Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 132
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: Definition of Marriage

  1. #51
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    53,121
    Thanks
    2838

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    And this is a problem because ... ?


    These make no sense. You do not understand what equal protection is or how it works.
    It means that if someone thinks they deserve marriage and a judge has a bleeding heart for that cause, its a done deal.

  2. #52
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99,187
    Thanks
    6222

    From
    Vancouver
    Question: What is marriage.

    Answer: None of your business if you’re not in it.
    Thanks from PACE and Dangermouse

  3. #53
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,406
    Thanks
    20533

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    Question: What is marriage.

    Answer: None of your business if you’re not in it.
    Perfect response
    Thanks from Dr.Knuckles

  4. #54
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,406
    Thanks
    20533

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    It means that if someone thinks they deserve marriage and a judge has a bleeding heart for that cause, its a done deal.
    Wow, you really believe that? Kinda ridiculously far fetched

  5. #55
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99,187
    Thanks
    6222

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by PACE View Post
    Perfect response
    Welll there’s also the condition “and it’s between genuinely consenting adults”.

    I’m not sure a constitutional court system could uphold bigamy laws if there were ever a clear, honest challenge by a fully consenting, uncoerced trio of adults. Not some religious leader of a compound and his brides he groomed from birth, but an actual set of three adults wanting to get married.

    It’s just never happened. People aren’t built that way.
    Thanks from PACE

  6. #56
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,406
    Thanks
    20533

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    Welll there’s also the condition “and it’s between genuinely consenting adults”.

    I’m not sure a constitutional court system could uphold bigamy laws if there were ever a clear, honest challenge by a fully consenting, uncoerced trio of adults. Not some religious leader of a compound and his brides he groomed from birth, but an actual set of three adults wanting to get married.

    It’s just never happened. People aren’t built that way.
    I think there's many legal pacts you can engage in, to me a marriage certificate isn't an object of emotion or heart, it's a legal declaration of an entity, similar to forming a corporation or a company, that being said, the spiritual or human bond is not something that can be defined by cookie cutter mentality.

    All are different and perfectly right unto themselves.

  7. #57
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,733
    Thanks
    26253

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    It means that if someone thinks they deserve marriage and a judge has a bleeding heart for that cause, its a done deal.
    Once again, you demonstrate you do not understand the law or how judge's make decisions, which is why you want judges who will engage in judicial activism and make political decisions instead of studying the law and making legal decisions. The only one in this conversation with a "bleeding heart" is you, who seeks to punish people who do not share your religion and reward people who do.
    Thanks from PACE

  8. #58
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,733
    Thanks
    26253

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    I’m not sure a constitutional court system could uphold bigamy laws if there were ever a clear, honest challenge by a fully consenting, uncoerced trio of adults.
    It could, in a couple of ways. Note that polyamorous persons do not constitute a protected class, and thus the standard of review under the equal protection clause would be whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

    If you had a married couple, and party #1 disappears and marries party #3 without consent of party #2, then you do not have a fully-consenting trio of adults - i.e., it would not be a true "multiple marriage" in that sense. True, you could have one person married to two other people without the other two being married to each other (see the Denobulans in ST:Enterprise); but that could cause enough significant issues upon dissolution of either relationship that the bigamy laws might be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Such cases could clog the courts for years, and they are already (at least in some places) notoriously backed up.

    For that matter, those issues could likewise be posed even with such a trio as you describe, though the could be less problematic, especially with the use of an antenuptial agreement binding on all members (which might have to be a legal requirement, conforming to a new set of laws that would have to be developed).

    Legal status between two members of the same sex easily fit into the same family structure that already existed prior to their inception. Multiples beyond two, however, would require additional legal structures to make it work.
    Thanks from Havelock and Dr.Knuckles

  9. #59
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    47,614
    Thanks
    13939

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    So, a marriage is not what the parties say it is and it is not merely a contract.

    It is an agreement between a man and a woman to live their lives as husband and wife.
    Or 2 men, or 2 women.

  10. #60
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    47,614
    Thanks
    13939

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    The point is that the marriage certificate is irrelevant to the essence of the marriage. The essence of the marriage lies within the agreement between a man and a woman to live as husband and wife
    Doesn't have to be a man and a woman.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 388
    Last Post: 13th June 2015, 11:56 AM
  2. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11th September 2014, 05:47 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 26th August 2012, 11:26 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17th August 2012, 08:41 AM
  5. What is the definition of a RIGHT?
    By The_Bear in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 24th February 2009, 01:03 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed