- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gay Marriage Spinoff: Where should the new line be drawn on marriage?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:51 pm to Paige
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:51 pm to Paige
quote:
My guess is that you'll never be able to enter into a legal contract with animals since they can't consent
Try telling that to the boys in Tuscaloosa. They all say that the sheep are asking for it.
0
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:53 pm to Darth_Vader
I feel like the line is here. I would have mocked you for being a dumb hick, except I was proven wrong when the SJW's shoved trannys down our throats and shoved the removing of 200 year old statues down our throats.
Maybe I'm the gullible one for being initially happy with the gay marriage ruling and the taking down of the confed. flag at SC. If I'd have known how far the SJW's and left would have pushed I'd have supported the conservative point of view maybe.
Maybe I'm the gullible one for being initially happy with the gay marriage ruling and the taking down of the confed. flag at SC. If I'd have known how far the SJW's and left would have pushed I'd have supported the conservative point of view maybe.
This post was edited on 9/3/15 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:53 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:If you're of age and doing something, like getting married, that doesn't affect me, I don't care. Have at it.
It's obvious we've got a lot of gay marriage supporters in here. Which that's fine, that's your right. One thing I'd like to ask supporters of gay marriage though is this; Now that gay marriage is legal, what limits on marriage should be in place? Should it be limited by number, relation, age, or should there be no limits? Where should the new line on marriage be and what in your opinion validates that new line?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:54 pm to Darth_Vader
Man and Woman
Man and Man
Woman and Woman
It's 2015, people have right to marry whoever they want. As long as both parties understand what they're getting themselves into and no close relation. If a gay couple wants to get married, it won't affect my life. It isn't the gays that are ruining the sanctity of marriage, it's the Kardashians.
Man and Man
Woman and Woman
It's 2015, people have right to marry whoever they want. As long as both parties understand what they're getting themselves into and no close relation. If a gay couple wants to get married, it won't affect my life. It isn't the gays that are ruining the sanctity of marriage, it's the Kardashians.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:54 pm to CaptainsWafer
quote:
Numbers of what, marriage licenses issued? That's dumb, it should be the same thing for same sex as it is for opposite sex marriages.
No numbers as in how many can enter into a marriage. As things stand now, you can only be married to one person at a time. However, there's a lot of people out there who want to enter into plural marriages (AKA bigamy). If three or more consenting adults wish to enter into a marriage contract, should they be allowed to do so? If not, on what legal grounds should they be denied?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:56 pm to The Hurricane
quote:
Man and Woman
Man and Man
Woman and Woman
It's 2015, people have right to marry whoever they want. As long as both parties understand what they're getting themselves into and no close relation. If a gay couple wants to get married, it won't affect my life. It isn't the gays that are ruining the sanctity of marriage, it's the Kardashians.
Fair enough. I'd like to know why you draw the line at "close relation"?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:58 pm to Paige
quote:
My guess is that you'll never be able to enter into a legal contract with animals since they can't consent
While I agree, they probably don't consent to our ownership and enslavement of them either. Not that it stops me, of course.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:59 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Maybe I'm the gullible one for being initially happy with the gay marriage ruling and the taking down of the confed. flag at SC. If I'd have known how far the SJW's and left would have pushed I'd have supported the conservative point of view maybe.
Don't forget your week long crusade for Cecil. Funny how you don't post about that anymore.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:03 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Fair enough. I'd like to know why you draw the line at "close relation"?
First and second cousins. To each their own though.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But what if they're related? Like two female cousins or even sisters?perhaps a male/female union between close relatives? Should they be allowed to marry?
sure. i don't care
it doesn't affect me at all
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:05 pm to Paige
quote:
My guess is that you'll never be able to enter into a legal contract with animals since they can't consent
correct
showing your intelligence here, paigey-poo
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:06 pm to The Hurricane
quote:
First and second cousins. To each their own though.
Fair enough. But what if it were two brothers or two sisters who wanted to marry?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:06 pm to Darth_Vader
no goats...
or sheep
or any farm animals...
or sheep
or any farm animals...
This post was edited on 9/3/15 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But what if they're related? Like two female cousins or even sisters?perhaps a male/female union between close relatives? Should they be allowed to marry?
sure. i don't care
it doesn't affect me at all
Fair enough. So where should the line be drawn? I'm taking it that you believe there should be no restriction the number of people in a marriage or their relation to one another. I guess that leaves only age as the line to draw. Is that where you'd say you stand?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:12 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Fair enough. But what if it were two brothers or two sisters who wanted to marry?
Def drawing a line on that. I think brother, sister, mother, father and 1st/2nd cousins should be off limits.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:13 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I'm taking it that you believe there should be no restriction the number of people in a marriage or their relation to one another. I guess that leaves only age as the line to draw. Is that where you'd say you stand?
i mean if i got to draw up the world, it wouldn't even be age. it would be capacity to contract
there are some 13 year olds more capable and ready to enter into contracts than some 30 year olds i know
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:14 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
if you're 18, want to get married, and not related to the point of breaking the law in that regard; there should be no stipulations.
Why should this matter?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:15 pm to The Hurricane
quote:
1st/2nd cousins should be off limits.
Several presidents would take issue with that, seeing as how the risks are infinitesimally low at that point.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:15 pm to The Hurricane
quote:
Def drawing a line on that. I think brother, sister, mother, father and 1st/2nd cousins should be off limits.
Gotcha. That's your line. So what do you base your line on?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:15 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I don't think the state should be in the marriage business to begin with.
This.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News