? Would we go back to banning inter-racial couples from having these rights and benefits?

My sis met the great love of her life 10 years ago after a couple of bad marriages. Her and the guy did not feel compelled to get married after their past experiences until two years ago when a swine flu related infection forced him into a medically induced coma for a month in a desperate attempt to keep him alive...which worked. In the meantime, they were in the middle of building their dream home. Those spousal rights became vitally important in trying to keep them financially solvent, the building project, and most importantly medical decisions on his behalf. His mom, and siblings were incapable of making rational decisions and my sis was nearly locked out of the process of keeping him alive. Once the trauma passed, they decided they had to get married because of all the uncertainties that ensued during his coma.

The states and fed DO grant rights, privileges, and benefits to married people. To deny those basic rights and benefits based solely on the personal tastes of a tyrannical majority is an affront to both basic rights and human decency. Ask yourself, that if an Asian woman marries a white man, or black man marries a white woman using pre-1967 anti-miscegenation laws today, what kind of debate would we be having? Would the same twisted logic prevail that we see in the anti-gay marriage debate?

Here are a few rights and benefits the tyrannical ones wish to deny certain people in love.
Rights and benefits

* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran's disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
o wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
* For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 207
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 6:27:47 AM

Just replace "same sex" marriage with "inter-racial" marriage and you get the gist of the reactionary thinking involved in this debate. The US championed anti-miscegenation laws, and many states had them on the books until a Supreme Court decision in 1967


That tired old dog still won't hunt. LUGS can't change their race, but they can change how they behave.


To equate consensual marriage between races, sects, or sex with pedophilia, incest or bestiality ignores the vast difference between victimless acts and non-consensual acts.


Who did the Stuebings victimize again? According to all the media reports they still want to be together. (Can't get more consensual than that.)
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 208
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 7:15:56 AM

That tired old dog still won't hunt. LUGS can't change their race, but they can change how they behave.

Failure to understand that you have no choice with regards to who you are attracted to, is just that, a failure to understand.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 209
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 7:36:31 AM

Who did the Stuebings victimize again? According to all the media reports they still want to be together. (Can't get more consensual than that.)


His sixteen year old, "mentally subnormal", biological sister for gawd's sake. And three of the four kids they had who live with foster parents and who all suffer from severe physical and mental disorders associated with inbreeding and require heart transplants and constant medical care. Not to mention the welfare system in Germany and those who will have to continue paying these on going medical expenses.

You'll notice that most of the examples of incestuous relationships you can find include people who did not grow up together (see Westermarck effect) as is the case with Stuebings, people who are mentally incapable or those who are forced in some way. What's that tell you?


But if a state has no legitimate interest in preventing same-sex marriage, how can it have any in preventing bigamous or polygamous or incestuous marriages, either?


You've been spoon fed these answers on this and other threads so at this point, I guess you'll just have to accept that you live in an intellectually/morally inferior country.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 210
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 8:03:51 AM

Who did the Stuebings victimize again? According to all the media reports they still want to be together. (Can't get more consensual than that.)


The children of Patrick and Susan were the victims of that union. Susan herself was 16 at the first birth and considered mentally subnormal. Three of the kids suffer from the expected mental and physical health ailments that are so common with close incest. The illegality of incest is primarily made illegal because of the innocent offspring of such irresponsible behaviors. I have seen this in a family where the Uncle married a niece and produced 4 children that became wards of the state due to their disabilities, thus the state also becomes the victim.

Not sure what you mean with your "LUGS" slang, but people cannot help who they fall in love with. Bigots can choose to change but rarely do as well.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 211
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 9:24:22 AM
You've been spoon fed these answers on this and other threads so at this point, I guess you'll just have to accept that you live in an intellectually/morally inferior country.


I haven't been "spoon fed" anything by anyone, on this thread or any other. I think for myself, I learn, and I understand the issues I comment on. I'm sure that's hard to believe for people who don't.

I notice you had no answer to the point you quoted. Taking a personal dig at me is more your speed than confronting these questions.


Just replace "same sex" marriage with "inter-racial" marriage and you get the gist of the reactionary thinking involved in this debate.


Just see Loving v. Virginia used in a discussion on same-sex marriage and you get the gist of the level of thinking of the person who relies on it. The analogy to interracial marriage is weak and goes nowhere, as I've detailed in several other posts over the past couple years.


The illegality of incest is primarily made illegal because of the innocent offspring of such irresponsible behaviors.


Nothing quite like making illegality illegal. The only valid basis for making adult incest a crime is the belief it's immoral and unacceptable. It should be obvious the people involved could agree to be sterilized. Some states allow a closer blood relation between marriage partners who are sterile.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 212
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 9:59:16 AM
Ok I think I get it now..Gays should be given the right to marry because Liberals think that it is wrong to not let them marry...some reasons given it's not fair, gays are gay because of genetic mutation, gays cant procreate therefore they cant produce mutated offspring...
So then should people be given the right to marry their cows?

I can understand liberals point of view as it goes along with the entitlement mentality ingrained in the Liberal psyche...judging by the list provided by EP..its pretty much about benefits
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 213
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 10:33:45 AM
Ok I think I get it now..Gays should be given the right to marry because Liberals think that it is wrong to not let them marry...

Nope you do not get it.




..some reasons given it's not fair, gays are gay because of genetic mutation, gays cant procreate therefore they cant produce mutated offspring...

Bottom line is you do not choose to be gay anymore than you choose to be straight, you are what you are.




So then should people be given the right to marry their cows?

Only the retarded ones that think sexual preference is a choice.
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 214
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 10:49:42 AM
Are theories facts now?

<div class="quote">The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction. This phenomenon was first hypothesized by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891). Observations interpreted as evidence for the Westermarck effect have since been made in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.


<div class="quote">Not sure what you mean with your "LUGS" slang, but people cannot help who they fall in love with. Bigots can choose to change but rarely do as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_until_graduation

<div class="quote">The LGBT slang terms lesbian until graduation (LUG),[1] gay until graduation (GUG), and bisexual until graduation (BUG) are used to describe women primarily of high-school or college age who are assumed to be experimenting with or adopting a temporary lesbian or bisexual identity. The term suggests that the woman to whom it is applied will ultimately adopt a strictly heterosexual identity. Some members of the lesbian community use this term to disparage bisexual women. One suggestion is that the relations are consciously elective or temporary, or that they are primarily based on convenience. This usage suggests the participants are:

Concentrating on studies without the distraction of "genuine" romantic relationships
Avoiding unwanted male attention
Avoiding the risk of unwanted pregnancy while remaining sexually active

Apparently more flip-flops than a sandal shop. So much for not choosing their "attractions"

 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 215
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 10:55:00 AM

Apparently more flip-flops than a sandal shop. So much for not choosing their "attractions"

Which makes complete sense, as in nature nothing is binary.

There is no black and white, only shades of grey.
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 216
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 10:58:03 AM
Which makes complete sense, as in nature nothing is binary. There is no black and white, only shades of grey.


First it's NOT a choice and then it IS a choice?

Good thing that fence you're riding isn't a barbed wire one! That could leave a mark!

Did you make the choice to be heterosexual or did you have a preference towards being heterosexual?


I wanted to be like the guy on the Brady Bunch. (Turned out he was a poser... ack!) He had a bunch of kids that were always happy to see him and called him dad.

I wanted a bunch of kids that were happy to see me and called me dad. The only way to do that, is to insert peg A into slot C. The parts have to match up if you want that.

Call it a choice if you want. I just call it nature, and good. :)
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 217
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 11:07:33 AM
Did you make the choice to be heterosexual or did you have a preference towards being heterosexual?



FYI: http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/funny-facebook-fails-failbook-perceptions.png
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 218
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 2:03:21 PM

I haven't been "spoon fed" anything by anyone, on this thread or any other. I think for myself, I learn, and I understand the issues I comment on. I'm sure that's hard to believe for people who don't.

I notice you had no answer to the point you quoted. Taking a personal dig at me is more your speed than confronting these questions


We've been over your best and brightest points on other threads and on this one. You have constitutional issue with allowing gay marriage which leads me to believe your country is administered by flunkies who don't understand what they're doing and should come to Canada for lessons in better governance and legislative procedures. Or You have too many people who simply don't like gay people and hide behind constitutional dithering to avoid coming right out and saying "eeeew groooooos no gays!". Either way, you continue to treat gay people unequally which will dawn on you some day as something that likely should be changed.

Here are the answers to your point....Allowing gay marriage has nothing in reality to do with also allowing polygamy/bigamy, beastiality and incest. Here's why...not allowing polygamy is not denying anyone free course to marry. Polygamists still have every right to marry one person. Not allowing a homosexual person to marry is denying someone the right to marry one person which is otherwise provided to everyone else. Plus there is a great deal of evidence that shows polygamy is inherently unequal, is not entirely consentual within a religious context and has unhealthy consequences for off spring. It also creates a tax administration nightmare and leaves the existing system open for abuses and subsequent loss for everyone. I will be the first to offer my services as a legal dependant to anyone who needs another write off. It also creates a legal snafu with inheritence issues and generational wealth accords. Divorce would be a theoretical disaster as would the administration of benefits. Beastiality is just stupid. And incestuous marriages have a whole host of problems beyond the obvious evolutionary quagmire created when off spring are involved. Societal taboo is not just an imagined phenomenon. That's reason enough to make it illegal. But other reasons have to do with power imbalance, coercion and manipulation. There are very few examples of otherwise healthy people carrying on incestuous relationships. It happens, but not often. And in reality, they could be allowed to get married too as they fall within the one marriage per person category.

You people have landed on the moon and returned safely. It should be really easy to see the difference between gay people marrying and people marrying cows, brothers and sisters marrying and someone marrying more than one other person.


So then should people be given the right to marry their cows?


See? Man on the moon. Can't tell the difference between cows and people. Not good.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 219
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 2:06:59 PM

This thread is about New York becoming the sixth state to authorize same-sex marriages in its laws.

No... That is the thread title... the topic is found in the OP's comments... That is why the mods often delete threads with JUST a title and a newsclipping but no OP commentary as "not having a topic"...

What did the OP ask you wonder...? Well, here is a sample...


How did "God" settle the issue of marriage?

Isn't marriage merely a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship?

How does allowing gays to marry "undermine marriage and/or the family"?

And how does allowing gays to marry "attempt to redefine the cornerstones of civilization"?

Clearly, the OP is asking what might best be summarized as "Are homosexuals persons as equally deserving of liberty as other persons ?"... A failure to understand this is nothing more than a failure of intellect...
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 220
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 7:06:08 PM
Peg A still has to fit into slot C to make it happen..

Homosexuality is still an evolutionary cul de sac..

And I have yet to meet a homosexual I'm afraid of, so I'm hardly "homophobic".
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 221
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 7:30:14 PM
We've been over your best and brightest points on other threads and on this one.


And your responses have made clear you had no answers for them. You don't here, either.


You have constitutional issue with allowing gay marriage


Any state which wants to legalize same-sex marriage is free to do it. Obviously nothing in the Constitution prevents that. So I don't know what you mean by saying I have a constitutional issue with it. I study and analyze and discuss constitutional issues, but I don't "have" any, nor does anyone else.


It should be really easy to see the difference between gay people marrying and people marrying cows, brothers and sisters marrying and someone marrying more than one other person.


It's really easy to see those are all different actions, but that's about it. The reasonable basis for allowing some and denying others, if upholding public morality were no longer a legitimate interest of state governments, is anything but easy to see.


Allowing gay marriage has nothing in reality to do with also allowing polygamy/bigamy, beastiality and incest.


To repeat: That is only true when you're talking about any one state. I already acknowledged that states are now free to allow some of those things but not others. It's almost certain they no longer could do that, though, if the Supreme Court were to hold that government has no legitimate interest in enforcing the majority's standards of public morality.

As soon as all states were forced to authorize same-sex marriage in their laws, it would have *everything* to do with also allowing the other things I mentioned. I doubt very much that the practical difficulties you claim these other forms of marriage would entail would cut much ice in an equal protection challenge to the laws against any of them.


Societal taboo is not just an imagined phenomenon. That's reason enough to make it illegal.


Oh, really? One more time. The only basis for a Supreme Court decision forcing all the states to authorize same-sex marriage would be that it a state law against it served no conceivable government interest.

Put another way, a decision like that would be saying that no matter how immoral or unacceptable the majority in a state thought same-sex marriage was, that wouldn't be a valid reason for banning it. And yet the majority's belief that *incest* was immoral and unacceptable WOULD be a valid reason for banning it. Right.

As for your other answers to my point, my compliments on a good try. But I'm pretty sure your arguments why homosexual marriage is fine, but incestuous and other similar marriage is not, would go nowhere in an equal protection suit by someone who wanted to join gays on the unconventional marriage bandwagon. And if the Supreme Court ever forces states to allow same-sex marriage, there would immediately be a great many suits like that. Some far better legal minds than mine have concluded that state marriage laws couldn't exclude these other things, either, for very long.

There would also no longer be any basis for state laws against things like adultery, public nudity, bestiality, and obscenity. Worst of all, public fornication could no longer be illegal--and where would the thrill be, if there were no risk of getting caught?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 222
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 7:48:31 PM

Homosexuality is still an evolutionary cul de sac..

So only the people that live on drives, streets and avenues have certain rights and not the ones that live on cul de sacs?

Does that sound fair to you, especially when they did not have a choice where they would prefer to live?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 223
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 8:13:05 PM

Some far better legal minds than mine have concluded that state marriage laws couldn't exclude these other things, either, for very long.


Like I said, ya'll are a little backwards and you've got some catching up to do. It's okay.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 224
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/9/2012 8:35:13 PM
Long before we had gay marriage in this country, successive governments here in BC refused to prosecute anybody in the polygamous community of Bountiful. All the best advice they were given was that the courts would find it was protected by the protection of religion provisions. A few years ago though (after gay marriage was found to be a Constitutional right in this country), the Provincial government filed charges. Earlier this year the polygamists were found guilty.

They are separate issues. Gay marriage neither opens nor closes the door to polygamous marriage. All of the issues that can be argued for polygamy are there without gay marriage. Allowing two people who love each other the right to marry doesn't add one more argument for polygamy.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 225
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 1/10/2012 4:24:56 AM
Not really sure how it works in Canada, but in America when you start amending the Constitution y0u open the door to a lot of things...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage