re: The implications of the forced gay marriage legislation

Speaking in terms of population, sexuality is an inevitable part in the tradition of marriage. In individual terms, sexuality is as much or as little a factor in marriage as decided upon by any individuals who are married to each other.

Back to your original point. Can you name a single piece of legislation about same sex marriage that as been forced?

quote:

---

In individual terms, sexuality is as much or as little a factor in marriage as decided upon by any individuals who are married to each other.

---

Again, it is a legal factor, even in individual terms. I've no doubt that the sexual habits and proclivities of straight married couples is highly varied - different people have different arrangements. But, according to the law, sexuality toward your partner is required.

quote:

---

Back to your original point. Can you name a single piece of legislation about same sex marriage that as been forced?

---

This has been discussed ad nauseum.Basically I'm being misinterpreted, and people are assuming I don't understand the Constitution. An individual or individuals are appointed by elected officials, and these appointees are largely the ones creating the legislation. I'm not arguing whether this is in line with our Constitutional framework, it obviously is. I'm saying that this legal legitimate Constitutional framework allows activist individuals to force legislation on an unwilling populace. We have seen throughout American history on the entire gamut of issues. The "forcing" is not an issue of whether it's legal in our Constitution, but whether it's in line with American ideals of democracy.

quote:

---

An individual or individuals are appointed by elected officials,

---

Right. Judges.

quote:

---

and these appointees are largely the ones creating the legislation.

---

Can you point to a single piece of legislation that was written by a sitting judge?

quote:

---

I think the gay marriage rights need to clarify their agenda.

---

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

^^^That.

quote:

---

Some gay marriage activists just say "any people who love each other is no one else's business."

---

Right. This is irrelevant to the Constitutionality of a same sex marriage ban, and the pro-marriage crowd, I would opine, has slightly hindered its movement by being misguided here. Nobody is challenging the rights of people to have homosexual sex, homosexual romance, or homosexual relationships. The only issue is whether or not two consenting adults have the right to marry each other regardless of their two sexes.

Marriage is a natural right; the Supreme Court has issued 14 rulings in its history (maybe more) referring to marriage as a basic, human right. Due process and equal protection under the law is a Constitutional right ratified by all 50 states. "You can't sign here because you are a man and not a woman," for example, violates that Constitutional right and inevitably abridges the basic, human right of marriage.

quote:

---

There must be some exclusivity, I would hope, or the institution would be severely devalued and anarchic and eventually would cease to exist.

---

Your "two consenting, non-related adults" way works just fine.

quote:

---

They tacitly support non-abusive polygamy

---

I have no problem with it, but a ban on polygamous marriage isn't a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, whereas banning marriage solely on the sexes of the two parties is so.

quote:

---

and even incest provided the incestuous couple can't procreate

---

Also not a violation.

quote:

---

Obviously you're not making it and I'm not gonna strawman you and tell you to defend it. Just pointing out that there are serious divergent issues within the gay marriage group, among people you think agree with you

---

Don't get me wrong. I think the majority of the pro-marriage group is at least slightly misguided. "Love Wins!" for example, is the victory cry for a lot of people when a ruling goes in favor of marriage, and while such a positive exclamation isn't particularly harmful, the fight isn't for love; it is for rights.

quote:

---

And if marriage is simply a contract, then there's no basis to limit it to two people. There's really no reason it couldn't be 2 dudes and 3 chicks. That's not said offhandedly, it's a big discussion in family law and legal theory.

---

Someone propelling this movement is hindered by the fact that a polygamy ban is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. "There are too many of you to sign this contract" is not unconstitutional. "You can't sign this contract because you are a woman" is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

Someone propelling this movement is hindered by the fact that a polygamy ban is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. "There are too many of you to sign this contract" is not unconstitutional. "You can't sign this contract because you are a woman" is unconstitutional.

---

Which is irrelevant once the train gets going. Once you break taboo, you don't get to decide where it stops.

Cute.