In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
So you are the 1st in line to support the 1st polygamist that sues for equal protection?
One man, one woman for life. Don't put your racial bigotry on me.
That's not an answer, but here, I can simplify it.
Should interracial marriage be allowed?
One man, one woman for life. Again with the racial bigotry. I thought you were progressed.
I don't see why the question is so difficult to answer. It's a yes/no question.
Hey, you don't have to justify your fetishes to me. I'm a live and let live kind of guy.
By the silence I'm now getting, I can only assume that NLeininger does not think interracial marriage should be allowed, and that's why he's refusing to answer the question.
"(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"
I think, IMHO, the ultimate hypocrisy is trying to teach your children something that you, yourself don't follow...
Oh I know this - but our legal system is reactive, not proactive. As a general, a state can pass any law it likes to, and the only way it gets nullified is if the SCOTUS says "um, quit that". Sometimes that gets done at a quicker pace such as ACA or the Arizona Law, but generally it languishes, and while it does that law is in effect - unless you can get an injunction.
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
Teach your children whatever you want. But please, stay away from mine.
Thanks man, appreciate it brah.
Oh good, you're back! So, would I be right in saying that you don't think interracial marriage should be allowed?
For the record, I have zero problems with people who are upset with the gov't actively legalizing gay marriage. It's tantamount to the govt approving of Homosexuality - and for many people, the morals they were raised with, the religion they practiced, disapproved that. I'd be pissed off if my govt said something was morally acceptable, when my own family and cultural morals said the opposite.
My wish is for the govt to completely get out of the marriage business, outside of marriage licenses. Every state should simply allow 2 people - and ONLY 2 people - of consenting age to apply for a marriage license, so long as it's not incestuous in nature. And the only reason for that is to protect any future children that may come of that partnership. Leave gender and sexual orientation out of it. They should not be asking those questions. They should only want Social Security numbers, age, and proof that you're not related by blood.
Who are you to define what marriage is, or any government for that matter. What right is it for you to establish that a man can marry only 1 woman? What interest does it serve you or society to disallow such a union? I thought you were all for the government staying out of your bedroom?
Yeah, well, the founding fathers made every aspect of federal government cumbersome for a purpose. They were distrustful of concentrating large amounts of power at the federal level. And one of the benefits of having 50 states is if you don't like the one you're in you can vote with your feet and find someplace else more to your liking.
Lots of queers ITT
Don't worry. You're safe.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 10 months ago
If states want to legalize polygamy, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it.
They technically don't define it BTW. The federal govt defines a partnership between 2 people - based on the law of states - for tax and benefit purposes. As of today they don't care who those two people are. And since your dog or your door knob don't have social security numbers or any other kind of ID that we give out to people, you won't be able to form a partnership with that dog or door knob.
We have public welfare laws that prohibit people from polygamy (though these I disagree with. If they're all consenting adults i don't really care, though for the sake of simplicity I can see why you can't get multiple marriage licences), child abuse, animal abuse, and incest. Those are physically harmful to society (except polygamy). There is zero evidence that homosexuality is physically harmful to society. You simply can not compare it to child abuse, animal abuse, or the future harm it does to children through incest.
The slippery slope argument is dead on intellectual arrival
The idea of a "traditional marriage" is largely an illusion spread by people who have never read history.
The concept of marriages has always changed over time. Marriages have been arranged, bought, exploited for political purposes, involved multiple partners, ended in beheadings, been riddled with adultery and scandal, involved underaged children, been the result of rape, ended in divorce, have started conflicts, been loveless, etc, etc throughout human history
The closest thing to a "traditional marriage" would probably be with an 18 year old marrying a 15 year old from a prominent local family. The marriage would be arranged by the parents, likely against the wishes of both parties, and would involve an exchange of gold or goats or both.
This post was edited by joetheogre 10 months ago
Aha, but it would be a man and a woman.
And goats. You forgot the goats. Baaaaaaa!!!
Further proof this nation is turning into a bunch of fairies.
This is true.
My point was it makes no sense to lament the "tradional marriage" when in fact that phrase more accurately describes things that most would object to in 21st century America.
The idea of Marriage changes over time
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports