XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk
On 25/09/2014 22:02, Brandon Gates wrote:
> On 09/25/2014 01:38 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 24/09/2014 23:44, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2014 11:28 AM, deep wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:15:11 -0600, Just Wondering
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2014 11:00 AM, deep wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:12:30 -0700, "Wayne"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B has the
>>>>>>> right to
>>>>>>> marry a woman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a right
>>>>>>> to marry
>>>>>>> man B?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they are still people. And the law says we have the
>>>>>> responsibility to treat all people equally.
>>>>>>
>>>>> We already do. All people have always had the right to marry.
>>>>> Marriage
>>>>> by definition is between a man and a woman. There has never been a
>>>>> law
>>>>> against a homosexual man or woman marrying. Just like anyone else,
>>>>> if a
>>>>> homosexual man wants to marry, he has to find a woman to do it with.
>>>>> And if a homosexual woman wants to marry, she has to find a man to
>>>>> do it
>>>>> with. There of any number of examples of homosexuals marrying that
>>>>> way.
>>>>> Similarly, a heterosexual man has never had a right to "marry"
>>>>> another
>>>>> man, and a heterosexual woman has never had a right to "marry" another
>>>>> woman. By definition, a man-man relationship, and a woman-woman
>>>>> relationship, is not marriage.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not. You're wrong. The 14th amendment says all people have
>>>> equal rights under the law. You have no right to decide what the
>>>> conditions are for someone else to marry.
>>>>
>>> States have the right, 10th Amendment, to enact laws regulating
>>> state-sanctioned marriages. If a state has " no right to decide what
>>> the
>>> > conditions are for someone else to marry," then all laws against
>>> bigamous, underage and incestuous marriages are also unconstitutional.
>>>
>>
>> States may claim that right -- that's different to actually having such
>> a right.
>>
>> In legal terms, a marriage is a contract between consenting and informed
>> adults. No more and no less. To ban people from entering into certain
>> contracts is a clear restriction on their rights, and will in due course
>> be rectified.
>>
>> As for bigamy or underage spouses, there are clear and justifiable
>> reasons for banning such: these contracts were not entered into with
>> informed consent. A child cannot give such consent, and a second spouse
>> is ignorant of a fundamental fact about the proposed contract.
>
> Polygamists, which are different from bigamists -- though that nuance is
> sometimes lost amongst traditional marriage advocates -- make the
> consenting adults argument. However, most polygamists are really
> polygynists ... polyandry being verboten. Which is hardly equal
> treatment; nor is either form of polygamy a sustainable practice since
> one sex or the other ultimately ends up spouseless.
With seven billion of us, that ultimate spouselessness is quite a
long-term prospect....
>
> Polyamory is the only way to go, but I don't hear them lobbying for
> marriage rights -- I assume because legally binding agreements run
> contrary to the overarching philosophy.
>
All too many enamoured idiots now think that legally binding agreements
run contrary to the spirit of true love and marriage. Years down the
line and they curse themselves as they stare at separation, divorce and
huge legal wranglings. Observant/orthodox Jews always marry with a
contract; very sensible, they are.
One way to address such an issue would be with time-limited contracts.
Have marriages that dissolve automatically after a set period -- a year,
three, five, whatever.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
