One Judge vs 7 million votes

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

But what is so fundamentally different about it? They're still consenting adults, correct? Being married to one person does not legally prevent someone from sleeping with another person. In fact a group of three or more consenting adults can live like they are in a polygamous marriage and it's only the formalization of this arraignment that the government can prohibit.

Frau nailed it - you can't marry multiple partners, no matter the gender. That goes for if you're gay, straight or other. That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Frau nailed it - you can't marry multiple partners, no matter the gender. That goes for if you're gay, straight or other. That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

How so? Because the law says I can not have two wives? This is unconstitutional as far as I can tell. I think the judge should overturn this law no matter what the voters say.

August · 08-05-10, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

But that's not the case either, now is it. Homosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

But that's not the case either, now is it. Homosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

Sailor Steve · 08-05-10, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

I could be wrong, but I suspect August's comment was meant to be just a little tongue-in-cheek.

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I could be wrong, but I suspect August's comment was meant to be just a little tongue-in-cheek.

I've seen so many wacky points of view argued here in GT that it becomes kind of hard to tell anymore.

August · 08-05-10, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

But it's not. Any restrictions from marrying a person of the opposite sex are self imposed. It's more like demanding that Ford produce Buicks because that's the car they prefer.