North Carolina's Amendment 1..thoughts?

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by Billy_Goat

Yeah, I'll admit I didn't read the thread. Several personal issues prevented it.

I believe in equal rights, too. I just don't think sexual deviance falls under constitutional protection. But I'm probably wrong.

Deviance implies out of the norm.

There are places in this country where heterosexuality is out of the norm, and could be looked at as a deviant behavior, so your argument holds no weight.

And all citizens of the US fall under protection of the COTUS, "sexual deviants" and non deviants.

Should the government outlaw bukkake's and gangbangs just because the people that attend are sexual deviants? Protected by the 1st...


You calling them sexual deviants shows that you are looking at the issue through the lenses of your own morality which is influenced by your upbringing and religion. Religion and personal viewpoints have NO place in law creation and governing.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by Billy_Goat

Yeah, I'll admit I didn't read the thread. Several personal issues prevented it.

I believe in equal rights, too. I just don't think sexual deviance falls under constitutional protection. But I'm probably wrong.

Many people thought that racially mixed marriages were morally wrong too.
How about you ?

[Rustoid]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

I see you haven't read through the thread at all.

Whatever Gary...roll your eyes and read on.

Originally Posted by jerseyzuks

shear stupidity. This country is quickly coming apart at the seams, and the only thing americans are worried about is "who is marrying who"

Leave the religious crap to the churches. Our government has bigger fish to fry

Originally Posted by Bubba Ray Boudreaux

The state should not be defining marriage.............

Originally Posted by east_beast

I think it's funny how it's virtually unanimous on the PBB that the gubment needs to quit meddling and respect our rights when it comes to the 2cd Amendment - and rightfully so, I might add.

But, let gay marriage come up, and there's always a couple of fucking retards who beg to be saved by that same gubment that they bash for meddling when it comes to rights that they value. Hypocritical fucking morons...

Originally Posted by rockota

gov't should get out of marriage all together. Period.

Originally Posted by TheTonka

So why does it have to be called marriage? In the end marriage today is nothing more than a legal contract, with laws and regulations like any other legal contract.

Just take a big bottle of white out and remove "Marriage" and all it's forms from all legal documents at all levels of government.

Problem solved.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Yup, a total waste of time and money.

Originally Posted by southern k5

:gary: "you don't know the constitution, damn you, you go to hell, Constitution" :gary:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Get the government out of marriage ???

The chances of that happening are in the negative direction of zero.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! once again Brian. I'm demanding that everyone be treated equally under the law. I see you don't believe it that principle. How sad.

Originally Posted by sokoboo

Marriage should be left to the churches, not the government

Originally Posted by Chister

exactly.

Marriage is a religious institution. No religion says that it is OK for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. There is NO SUCH THING as gay marriage... PERIOD.

End of story.

Separation of church and state, right? so separate it. Churches marry men and women. States do nothing but make contractual arrangements.

Yeah, you're right. No one said the .gov should keep their noses out of the marriage business.

Maybe you thought my post was for Gary the attention whore only? Don't flatter yourself. There is no SCOTUS in my post so no need for you to reply.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by Rustoid

Whatever Gary...roll your eyes and read on.

Yeah, you're right. No one said the .gov should keep their noses out of the marriage business.

Maybe you thought my post was for Gary the attention whore only? Don't flatter yourself. There is no SCOTUS in my post so no need for you to reply.

Thanks for proving my point. No one in the thread mentioned "bigamy and incestual marriages" anywhere before your post. That was the
point of my post, but you missed it entirely. I hope you enjoyed hearing that loud whoosing sound.

[Rustoid]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Thanks for proving my point. No one in the thread mentioned "bigamy and incestual marriages" anywhere before your post. That was the
point of my post, but you missed it entirely. I hope you enjoyed hearing that loud whoosing sound.

Roll you eyes some more Gary. All the quotes below were BEFORE my first post. Do I have to put the post #'s next to them?

Originally Posted by BB1980

How so? Its a valid argument. What if a 25yr old wants to marry a 14yr old?
They both love each other and want to spend their life together, whether its the brother/sister, or a mother/son, underage/of age. Its the Same argument as gay couples wanting to marry. Equality is equality, can't leave one group out if you are bitching about another being left out.

Originally Posted by jerseyzuks

Polygamy - no victim (assuming all participants are of legal age, and consenting) - should not be illegal

[QUOTE=pike2350;14347103]Thumping...people have answered your questions about "consenting adults" Polygamy shouldn't be illegal as long as all participants are consenting and of legal age.....[/QUOTE

Originally Posted by pike2350

You KEEP MISSING THE MAIN POINT. It's partly that it's between 2 consenting adults...YET KEEP MISSING that some consenting adults CAN marry.

If 2 brothers/sisters want to then sure...go for it. THe issue of procreation would need to be addressed, but as far as marriage goes, I don't see why not. It save them from having to decide whether or not to take the husbands last name

Originally Posted by SirFuego

Don't you get into a messy legal situation when you allow polygamy? Does getting married to someone with multiple spouses immediately mean you can't marry anyone else? If not, then there could be a "chain" of marriages that form...

For example:
Jack is married to Jill and Diane
Jill is also married to Joe.
Joe is also married to Donna.
Donna is also married to George.

How are assets divided up if Jill and Joe, for example, get divorced? The math gets real messy real quick because each person's assets are determined "up" or "down" the chain (Joe's worth is determined by Donna's worth -- whose worth is also determined by George).

Now have George and Jack married (thus creating a "loop") and things get even hairier. In addition, anyone someone would want to get married, they would need to get consent from everyone else "up" and "down" the chain.

Or is everyone in that "pool" considered married as one big group and assets are divided evenly among everyone?

I understand and respect where you are coming from in saying that Polygamy shouldn't be illegal, but as long as marriage is defined by the state, my initial gut feeling is that "fair" polygamy laws can quickly turn into a legal clusterfuck and be abused to gain certain benefits or green cards (which IMO is probably more likely if everyone marries into a single "pool" of people). Yes, I know a traditional marriage between 2 people can be abused in the same way, but without putting a limit on the number of people, the abuse could quickly rise.

I'm not suggesting that polygamy should be illegal

Originally Posted by BB1980

Again, if we allow gays to marry, we have to be fair and let incestial marriages as well. The unhealthy birth argument has no real leg to stand on. More unhealthy children are birthed from non-related couples and drug abusers than ever would be from the groups that would from incestial relationships. If we deny them the right to have children, but marry, we would have to abort every child that is known to have health problems while still in the womb, for equaility's sake.
I think its screwed up to let incestial marriages/births happen. I think gay marriages/relationships are as well. But those are both OPINIONS. If its a right for one group (straights), most are arguing it should be for another group (gays), yet saying it shouldn't for another group (incest).

The only points proven are you can't read or can't count, or just a blowhard who likes to roll his eyes and quote law cases like scripture.

[BB1980]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

Oh yeah, keeping two people from marrying who can't even have children together is totally the same as keeping people from marrying who can have children and have a very high likelihood of having children with severe genetic defects. Totally the same!

So, you're saying it's not a basic right for relatives to get married, even though they love each other and want to, but it is for gays? Having sex/procreating is a totally separate issue. And I can add stupid little pictures at the end of my post too, to try and look cool as well......


Oops, that last one snuck in there... must've been thinking of you.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by BB1980

Oops, that last one snuck in there... must've been thinking of you.

Wow, can't debate a subject without resorting to petty, 5th grade namecalling. Pitiful.

[BB1980]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Wow, can't debate a subject without resorting to petty, 5th grade namecalling. Pitiful.

I never "called" him anything

[CrustyJeep]

Originally Posted by BB1980

So, you're saying it's not a basic right for relatives to get married

I'm saying it's not a basic right to inflict near inevitable genetic defect hell on your unsuspecting offspring. Even the inbred genetic defect hell inflicted offspring of an incestuous couple from North Carolina ought to be able to grasp that. Not you though, nope, that's just too complex a concept for you

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

I'm saying it's not a basic right to inflict near inevitable genetic defect hell on your unsuspecting offspring.

To say this would put you in a real pickle. Becuase you would also have to agree that unborn babies are people (or else the incest mother could simply have an abortion and nullify your argument)and if you agree that unborn babies are people, then you must also agree that abortion is murder.

[CrustyJeep]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

To say this would put you in a real pickle. Becuase you would also have to agree that unborn babies are people (or else the incest mother could simply have an abortion and nullify your argument)and if you agree that unborn babies are people, then you must also agree that abortion is murder.

I do?

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

I do?

Well sure. unless you want to dissallow incest marriages only when they have children, since you reasoning was they produce fucked up offspring.

So as long as they abort their offspring, you are good with incestual marriage, right?

[sokoboo]

Crusty, are you a retard or do you play one on the internet?

Do you seriously not know the difference between an analogy to illustrate a truth and comparison of two like things?

[CrustyJeep]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Well sure. unless you want to dissallow incest marriages only when they have children, since you reasoning was they produce fucked up offspring.

So as long as they abort their offspring, you are good with incestual marriage, right?

Are you good with instinctual marriage?

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

Are you good with instinctual marriage?

Personally, no.

However, I am not going to stand in the way of two consenting adults doing whatever they want to do within the confines of the law.

Do you not see the hypocracy in your reasoning?

[CrustyJeep]

Originally Posted by sokoboo

Crusty, are you a retard or do you play one on the internet?

Do you seriously not know the difference between an analogy to illustrate a truth and comparison of two like things?

1) You weren't illustrating a truth. You might think you were, but not so much.
2) A good analogy is ANALOGOUS to the subject. You're doing it wrong.

[CrustyJeep]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Personally, no.

Why not?

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

However, I am not going to stand in the way of two consenting adults doing whatever they want to do within the confines of the law.

Knowingly inflicting near certain genetic defect hell on another human being is within the confines of the law? I'll be dipped...

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Do you not see the hypocracy in your reasoning?

Something seems to be blocking my view. I think it might be... Yep, yours, and all the other hypocrisy in this thread.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

Why not?

Knowingly inflicting near certain genetic defect hell on another human being is within the confines of the law? I'll be dipped...

Something seems to be blocking my view. I think it might be... Yep, yours, and all the other hypocrisy in this thread.

Why not?
My religious views and personal morals.

Knowingly inflicting near certain genetic defect hell on another human being is within the confines of the law? I'll be dipped...
So like I said, you'd be fine with a brother and sister getting married as long as they aborted all their fetuses produced or never had children? Are you okay with two mentaly handicapped people producing offspring? Or two people, both suffering from genetic defects carried in the recessive genes, producing offspring?

Please point out my hypocrisy.

[east_beast]

Originally Posted by sokoboo

/Fail
Marriage should have no civil aspects, it should be as it always has been a religious institution. Because something has always existed a certain way, is no reason to continue it.....
If you want to give authority to some one over portions of your life, make a contract.
Putting the two things together that have no business being together conflates and complicates the matter instead of simplifying it. If a pastor is an agent of the state in performing marriages, then it is illegal to refuse his services based on a persons sexual orientations or skin color. The whole civil rights movement was about this.
It is far easier to separate marriage from contract law, then it is to repeal civil rights legislation.

Irrelevant. Completely separate argument. Marriage has had civil definition and implications throughout our history as a nation. I doubt that changes in the near future. As long as marriage has it's current civil definition, gays should be allowed to marry. Period.

[BB1980]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

Why not?

Knowingly inflicting near certain genetic defect hell on another human being is within the confines of the law?

Crackheads and alcoholics do it all of the time, so it must be. Also, families who choose to birth and raise a baby known to be deformed or impaired while still in the womb do as well. They didn't conceive it knowing it would be impaired, but still chose to put the child through "certain genetic hell" by allowing it to be born and live.

[s14sh3r]

Originally Posted by CrustyJeep

Why not?

Knowingly inflicting near certain genetic defect hell on another human being is within the confines of the law? I'll be dipped...

Sarah Palin did it.

[broncman]

So now that Pirate is gay friendly......

Do we have to like flatbillers?

Do we have to except teh big ghey trucks?

How bout ricer diesels???? We gotta stop calling all the add ons gay?


Somebody explain the new Pirate for me..

[SanDiegoCJ]

[QUOTE=Rustoid;14350656]Roll you eyes some more Gary. All the quotes below were BEFORE my first post. Do I have to put the post #'s next to them?

Originally Posted by pike2350

Thumping...people have answered your questions about "consenting adults" Polygamy shouldn't be illegal as long as all participants are consenting and of legal age.....[/QUOTE







The only points proven are you can't read or can't count, or just a blowhard who likes to roll his eyes and quote law cases like scripture.

I see you still don't get it.

[s14sh3r]

Originally Posted by broncman

So now that Pirate is gay friendly......

Do we have to like flatbillers?

Do we have to except teh big ghey trucks?

How bout ricer diesels???? We gotta stop calling all the add ons gay?


Somebody explain the new Pirate for me..

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have to be a fag

[broncman]

Originally Posted by s14sh3r

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have to be a fag

Damn, I am even more confused now....

Maybe if I read this entire thread again it will all be clear!