C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Congratulations to our LGBT brothers and sisters on an amazing civil rights victory! Congratulations to SCOTUS for getting it right!

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Comments (278)

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

http://imgur.com/gallery/NnoGhN1

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

064e5e2fd9986c3b958490f64c7c1d76

I'm so happy for Inex.

rob @ about 2 years ago

The Woods, San Jose, CA 95136

064e5e2fd9986c3b958490f64c7c1d76

wish the ACA rulings would have gone the other way, though.

rob @ about 2 years ago

The Woods, San Jose, CA 95136

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Scalia's dissent was a fun read on that one

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

He has some good lines in the SSM one, too.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

064e5e2fd9986c3b958490f64c7c1d76

I don't doubt that haha.

rob @ about 2 years ago

The Woods, San Jose, CA 95136

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

More pressure on the western countries that haven't allowed it yet... Italy will be next. Or will it....

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Only surprise on the decision was made that I thought it might have been another 6-3. I thought O'care would be decided the way it was (but 5-4) and this one would be the 6-3.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

likewise

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Victory is victory.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

Might not be a bad time to build an ark

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

Bedford Heights, OH, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Do it, Pinky. And take Inex and Angilius with you.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Due process under the 14th amendment. Beautiful analysis by Kennedy, with Ginsburg's voice loud and clear throughout.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

Eae801e1796256f6fa36c012423936f7

Beautiful drivel, but don't get me wrong I'm happy, too. We're another day closer to the return of our King, Jesus Christ.

Angelus @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Thoughts? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469_full.html

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

5fb3e45b2dc289fc4a8e939347da4cf8

We don't have or want a king.

Paul outta Hemet @ about 2 years ago

Reno, NV, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

@Drew - I have no problem with polygamy. If consenting adults wish to engage in plural marriage, they should be free to do so.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Do you oppose it?

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Talk radio in Georgia was absolutely hysterical yesterday. These bible thumpers' heads are going to explode. Non-stop references to the End Times being upon us. Quite amusing.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I agree with Racer re polygamy. I think the problem with it isn't morality, it's all the other stuff. Financial. Benefits from govt. Custody issues. Way complicated when you start to think about it.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Yes, but those complicated issues can be resolved by the courts, just like with single marriages. No major hurdle.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Not true Racer. Let's take custody of children. State legal standard in most cases is "best interest of the children". What on earth would that even be like in that case?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

What about tax issues? That really requires legislation prior to any legally sanctioned multiple marriage.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

What about doing intestate? How are beneficiaries determined? Would each child have to be tested for paternity in the case of multiple husbands?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

doing = dying

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

The issues are not straightforward. And you can't just sanction such an arrangement without some indication of how the government will treat government benefits and rights.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

So I disagree that we could just sanction this and let the courts magically resolve problems that arise. Wouldn't that be judicial activism anyway? This is the job of the legislature, imo. Then the courts can resolve issues that undoubtedly will

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

arise from unforeseen issues under those laws, as I am quite confident those would arise in spades.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Gay marriage is a simple thing: we don't legally differentiate married persons based on sex in heterosexual marriages anyway. So now any two married adults are treated the same way...Like before.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Re: Custody - paternity test (currently commonplace for custody with baby's daddy) combined with a court hearing to determine child's best interest. no problem whatsoever.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Tax issues? Handled just like any current partnership or spousal tax issue. Are you married? Then you get the same tax break as any other married group.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

I am extremely libertarian regarding marriage. I even support incestuous marriage...as long as there's no offspring.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

I believe consenting adults should be free to do whatever they please...as long as they're not directly harming someone else's life, liberty, or personal property.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I don't disagree, Racer. I just think you have to put some rules in place before the fact in some of these instances so people aren't caught unaware. Government should not even be in the marriage business, imo. That right there would solve the

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

issues above. No special tax treatment, period. No visitation rights except by consent of the visitee. etc. The only problem on every front is kids. In an incestuous marriage how can you regulate procreation? What is the penalty for it?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Not sure how I feel about the whole polygamy thing, would there really be so many that would even do it... I don't know. Like Doc said, loads of stuff would have to change, immigration would be another thing...

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Try divorcing your personal feelings from it, Drew. There's a big eww factor there...Can be tough to get around. But it's necessary to get to the question of due process under the law.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The interesting point to me is the arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage could be equally applied to multiple marriage. That's not really been acknowledged by the pro-gay marriage side.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

It's the EXACT same argument. Which is why I don't oppose it.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Not sure about the kids from incestuous relationships. I've not studied the issue enough to know the full medical ramifications.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Although it does seem like the article is incorrect in one area, the adaptations that would have to be made with polygamy would be far more than gay marriage which was more of just a substitution thing.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

I'm blindly going on complete rumor and hearsay that there's an increased risk of medical problems for children born of close family relatives. If this is true, there should be legal restrictions on it. Not exactly sure how to legally impose them.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Maybe some type of mandatory long term (or permanent) contraception?

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

Although...it might not be that different from drinking or smoking during pregnancy. Yes, it's widely known that engaging in this behavior puts your fetus at increased risk of birth defects...it's not illegal.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

There are also people who already have genetic disorders that probably *will* be passed to offspring, if they aren't closely related (some states allow first cousins), those people can get married and we don't legally forbid offspring there.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

With drinking and smoking we do have education which has helped loads. So that would be fine. Plus, there's an innate predisposition not to wanna fck your sister, there's a scientific name for this but I forgot

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The thing is it only works when the kids get raised together if I remember. Nowadays there's another problem with so-called super sperm donors who have very popular sperm and thousands of biological kids who don't really know they are half-siblings.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

But legally...should plural marriages or incestuous marriages be explicitly prohibited? I think not.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Summerville, GA 30747, USA

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

I don't see a lot of people wanting to marry a close relative. I'm sure back in the day small town people were marrying their cousins all over the place.

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

I have no problem at all with having multiple wives/husbands as long as it isn't associated with an illegal activity such as abuse/imprisonment/etc

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

in the South it's a tradition. Not unlike the Confederate flag hahaha

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

There's a much stronger case against plural vs incestuous, I can say that.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

It's a Southern Pride issue

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

And regarding cousins, it's legal in most of the states that aren't made fun of for it.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

Go through some rural parts of Tennessee and that becomes pretty evident! lol

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

what's your case against plural marriages Drew?

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Actually, my mistake lots of deep-south has it ok... WV though, tired of all the jokes... It's banned there ;)

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

Incest (especially that within a core family unit) is often a result of mental and physical abuse

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

actually evil, WV, is notorious for incestuous relationships . it's a northern state .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Yep it is, but at adulthood, when people leave, it doesn't usually continue. Legalization of incestuous marriage would only allow adults to do it

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The case against plural marriage I guess would be all the adaptations that would have to be made would strain our system, esp true in the immigration section. It's not really my case though,..

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

You'd see a rise in the number of plural foreign marriages simply because of the newfound chain migration benefits. Create multi chain links all at the same time basically.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

tax isn't that hard, . each file separately but married . bread winner gets head of house status . exemptions can be divided as needed. . don't see the problem . even easier under fair or flat tax .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The area where I see it being a problem is mostly with immigration. And that actual *process* becomes easier, it's the implications that change.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

At least they would be entering the states legally and at a known location. If they are known criminals they would be denied access st immigration regardless of their marriage status.

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

That's true, it'd be greatly expanding family-based legal unrestricted immigration esp in areas where plural marriage is already a thing. The question would be whether that's ok. It's not only the brides, but eventually their parents...

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Unmarried minor children as well.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

It makes plural marriage to a us citizen pretty desirable so would alter the marriage market in that manner.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

you know I thought the exact same thing about gay marriage, time might prove me to be wrong

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

"breadwinner" H2O, really? In your world I guess there is one per family. And no one ever loses their job.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

St Paul, MN 55129, USA

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

I'm listed as "house husband"in the loan contract of our new house because I make such little money

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

Middleburg Heights, OH, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

oh evil, you can't stand it having to have incomes over $250k, to afford your meeger lifestyle . .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Marlton, MD, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

your starting to live up to your old vm name again. . whatcha think pinky .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Marlton, MD, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Hey my husband retired. And I'm not quite into the quarter mil territory just yet. So it's pretty much hand to mouth until we move to Panama.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Still, hubby has a pretty nice pension...a rarity these days. So we both win bread, at the moment. That could change at any time though. Would your system adjust for employment status change, then H2O?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

What if no one is working in the family? What then H2O?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Some states allow first cousins to get married, others don't.... I guess that's the next restriction that'll go. Kinda gross, but I don't really have a problem with it.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

I'm sure it happens on Islands and more remote villages all the time

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I'll bet you're sure! In fact I'll bet you have personal knowledge. You appear to be the product of some sort of inbreeding.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Anyway there is a basic, fundamental difference between gay/bi/trans and polygamists. I'll bet even AMi can figure it out, if he thinks about it.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

That fundamental difference is the reason why the whole slippery slope argument from gay marriage to polygamy is a sham.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

So let's hear it. What do you think, AMi?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

You are funny

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

she's just worried mr. evil, will get him a tighter younger extra piece, to keep him warm on the other side. . .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Go ahead, try and deflect the question. It only proves your lack of intellect.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

H2O you must take stupid pills every morning. Hence the random insults with absolutely no context. Your last name isn't Trump by any chance is it?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Both Darwin and Einstein married their first cousins, apparently. So not just remote villages and Islands.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

0eda15e8a4a685a0722949782c90e863

There you go

AMi @ about 2 years ago

Villa Park, IL, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Does anyone know the answer to the question?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

AMi is a spoofer. Inex or Angilius?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Not a spoofer, that's the real AMI.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

No way! Maybe he had a stroke or something.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I didn't previously put him on the same category as the usual crackpots and idiots on here, but apparently I was wrong.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Skäl maybe you know the answer to my question.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Polygamy was sanctioned by the bible, whereas the others weren't?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Marriage is now a fundamental right, but the states can still limit the # of parties that can enter into that contract?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

polygamy is currently heterosexual? . evil, doesn't condone it, therefore it's wrong .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

bi, is really a cop out definition of sexual orientation, ,, . someone calling themselves by, easily homosexual by definition .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

It's a pretty useful definition actually, some people *only* have same-sex attractions.... Others (hmm what to call them, wouldn't it be great if there were a word), are attracted to opposite and same sex.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

98d7101629a5e7bcbaca8c6c5bd9decc

What Drew said. Evil, perhaps I'm stupid, but I don't find a super obvious answer to your question. The only thing I can think of is that many polygamists use that relationship as a form of slavery.

UndrWater @ about 2 years ago

Cerritos, CA, USA

98d7101629a5e7bcbaca8c6c5bd9decc

water brother, how would you define homosexual?

UndrWater @ about 2 years ago

Cerritos, CA, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The super obvious answer to her question is only in her head. Since unlike President Obama who heard millions of non-voters, we don't have ESP, - - Dr. Evil will have to explain it to all of us.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

skal, didn't several states limit what sees could marry? . I can see polygamy, incest, both using the same basic argument as lgbt for marriage. . remember, not that long ago, homosexual weddings weren't even considered a possibility. .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

homosexual, one who is sexually attracted to the same sex. . for instance, a man can fűck women his entire life, but if he sucks 1 dick, he's a cócksucker the rest of his life. . ( ask pink) .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

ok no one got it. Gay people, bisexuals (not a cop out...they love a person not their geometry), and transgender: born that way. Like race, it's an integral part of a person they can't deny. No one is born a polygamist.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

That is why gay people should have the right to the same union as heterosexuals, but the slippery slope thing doesn't wash.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Also, no one is born with an innate sexual attraction solely to other members of their own family...at least I have never heard that one. People are certainly born with innate attractions to children, animals, and dead people. But there we prohibit

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

sexual activity because both parties can't consent. Sex and marriage is only legal by consent of both parties.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

So where does that leave us on the slope that seems so very slippery?

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

You tell us, you started it

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

Strongsville, OH, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I think it's not as slippery as you think.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

If everyone is "born that way" explain my mayor's wife? Or was she mistaken when she declared herself only a lesbian?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

If the argument is *only* "consenting adults should be able to love and marry whomever", then I can't see how there could be restrictions on either polygamy or types of incest.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

the slippery slope doesn't exist. Polygamy as a fundamental right wouldn't exist because people aren't polygamous by birth/nature.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I am not going to explain the fact that human sexuality exists on a spectrum, Drew. you can read that stuff for yourself. Also read about bisexuality or pansexuality.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

really...it's not that hard to understand.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

With polygamy, there's a societal effects angle because the practice has been around for so long. There's also a 'this is probably not so good for women's equality' angle. So there's that.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

But Doc, you say nobody is born a polygamist... And I'd say... Isn't that actually the *natural* order of things? Isn't one man, one woman actually more artificial?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

unnatural is the new natural

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

Strongsville, OH, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

I dunno, the lady gaga argument seems especially weak. I was expecting much better.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

I strongly disagree that some men aren't born with a natural desire to love multiple women.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Winder, GA 30680, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

I agree, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. But it has not been proven *at all* that things are completely hardwired at birth and I'm not sure that it makes much of a difference to a marriage equality debate in the first place.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The entire rationale for which marriage restrictions are warranted (and which are not) rests on a "was this person born like that"? Really?!

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

98d7101629a5e7bcbaca8c6c5bd9decc

does it also matter whether these things are hardwired or not? so long as one is not harming another?

UndrWater @ about 2 years ago

Cerritos, CA, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

No, the argument that marriage is a fundamental right of any two adult human beings and not more is based on the natural state of human sexuality.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

East Bloomington, Bloomington, MN

75c0efaa27986c943c72b78a0fa61431

What is the natural state of human sexuality?

srorriM & ekomS @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

I seriously don't know. She thinks this is a FUNDAMENTAL SUPER OBVIOUS THING.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Which of course should never ever be applied in racial terms, otherwise we'd go back and revisit Loving v Virginia.. "did he um.... always like black chicks.... Or did that develop over time....."

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/polygamist-family-seeks-marriage-mont-courthouse-article-1.2279200

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

No wonder nobody else but Dr Evil came up with this on their own....

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"what am I thinking" type questions are always tough

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Women usually don't think so.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

'I saw her at the grocery store today" "Who is *her*?" "Youuuu knowwww"

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

I think the strongest argument for allowing gay marriage but keeping our bans on plural, is the women's rights angle. We know how polygamy usually operates in the real world, one man, many wives.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Those wives won't/don't get anywhere close to the equality of the husband. And there's plenty of real-world data on it since polygamy has been around so long.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The ban on adult incest marriages... I dunno what good rationale there is against this. I feel like "gross" but hey who am I to judge. And in terms of passing down deformity... We've got genetic counselling now.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"Women usually don't think so" Haha

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

@Evil - no one is born with a desire to marry anyone. Your logic fails.

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Winder, GA 30680, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Well men aren't of a mind to marry anyone, mostly, let alone multiple marriages. I stand by the statement that people are born gay, bi, or trans. You are never a born polygamist. The first set of traits is a part of your inherent self, like race

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

or eye color. Polygamy is not a trait. You are not a born polygamist. That is not the same as saying you don't want to fúck a lot of people. Gay, bi, trans people are also promiscuous. That's irrelevant.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

And screw the women's rights argument. I'd love to have a few husbands, why not? I'm not against polygamy or multiple marriages. I'm arguing that the slippery slope argument is a trope and that's why. Fundamental rights don't extend to polygamy

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

It is so declared and so it is.

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

that's what I said days ago ?

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Valdosta, GA, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Nice to see a consensus.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

You aren't born a monagamist either, I really don't get this argument, at all.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

There are many other reasons the government supports monogamous marriage. That's not the point. The point is, the slippery slope argument isn't going to work with regard to providing a fundamental right to marry multiply.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

If you don't like multiple marriages don't get multiple married

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

that's exactly the point .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Valdosta, GA, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

FORCED ACCEPTANCE of multiple spouses .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Valdosta, GA, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Right, and if you don't like people marrying their goats then don't marry a goat. Great point.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

unfortunately that awesome point is irrelevant to the slippery slope thing.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polygamy-the-next-major-civil-rights-movement/article/2532461

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

Didn't one of the arguments FOR gay marriage indicate that animals do it too, thus making it natural?

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polygamy-the-next-major-civil-rights-movement/article/2532461

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

ooops, wrong one. Here it is. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2452320?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Doc's argument seems quite circular to me. You're arguing there are only fundamental rights for two to get married because there are only fundamental rights for two to get married.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Reminds me of some of the biblical arguments you make fun of.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Let's take a step back and look at Kennedy's opinion, since that is all that really matters if the challenge to polygamy laws comes up. Yes, he used the 14th...but why did he say it applied in this specific instance?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

My Internet is flaky Skål, can you link to a better full-text than scribd.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Nevermind, I found a pdf. I really hate scribd. Anyway, I actually found it pretty strange that the decision had a historical discussion of marriage without any mention of polygamy.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Northwest Harbor, NY, USA

811f304d1edba24fb92ebcd4eeb3d8a8

Is there a polygamy gene?

Taco Bowl @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

No. Doesn't matter. Drew - did you see the 4 principles Kennedy wrote in the decision? Those would likely be used in this context as well.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Why would it be strange there was no historical discussion on polygamy - the case wasn't about that practice.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"The Constitution, however, does not permitthe State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex." He says something similar to this line a few times.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"On the same terms" is what makes polygamy/polyamory slightly different than SSM. I'm not sure how you'd equate the terms of a multiparty contact with a two party contact. If that could be reconciled, legalize it

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Skål, in the opinion, other marriage restrictions were discussed. Restrictions on interracial for example. To bring up a historical discussion of marriage and restrictions around it and *not* mention polygamy, that's incomplete to me.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The settlement of Utah was specifically because of that, wasn't it?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Or do they just decide to mention marriage restrictions that went the way of the dodo and forget about the others?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Interracial marriage was mentioned because Loving was cited numerous times as legal justification for this opinion. Similarly, when those other restrictions were discussed, they were mentioned because they were struck

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Down by the court. So yeah, it's all about citing the restrictions that went the way of the dodo *because* the legal rationale for each decision is being used in this case.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Kennedy was citing those other cases because through them, he argued that the court had established marriage as a fundamental right.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

But that fundamental right is still limited to 2 people. There's no discussion of that. It's like pretending that we have no other restrictions after this got lifted.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

There's just a sorta assumption that the "fundamental right" only involves two, and certainly not close family members (although how close is close because with first cousins, the law is very different across states).

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Anyway, one thing I definitely didn't see was any form of the lady gaga argument that Dr Evil had before.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The decision seems to leave the door open to challenges in either of those areas.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Sayville, NY, USA

125e03ff143e887a8bee577895339921

If marriage is a fundamental right amongst consenting adults, what legal grounds exist to restrict the right to only two people?

Racer X @ about 2 years ago

Winder, GA 30680, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I don't think there is one Racer. I think the slippery slope argument isn't valid. I also don't think a court will find a fundamental Constitutional right for multiple marriage.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Drew - the case was about SSM. Not polygamy. You shouldn't be expecting a simultaneous ruling or discussion on polygamy. That'll come later. Check some of the amicus briefs Kennedy mentions for your Gaga discussion.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Again, the clause "on the same terms as opposite sex marriage" seems to be the key for equal protection and due process clause. Plural marriage simply has different terms of the contract for legal benefits.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

A nice summary of the amici: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2015/04/guide-to-amicus-briefs-in-obergefell-v-hodges-the-same-sex-marriage-cases.html

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

That's a good point Skål. However, a marriage between two first cousins or even closer *would* be able to fit into the same type of contract. So not sure how the bans regarding that could be justified

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Northwest Harbor, NY, USA

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

The amicus brief he referred to was from the APA (17-7), btw.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Immutable = born that way.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Fair question about marriage between close cousins. Tennesseans rejoice!

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Hey, Darwin, HG Wells, and Einstein did it... Lol

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Northwest Harbor, NY, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

half of West Virginia does it .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Valdosta, GA, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Interestingly one of the states that has a ban against it, haha. Interestingly one of the states that has a ban against it, haha. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Northwest Harbor, NY, USA

98d7101629a5e7bcbaca8c6c5bd9decc

I doubt there's a big enough constituency for polygamy to become an "issue".

UndrWater @ about 2 years ago

Big Bear Lake, CA, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

That's what they thought about gay rights.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Even the cousin couples have their own advocacy group, it's a question of breaking into the mainstream, same as the gays. People overestimate the amount of lgbt by a lot just based on increasing visibility

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Northwest Harbor, NY, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

That helps them in a lot of ways even if it's technically mistaken.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Northwest Harbor, NY, USA

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Lack of numbers (ie weak constituency) isn't a good reason to deny rights, as well.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Drew - did u find the part of Kennedy's opinion where he does mention the "born that way" part?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Agreed, we have Republic not a democracy. Lack of numbers isn't technically a reason to ignore rights. But in reality, organizing and advocating are what get results, not numbers or lack thereof.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Mainstreaming simply allows the democratic majority to assimilate and normalize a new concept of human rights not previously thought about, or previously rejected as ridiculous.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Here's hoping the new normalization applies to marijuana...sure is looking like the next wave of "hmmm maybe that's ok after all"...

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

Next stop prostitution

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

Strongsville, OH, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Found the immutable nature sentence. But there's no "immutable nature" towards seeking an interracial marriage and laws banning that got struck down.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

I think Kennedy's trying to say there isn't a marriage option available to gays without legalizing gay marriage. That makes sense. However, there was a marriage option available for those who wanted interracial marriage. ...

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The option was.. marry your own color. Yet the existence of that option (rightfully) had no bearing on the decision. So wouldn't this be the same with the polygamist or incestuous couple?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Immutable sexual orientation wasn't a part of Loving. Loving simply established that "marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"[T]he freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

That's exactly my point though, there's no need for any immutable characteristic.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

From Obergefell: "the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples."

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Incestuous couples could probably challenge and win based on those words. Polygamist marriages aren't the same terms and conditions, so again, not sure if the 14th's due process and equal protections would apply

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Evil - Would they apply?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Is there any justification for the number restriction besides simply mentioning two, couples, etc? It's simply avoided.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

The question of # wasn't in front of the court. Why do you expect the court to comment on a question that wasn't posed to it?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"This Court granted review, limited to two questions. 574 U. S. ___ (2015). The first, presented by the cases from Michigan and Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

between two people of the same sex. The second, presented by the cases from Ohio, Tennessee, and, again, Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a same sex marriage licensed

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Limited to two questions but that doesn't prevent them from discussing loads of other stuff related to marriage.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

and performed in a State which does grant that right." Those were the only two questions the court was answering in this decision. Not number, not incest, etc.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

That means you'd have to look at the reasoning with another case that actually dealt with those restrictions. Does the reasoning *there* still hold

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"Loads of other stuff related to marriage" Like what, specifically?

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

"That means you'd have to look at the reasoning with another case that actually dealt with those restrictions." Yes, but that'll be another case. Not this one.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Like what? Most of the stuff he discusses in the portion of the history of marriage.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Not saying there was any obligation to write anything on plural marriage, just because there's nothing written, there's not much in that particular decision that would magically bar it

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The closest thing is probably what you brought up Skål, but that's basically all I can come up with.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

There's no reason to think that the decision was meant to magically bar it. That question will likely come up on it's own merits at some point in the future.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Well all the people shouting from the rooftops that there isn't any slippery slope, they seem to think there's something in there that expressly disallows it.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Or they just don't think much of slippery slope arguments in general.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

In my opinion, there is at least something of a slippery slope but that's simply not a good reason to bar gay marriage.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

SCOTUS rules solely on the limited questions it takes at the outset, nothing more. No slippery slope or lack thereof in the decision. I never implied that. I said repeatedly that I am addressing those who say, what would prevent multiple marriage,

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

people marrying their dog etc.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The marrying their dog thing isn't anywhere on the radar because animals can't consent.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

This is the decision re polygamy. Search for the term "odious" because that's the section where they consider whether or not polygamy bans are constitutional. Has that kind of reasoning aged well?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

B35527b232c45def78db4f6949419182

Relevant: http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/issue-6/articles-and-essays/three-crowd-constitutional-right-plural-marriage.html The legal stuff begins in section IV.

Tjaden Froyda @ about 2 years ago

undefined

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Good reference Skäl, but more of an advocacy piece and not so much a legal paper. The Equal Protection argument in my mind is that unless you have the same number of male and female in a marriage, the marriage and the legal rights imparted

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

with the contractual arrangement cannot possibly be equal. But the immutability argument is still quite valid, all else aside. I understand their point in the paper but disagree when it comes to finding fundamental civil rights in the Constitution.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Why wouldn't I have a fundamental right to marry my toaster then, exactly? It's part of who I am, so I should have that right...That logic just doesn't wash. We're not talking about the right to be intimate. We're talking about granting legal

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

status with benefits to those who (usually) want to be intimate. Immutability shouldn't be written off as irrelevant to a determination of civil rights, imo.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Toaster argument is idiotic, a toaster isn't even alive, if it were an animal an animal cannot consent

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Immutability is irrelevant because it surely didn't matter in Loving. There's no "immutable nature" to loving a different race. But that doesn't give us license to forbid it

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

The article is pretty thorough in my opinion. I haven't seen anything coming even close to that.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Also in the Reynolds case, the justifications for banning polygamy bear more than a passing resemblance to the arguments *just* declared invalid re same sex marriage.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

You're welcome for the consent argument, which I provided some time ago. Immutable in Loving refers to race. Don't be stupid.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

The article is an advocacy piece. Don't even try to pretend otherwise: they state as much in about every other paragraph.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

I understand you never attended a law school class. Let me help you here. When the article says "the article is intended to show x" what they mean is, "we're making the case for x. We're not providing any balanced view on the subject."

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

But I'm sure your opinion is valid to you.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

And since you don't seem capable of discerning a difference, a toaster is not a living being. Consent is irrelevant. Why can't I marry my toaster? I was born attracted to toasters!

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Finally...a "passing resemblance"? Really? So civil rights should be determined by resemblances? Bravo. Let's make you a lawyer. Your logic is impeccable.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Of course, a toaster is rather like a dog. I can understand your confusion. I guess an interracial couple is kind of like a bunch of people all of whom wasn't to marry, too. Or maybe a toaster, or a dog. Yep, I get it.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

drew a Lawyer? he never professed to attempt . evil a lawyer? by state bar & consent, I guess... does she practice family law or is it a side bar.. only pinky may know. .. .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Atlanta, GA 30337, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Wow is she pissy tonight.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

I guess I'm not allowed to opine on this at all, eh? Since I'm not a lawyer of course. Dr. Evil is the only one. I thought the article despite being an advocacy piece (as I'm sure loads are in law journals) was rather thorough.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

well you don't have her viewpoint, so therefore you're a fúcking, idiotic, uneducated, bible thumping, gun toting, redneck, conservative. . .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Atlanta, GA 30337, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Also I said *more* than a passing resemblance. Reynolds mainly declares polygamy bans as constitutional by appealing to tradition. The US has always done it like this, the colonies did it like this, and England before us.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Doesn't this sound *very* much like an argument that got totally shot down with regards to same sex marriage?

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

4342ac70ef9790b784efa69ef1a3fdf4

Not a fan of gay marriage but I do believe the Supreme Court did the right interpretation.

Bankai! @ about 2 years ago

Huntsville, AL 35806, USA

98d7101629a5e7bcbaca8c6c5bd9decc

are you a fan of marriage in general?

UndrWater @ about 2 years ago

Cerritos, CA, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

It's definitely better on the whole for kids to be raised by two parents. So I think the gay marriage thing actually helps with marriage in general. (gays got married but my loser ass can't commit)

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Rose Hill, New York, NY

75c0efaa27986c943c72b78a0fa61431

to be fair you are a global warming denying zionist, post terrible pictures of ny and yourself, and one can only assume, a staunch supporter of polygamy. You seem like a nice enough guy though, I hope you find someone.

srorriM & ekomS @ about 2 years ago

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Lmao.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

I would like to ask the doctor if she and her husband were on the Titanic would she let him go down with the ship and let Bruce Jenner sail off with his pretty wig and dress

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

North Royalton, OH, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

It's Caitlyn! Get it right or pay the price!

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Midtown, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

It's a fair question, I would say once Bruce got his pee pee cut off she was no longer of use to me personally, so let her go down wherever it is she will go.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Unless and until Mr. Evil goes the Caitlyn route, he's officially on top, so to speak.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

nothing is out of the realm of possibilities, evil. after all he (she) is married to you .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

acceptable answer :-)

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

Strongsville, OH, USA

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

Somewhere out there there is a short fat ugly man who just got his dick chopped off and replaced with a man made vagina

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

North Royalton, OH, USA

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

He's not wearing a thousand dollar wig and a 4000 dollar dress with professionals putting on his makeup and he's on his way to work dead broke because of the expense of the operation

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

North Royalton, OH, USA

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

And we are honoring some crazy ass millionaire cross dresser from the White House? Anybody? is this thing on!

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

North Royalton, OH, USA

441587fe232d918c3a4c8497d22aa156

until his dick is removed he is still Bruce.

President Not Sure @ about 2 years ago

St Peters, MO, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

You can't just get the dick removed, you need a vajayjay and titties too. He's already got the titties... Now he just needs to nix the ding dong and get a hoohah. And until then, we'll oblige and call him a "her" and her Caitlyn, but..

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

It's really just a polite fiction.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Now can we donate that dick to a good cause at least? Like someone who lost their dick in war or something... Just make sure it's not a black guy or that just would look weird.

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Yeah the surgery is always in two steps...top surgery is always first for women transitioning to men, I think. In some cases hormones are enough to make breasts in men...hell, some had them before.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Pretty sure Caitlyn was augmented though. Serious racks don't result from hormone therapy. Some men only need bottom surgery, which is a single operating session, I believe, to invert the geometry.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Wait so if they invert the geometry, then they can't donate the dick, cuz it gets recycled for the chacha? How's it work

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Well I wasn't speaking literally there, Drew! But I am pretty sure they use the penis tissue having all the nerve endings for crafting a sort of clitoris so the donation thing wouldn't work.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

Going the other way I know they extend the clitoris out and sheath it with skin etc. to make a penis. They get a nice 2" version. JUST like Pink's...hmmmm

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

C767f03aeb282b9660d8157840047228

the key is to maintain the nerves as much as possible in order to enable pleasure, otherwise people would have to trade resolving sexual identity with loss of the ability to enjoy or even have sex.

Dr. Evil @ about 2 years ago

Lakeland, MN, USA

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

hmmmmm, like pinky . again

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

26e82c69bac3abe48cfce8aae262fda8

Yeah I knew you weren't being literal but had a feeling tissue would get repurposed... Oh well, there goes the whole dick donation idea...

The Drew @ about 2 years ago

Yorkville, New York, NY

6c48fb73634fa41fe7915a7faf370ee7

you guys will miss me when I'm gone

Mr. Pink @ about 2 years ago

12500-12598 U.S. 322, Cleveland, OH 44106

7feb020fb3d3aa6cf2752031cf61da89

you're going nowhere .

H2O @ about 2 years ago

Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA

Stats

  • Like
    1
  • Dislike
    3
  • Comment
    278

Location

Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN