Gay Marriage and Polygamy

[Aceflyer]

I reiterate that I do not as a rule insert lengthy legal disclaimers or check to make sure my posts are loophole-free and legally sound because this is just an online gaming forum for crying out loud.

[Requiem.]

Quote fight!!!!

----

 

I agree with bak, the goverment should not be able to say anything about whom people can marry.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Requiem.

[NBVegita]

I agree with you distort, I would not personally want multiple wives...one woman is more than enough to deal with...lol...I'm more arguing the principal that we should be able to if you were crazy enough to want to.

 

I reiterate that I do not as a rule insert lengthy legal disclaimers or check to make sure my posts are loophole-free and legally sound because this is just an online gaming forum for crying out loud.

 

What lengthy legal disclaimer do you need? Simple instead of stating that it would "X", state maybe, or possibly, or might "X" would have meant you needed no disclaimer. The aforementioned would have meant that you are stating there is a possibility that it would not pass a threshold test, which no one here would argue. The problem is, even in an online forum, if you post something that you cannot possibly know, thus the outcome of a threshold test that has never occurred and pass it off as a definite legal position, people will argue that. No one states that your argument has to be loophole-free but it you pass it off as a legal argument, it should in fact be a legal argument, not how you feel a judge would rule on a hypothetical case.

[Synister]

So I was talking with someone at work today and they brought up a really valid point.

 

Right now there is all the legislation going through concerning gay marriage. Her point was that if you're going to pass legislation support/approving gay marriage, then should polygamy also be legal?

 

I would have so say yes. If the argument is that the government can't tell you whom your spouse is, why should they have the right to tell you how many spouses you can have?

 

What do you think?

Apparently I'm the only one to pick the first option. Marriage is finding the one person you love most and spending the rest of your life with said person. Which i will state should be opposite sex. I am completely against homosexual marriages. Idc what anyone says, that's what I think. Back to my point.. you can't have multiple partners in marriage, if you do you are unsure of each, meaning you don't love one of them most. If you have multiple partners it's like highschool dating all over again. Keep going out with girls until.. idk college.. university idk till you meet the one.

[Bak]

synester why do you think that marriage is only with one person of the opposite sex?

 

is it a historical reason? if that is the case, would you support slavery if it was pre-civil war because it had been around for thousands of years?

[»D1st0rt]

Also, why are you "completely against" something that has no impact on your life at all? I don't like soccer but I'm not completely against other people watching it. Some dudes like soccer and some dudes like other dudes (coincidentally I think there may be a lot of overlap between those groups), as long as they don't make me watch soccer I couldn't care less what they do on their own time.

[Aceflyer]

I agree with you distort, I would not personally want multiple wives...one woman is more than enough to deal with...lol...I'm more arguing the principal that we should be able to if you were crazy enough to want to.

 

I reiterate that I do not as a rule insert lengthy legal disclaimers or check to make sure my posts are loophole-free and legally sound because this is just an online gaming forum for crying out loud.

 

What lengthy legal disclaimer do you need? Simple instead of stating that it would "X", state maybe, or possibly, or might "X" would have meant you needed no disclaimer. The aforementioned would have meant that you are stating there is a possibility that it would not pass a threshold test, which no one here would argue. The problem is, even in an online forum, if you post something that you cannot possibly know, thus the outcome of a threshold test that has never occurred and pass it off as a definite legal position, people will argue that. No one states that your argument has to be loophole-free but it you pass it off as a legal argument, it should in fact be a legal argument, not how you feel a judge would rule on a hypothetical case.

 

Wow. You actually expect everyone to treat World Discussion as an actual court of law. Hate to break it to ya man, but this is an online gaming forum. On such a forum I'm not going to bother making sure my posts are legally loophole-free. I expect a certain amount of basic common sense to be used in interpreting SSForum posts and I don't think this is unreasonable for me - or anyone else - to expect.

 

Again I do not disagree with the principle - note your misspelling of the word, btw - that otherwise qualified people should be able to have multiple spouses if they so desire. What I disagree with is the claim that an original freewheeling interpretation of the text of the constitution is somehow sound legal reasoning. What I disagree with even more strongly is the opinion that such freewheeling interpretations are somehow superior to analysis based on prior court rulings. What actually irks me are strawman attacks on my posts for not being at a caliber of quality required in an actual court of law.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Aceflyer

[Synister]

synester why do you think that marriage is only with one person of the opposite sex?

 

is it a historical reason? if that is the case, would you support slavery if it was pre-civil war because it had been around for thousands of years?

 

Not historical. because if I remember correctly back idk when for quite some time. Men would marry girls of 14 years old just for the payment the parents have to make to the man. No I believe marriage is with one person of the opposite sex because well.. its normal and the way it's meant to be. Honestly idc if you guys don't like my opinion but thats what I think. If you guys dont mind gays then so be it.

 

For the record.. slavery is something Im completely against.

 

 

Also, why are you "completely against" something that has no impact on your life at all? I don't like soccer but I'm not completely against other people watching it. Some dudes like soccer and some dudes like other dudes (coincidentally I think there may be a lot of overlap between those groups), as long as they don't make me watch soccer I couldn't care less what they do on their own time.

 

Gay marriage may not have an impact, but it bothers me. And when they have those parades well.. lets say its annoying.

 

Like I said lol, this is my opinion. I guess it may be the way i grew up and how my parents raised me. But this is what I think.

 

 

EDIT: Its Synister. Not Synester. Theres some douche who plays as Synester and apparently has been impersonating me. Idk ppl thought he was me. Was annoying. So yea.. clearing that up..

Edited April 23, 2009 by Synister

[Aceflyer]

No I believe marriage is with one person of the opposite sex because well.. its normal and the way it's meant to be. ... Gay marriage may not have an impact, but it bothers me. And when they have those parades well.. lets say its annoying.

 

So do you feel the government should permit same-sex couples to civilly wed under the law? Or do you feel the government should restrict civil marriages to heterosexual couples?

 

If the latter, why do you think your personal beliefs about "the way it's meant to be" constitute a legitimate reason to deny a fundamental right to other people?

[NBVegita]

Again I post, there is a difference between posting your opinion on how a judge would rule on a case that has never occurred, nor is there a historical case relating to polygamy, as a legal argument and needing a legally loophole free argument. All I ask is that if you're going to post an argument, you use something better than psychically predicting the outcome of a judges ruling. Again I state, which you always seem to ignore, all you have to say, even now, is that is only possible, not absolute, that polygamy would not pass a threshold test. For the dozenth (exaggeration) time, I've simply been arguing that you cannot definitely know that it would not pass. Sigh.

 

I understand that you're annoyed because gays bother you. But what if something you believed in bothered someone, do they have the right to tell you that you cannot do it?

 

If we were disallowed from doing things simply because they annoyed other people, no one, anywhere, would be able to do anything.

[Aceflyer]

Again I post, there is a difference between posting your opinion on how a judge would rule on a case that has never occurred, nor is there a historical case relating to polygamy, as a legal argument and needing a legally loophole free argument. All I ask is that if you're going to post an argument, you use something better than psychically predicting the outcome of a judges ruling.

 

It is obviously impossible for anyone to be able to predict the actual outcome of a hypothetical case that hasn't even been brought to court. Heck, even for an actual case with directly relevant legal precedent from one or more other courts, it is generally not possible to accurately foretell the outcome, as different justices and different courts often employ different methods of analyses and/or reach different conclusions. I thought these facts were so plainly obvious that it would be redundant for me to specifically point them out when posting.

 

The other plainly obvious fact is that essentially all significant posts in World Discussion consist of members' opinions. Does everyone now need to preface each post with a legal disclaimer stating that their post merely constitutes personal belief and not professional legal opinion?

 

Again I state, which you always seem to ignore, all you have to say, even now, is that is only possible, not absolute, that polygamy would not pass a threshold test. For the dozenth (exaggeration) time, I've simply been arguing that you cannot definitely know that it would not pass. Sigh.

 

I stated that, using the Iowa high court's reasoning in Varnum v. Brien, polygamy would not pass the specific threshold test applied to gay marriage. It is plainly obvious that there is no guarantee that the exact same Varnum v. Brien reasoning would be applied in a hypothetical plural marriage case. It is obviously entirely possible that using different reasoning, plural marriage could be construed to pass the Varnum v. Brien threshold test. It is also obvious that a court might choose to analyze plural marriage from another angle altogether and not use a threshold test at all. All of this is plainly obvious to anyone who actually takes a minute to think this through.

 

I understand that you're annoyed because gays bother you.

 

WTF? I am 100% pro-gay marriage. Where in blazes are you getting the idea that I'm "annoyed" because gays "bother" me?

 

But what if something you believed in bothered someone, do they have the right to tell you that you cannot do it? If we were disallowed from doing things simply because they annoyed other people, no one, anywhere, would be able to do anything.

 

Overly broad blanket statement. Lots of people are disallowed from doing lots of things simply because these things annoy others. It is only when we get to certain basic rights when your statement becomes valid.

[Bak]

ace he wasn't talking to you.

[Samapico]

Hmmm... alright... Should we also allow marriage with animals?

 

The idea of mutual consent might break that though...

 

Can you marry someone who's in a vegetative state and not really able to express consent?

 

hmm

[Bak]

no you can't since there isn't mutual consent? seems like you answered your own question

[Aceflyer]

What Bak said. Animals, children, and people in comas aren't capable of giving legal consent.