TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[lagokc]

If a small number of men monopolize the women what do you think the rest of the men will do?

The same basic issues is brought up for China where they have a skewed gender balance.

Provided we don't have the sort of poverty and income distribution problems that the Islamic world has, we won't end up with the rich guy in town getting all the wives.

American women don't really like sharing anyway, provided it remains a small portion of the population and polygany is balanced out with polyandry you won't get that sort of result.

Hard mode: what's so wrong about polyandry?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Which is to say that gay marriage proponents are hypocrites. See their stance on human-dog marriage. Despite the fact that all of their SSM arguments work equally well for it.

Discriminating against sexual minorities is horrible until it comes to discriminating against sexual minorities liberals don't care about or the eww them out.

Quiet down, grown ups are talking. When you've passed remedial biology and learned that dogs and humans are a different species, you can brush up on how members of the species canis lupus familiaris are not allowed to enter into legally binding contracts. Then you can join the discussion with a talking point that doesn't make you look like a complete idiot.

 

[Zxian]

If a small number of men monopolize the women what do you think the rest of the men will do?

But why wouldn't women be able to have multiple partners in that situation?

And again, the small minded view comes out. Polygamy = A man marrying several women. The notion that a woman could have several partners is rediculous! :whiste:

Guy runs around and sleeps with 10 woman - he's glorified by his jock friends.
Girl runs around and sleeps with 10 men - she's called a slut.

You think that one-sided polygamy would be accepted in this day and age? Apparently you haven't heard of the feminist movement.


For the person who brought up incest as one of the "slippery slope" arguments, there are clear genetic issues that occur when children are born of incestuous couples. Harm clearly done to society. Case closed. Let's not bring it up again as a danger caused by allowing SSM.

Same-sex couples cannot procreate, so the possibility of genetic disorders in our future generations directly caused by having homosexual parents is zero. Also note that the majority of homosexuals today were born of heterosexual couples/families. There is no conclusive proof that children raised by homosexual parents are any less successful or happy than those raised by heterosexual parents. There's also no proof that homosexual parents influence the sexual orientation of the children raised.


Another question to ask the nay-sayers - where did the notion of single male-single female marriages come from? Oh, that's right. The Bible. You're basing your laws and beliefs on a document that the First Amendment is supposed to protect you from.

 

[Smoblikat]

Choose to live immoral lifestyle, then complain when others dont like it?

Just because someone wishes to live a gay lifestyle doe not mean the rest of us have to agree or even like it.

Noone has to agree or like it, but everyone needs to mind their own fucking business when it isnt affecting them and their illogical religious propaganda.

 

[nehalem256]

And again, the small minded view comes out. Polygamy = A man marrying several women. The notion that a woman could have several partners is rediculous! :whiste:

Guy runs around and sleeps with 10 woman - he's glorified by his jock friends.
Girl runs around and sleeps with 10 men - she's called a slut.

You think that one-sided polygamy would be accepted in this day and age? Apparently you haven't heard of the feminist movement.

I think that it is far more likely for a woman to agree to polygamy than a man. There are obvious evolutionary reasons for this; a man can impregnate multiple women at the same time, whereas a woman cannot bear children for multiple men at the same time.

Related this is why female sluttiness is considered to be worse. A woman knows a child is hers no matter how many men a guy sleeps with. However, if a woman sleeps with multiple men the paternity is not knowable(absent modern genetic testing).

For the person who brought up incest as one of the "slippery slope" arguments, there are clear genetic issues that occur when children are born of incestuous couples. Harm clearly done to society. Case closed. Let's not bring it up again as a danger caused by allowing SSM.

So you are saying that procreation is an important part of marriage. I could not agree more.

Same-sex couples cannot procreate, so the possibility of genetic disorders in our future generations directly caused by having homosexual parents is zero. Also note that the majority of homosexuals today were born of heterosexual couples/families. There is no conclusive proof that children raised by homosexual parents are any less successful or happy than those raised by heterosexual parents. There's also no proof that homosexual parents influence the sexual orientation of the children raised.

Wait a minute. You just claimed that procreation was an important part of marriage. So why would we allow couples that inherently cannot procreate to get married?

Another question to ask the nay-sayers - where did the notion of single male-single female marriages come from? Oh, that's right. The Bible. You're basing your laws and beliefs on a document that the First Amendment is supposed to protect you from.

Is that why Japan, China, and India all only allow single male-female marriages? Because they are all founded on the bible? :hmm:

Also you apparently haven't seen this "clever" picture made by other SSM proponents

The point being that biblical marriage isn't between a man and a woman. You SSM guys should really sync up your arguments better.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Bonus points for the infographic.

 

[nehalem256]

Quiet down, grown ups are talking. When you've passed remedial biology and learned that dogs and humans are a different species,

Maybe you should stop letting your bigoted canisphobic views get in the way of people's happiness.

How does someone marrying his dog affect you?

you can brush up on how members of the species canis lupus familiaris are not allowed to enter into legally binding contracts. Then you can join the discussion with a talking point that doesn't make you look like a complete idiot.

sigh.

(1) As I pointed out earlier women used to not be able to enter into legally binding contracts either. And yet marriage still existed.

(2) As evidenced by Canada consent is not required for marriage even today in 1st World Countries.

(3) I am not the one who is rejecting my own arguments

 

[BudAshes]

Maybe you should stop letting your bigoted canisphobic views get in the way of people's happiness.

How does someone marrying his dog affect you?



sigh.

(1) As I pointed out earlier women used to not be able to enter into legally binding contracts either. And yet marriage still existed.

(2) As evidenced by Canada consent is not required for marriage even today in 1st World Countries.

(3) I am not the one who is rejecting my own arguments

As I said before who cares if you marry your dog? Do it. Your toaster too. Enjoy. WHy should I care?

 

[RampantAndroid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Canada

Uhh, what is Nehalem going on about?

 

[Zxian]

I think that it is far more likely for a woman to agree to polygamy than a man. There are obvious evolutionary reasons for this; a man can impregnate multiple women at the same time, whereas a woman cannot bear children for multiple men at the same time.

Related this is why female sluttiness is considered to be worse. A woman knows a child is hers no matter how many men a guy sleeps with. However, if a woman sleeps with multiple men the paternity is not knowable(absent modern genetic testing).

You think. Why do you think this? Your "obvious" evolutionary reasons don't really line up with the rest of nature.

So you are saying that procreation is an important part of marriage. I could not agree more.

I never actually said that. I was giving an example about out how incestuous couples harm society. That is all. Don't try to extend the meaning beyond that, because that was it.

Wait a minute. You just claimed that procreation was an important part of marriage. So why would we allow couples that inherently cannot procreate to get married?

So by your logic, anyone who is infertile should be denied the same priviledges as homosexuals? Ability to procreate isn't a requirement for heterosexual marriage, so why is it for homosexuals? You're leaving this door wide open for people to shoot holes in.

Is that why Japan, China, and India all only allow single male-female marriages? Because they are all founded on the bible? :hmm:

Why is it that Canada, the UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, NY, RI, CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, VT, WA and others do support it?

China's a whole other ball game. Unless you want to dig up the entire culture that surrounds marriage and the restrictions therein, let's just not go there. India has an extremely homophobic culture. Japan has had a longstanding history of homosexual activities. Read up on samurai and kagema. There just isn't enough political drive today to change their present laws.

One of the loudest arguments against SSM in the States is because of "God". The Church has had an incredibly strong impact on the formation of many western cultures. The States is just the one where it's still the most prevalent in law.

 

[Zxian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Canada

Uhh, what is Nehalem going on about?

I think he's referring to Common Law, but again, he really doesn't know what he's talking about. If you've been living with someone for 1-2 years (depending on province), you know about Common Law marriages. Ironically, Texas acknowledges common law marriages.

 

[zsdersw]

I can read though.

Not very well, apparently.

Sounds to me like you think expecting lesbians to live up to their legal obligations is a "dumbass ruling"...

The particulars of this case resulted in my opinion that the judge's ruling was stupid and should be overturned.

Whining about it doesn't change reality

You posting it doesn't make it reality. In fact, more often than not, you posting it makes it fantasy.

 

[nehalem256]

You think. Why do you think this? Your "obvious" evolutionary reasons don't really line up with the rest of nature.

What part of reality do you not see them lining up with? Incidences of men marrying multiple women is far higher than the other way around.

Exactly as you would expect from evolution.

I never actually said that. I was giving an example about out how incestuous couples harm society. That is all. Don't try to extend the meaning beyond that, because that was it.

You were giving an example how having children out of wedlock is bad. This does not argue against incestuous marriage unless you see procreation and marriage as tied together.

So by your logic, anyone who is infertile should be denied the same privileges as homosexuals? Ability to procreate isn't a requirement for heterosexual marriage, so why is it for homosexuals? You're leaving this door wide open for people to shoot holes in.

Do you have a foolproof test to determine fertility? Are you in favor of the government violating people's medical privacy?

The "hole" you pretend to see has been addressed in Court:

With respect to the claim of an equal-protection violation, the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state's rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples. It found the plaintiffs' reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loving v. Virginia, finding an anti-miscegenation law, failed to provide a parallel: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson#Appeal_to_the_Minnesota_Supreme_Court

Also, preventing children out-of-wedlock would occur so long as it least one person in the heterosexual couple is fertile. This is an important societal goal in and of itself.

And as was pointed out by the courts it is a purely theoretical problem. Go back 100 years and you will see how silly your argument is. Essentially the problem of childless heterosexual is a modern creation and no one has gone to "fix" the problem. And putting limitations on marriage is likely a lot harder than expanding it. And at the same time while childless couples do not fit the deep philosophical definition of marriage, they do fit the colloquial definition of it as being between a man and a woman.

Why is it that Canada, the UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, NY, RI, CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, VT, WA and others do support it?

Are you suggesting that India, Japan, and China are more Christian than the places you list?

See especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Religion

China's a whole other ball game. Unless you want to dig up the entire culture that surrounds marriage and the restrictions therein, let's just not go there. India has an extremely homophobic culture. Japan has had a longstanding history of homosexual activities. Read up on samurai and kagema. There just isn't enough political drive today to change their present laws.

Does Japan support same-sex marriage? No. And that was the question.

Also, interesting that you point out that India has an "extremely homophobic culture" since you assertion was apparently that such a culture should be tied to the bible...

One of the loudest arguments against SSM in the States is because of "God". The Church has had an incredibly strong impact on the formation of many western cultures. The States is just the one where it's still the most prevalent in law.

And all of the "loudest" arguments for SSM also support human-dog marriage. Which has been my point.

Also, there are 2 possibilities.

(1) Assume the bible is essentially true. In this case the bible is the word of God and we should be following it.

(2) The bible is false and God does not exist. In this case the bible is nothing more than the word of man and actually reflects the cultural traditions of man and religion is merely a reflection of that.

Neither possibility really supports your side. Either they are trying to force the values of an actual real deity on society. Or they are just trying to force their values on society the same as you.

 

[nehalem256]

I think he's referring to Common Law, but again, he really doesn't know what he's talking about. If you've been living with someone for 1-2 years (depending on province), you know about Common Law marriages. Ironically, Texas acknowledges common law marriages.

Look up common law marriages is the US. They all require you to represent yourself as married. A requirement Canada does not have.

I fail to see how living together constitutes consent to marriage given the prevalence of people living together and not intending to get married.

 

[nehalem256]

The particulars of this case resulted in my opinion that the judge's ruling was stupid and should be overturned.

And the "particulars" being that the woman was a lesbian. You think that the judge's ruling should be overturned because he was forcing a lesbian to honor a legal obligation that she willingly agreed to.

 

[zsdersw]

And the "particulars" being that the woman was a lesbian. You think that the judge's ruling should be overturned because he was forcing a lesbian to honor a legal obligation that she willingly agreed to.

There you go assuming things again. It would explain why you make so many fuck-ups.

I'm not at all wild about judges splitting up the living arrangements made by two adults who chose to live together and still want to live together, particularly if one of the two adults owns the property in which they're living. The potentially stalker-ish ex-husband and involvement of children and custody are just window-dressing by comparison IMO.

If it's a contract that must always be enforced, then it should've been enforced from the beginning.. not when child custody became an issue. But now that custody is suddenly an issue the contract suddenly becomes iron-clad? No, sorry, I don't support that at all.

 

[fskimospy]

Look up common law marriages is the US. They all require you to represent yourself as married. A requirement Canada does not have.

I fail to see how living together constitutes consent to marriage given the prevalence of people living together and not intending to get married.

Do you not know what implied consent is? This is not unique to marriage.

I like how your entire argument about something you don't understand is based on other things that you don't understand. You're like a stupidity singularity.

 

[zsdersw]

You're like a stupidity singularity.

Yeah, I can't say for sure that I'd stop my car if he was in my path crossing the street.

 

[nehalem256]

There you go assuming things again. It would explain why you make so many fuck-ups.

I'm not at all wild about judges splitting up the living arrangements made by two adults who chose to live together and still want to live together, particularly if one of the two adults owns the property in which they're living. The potentially stalker-ish ex-husband and involvement of children and custody are just window-dressing by comparison IMO.

If it's a contract that must always be enforced, then it should've been enforced from the beginning.. not when child custody became an issue. But now that custody is suddenly an issue the contract suddenly becomes iron-clad? No, sorry, I don't support that at all.

If the case had not involved a lesbian would you posted this thread...

I think we all know the answer to that

Do you not know what implied consent is? This is not unique to marriage.

I like how your entire argument about something you don't understand is based on other things that you don't understand. You're like a stupidity singularity.

So you think living with someone is implied consent to marriage? So can we use this form of "implied consent" for human-dog marriages?

Well I guess we wouldn't want all those people "living in sin" huh. Maybe liberals in Canada should stop trying to force their Christian values on others and let them live how they want? ()

And as I have said before. Common-law marriage has basically no place in modern society with accurate record keeping and easy transportation. At the very least the US version is not repugnant as it requires representing yourself as married to the community.

 

[shadow9d9]

Stop feeding them!!!

 

[zsdersw]

If the case had not involved a lesbian would you posted this thread...

I think we all know the answer to that

If it was on one of the websites I regularly look at, sure.

If the story had not involved a lesbian would you have posted your usual bullshit about SSM? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[fskimospy]

So you think living with someone is implied consent to marriage? So can we use this form of "implied consent" for human-dog marriages?

No, as we've covered before dogs are incapable of giving consent.

I feel like we're coming back to my previous question: what exactly will it take for you to admit to being wrong? Be specific.

 

[nehalem256]

No, as we've covered before dogs are incapable of giving consent.

I feel like we're coming back to my previous question: what exactly will it take for you to admit to being wrong? Be specific.

A dog is capable of living with a person for 1-2 years. You apparently were arguing that do so constitutes implied consent to marriage...

 

[fskimospy]

A dog is capable of living with a person for 1-2 years. You apparently were arguing that do so constitutes implied consent to marriage...

Dogs are incapable of giving consent under any circumstances because they are not sentient. I can't believe this needs to be explained but a being that can give consent can also give implied consent while a being that cannot give consent at all cannot give implied consent.

These are basic reasoning skills.

What will it take for you to admit you're wrong?

 

[zsdersw]

What will it take for you to admit you're wrong?

Hacking his account, most likely.