Gay marriage law 'could mean the end of adultery being grounds for divorce'

Dec 18, 2012 Full story: www.dailymail.co.uk 348

Lawyers claim an unfaithful husband could use the courts to block his wife from divorcing them for adultery because same-sex couples are to be treated differently.

Full Story
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#336 Jan 24, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in other words--no answer, huh?
That's a shocker, ain't it?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#337 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Bingo. You're SO predictable.
so are you, you refuse to be consistent, you refuse to say what you did for GE, and you remain ignorant of reality...
just another day...

I'll be honest, you are small, and I would happily agree to ignore you if you ignore me, but you snipe, and so will I...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#338 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, I only suggest that if its a REASON for one, its a REASON for another...
Wait..... did you really just write that?
Infertile hetero couples are permitted to marry. Why not gay couples? "If it's reason for one it's reason for another..."

I'm thinking of a word. Can you guess what it is? Starts with a C and ends with onsistent.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#339 Jan 24, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not even close. Laws don't show "preferences". Laws define processes. There's no "preference" involved. It the IRS Code in place to express the government's "preference" that people pay their taxes? Or does it define the who, what, where, when, and how of tax obligations and under what circumstances the government can collect them?

Again, while laws obviously reflect the personal preferences of whoever was behind putting them in place, just because a law is in place doesn't mean that it's fair or just.

If I'm wrong, please demonstrate where we have laws in place based solely on what the government "prefers" with no logical or applicable, supportable reason.
)
your words:
"But the reasons that polygamy is STILL illegal basically comes down to two issues--religious bigotry and the Herculean task of examining and changing absolutely every single law that we currently that in any way deals with marriage, family, property rights, divorce, child custody, etc. to accommodate plural marriage. Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. It's that simple"

so the laws have a preference for two spouses...."Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time."

and as to the IRS, a mortgage interest deduction is what?
a preference for homeowners?

why is investment income taxed at a lower rate, a preference for investment over earned income?

if you do not think our laws show preferences you are not thinking about it enough...

and you are contradicting your own quote...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#340 Jan 24, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in other words--no answer, huh?
I wouldn't jump into the fray with Mona and I if I were you...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#341 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy is consistently illegaL.
what does that say about a fundamental right to marry any consenting adult you wish?
turns out we as society can and do encourage certain family types, and deny others irrelevant of love or desire to marry, eh?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#342 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Wait..... did you really just write that?
Infertile hetero couples are permitted to marry. Why not gay couples? "If it's reason for one it's reason for another..."
I'm thinking of a word. Can you guess what it is? Starts with a C and ends with onsistent.
exceptions negate rules?
a turd argument...

so all murder is legal since we can kill in self defense and kill during war, right?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#343 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>That's a shocker, ain't it?
what was my answer the 200 times you asked it prior?

what was YOUR answer for the last 200 times I asked what job you had at GE?

yup, you are a fraud dude...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#344 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so are you, you refuse to be consistent, you refuse to say what you did for GE, and you remain ignorant of reality...
just another day...
I'll be honest, you are small, and I would happily agree to ignore you if you ignore me, but you snipe, and so will I...
hahahaha
ahhahahaha

Danth's Law.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#345 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
what does that say about a fundamental right to marry any consenting adult you wish?
turns out we as society can and do encourage certain family types, and deny others irrelevant of love or desire to marry, eh?
Who said there's a fundamental right to marry any adult I wish? And somehow, you think that argument supports a fundamental right to marry all the adultS (plural) I wish?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#347 Jan 25, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
your words:
"But the reasons that polygamy is STILL illegal basically comes down to two issues--religious bigotry and the Herculean task of examining and changing absolutely every single law that we currently that in any way deals with marriage, family, property rights, divorce, child custody, etc. to accommodate plural marriage. Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. It's that simple"
Yep!
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so the laws have a preference for two spouses...."Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time."
Yep!
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>and as to the IRS, a mortgage interest deduction is what?
a preference for homeowners?
Nope! Prove that the tax code "prefers" homeowners over renters. Shall we ask it?? Hey!! Tax code!! Do you prefer homeowners over renters???

Do you hear anything? I don't either.

Tax code is like any other law. It's a set of procedures and rules set in place for people to follow. They're SUPPOSED to be fair and equal to everyone. We have many thousands of unjust and/or unfair laws on the books. They get voted in every day either by the voters or a legislature.

If the renters wish to rally together and sue to get a similar deduction for rent so as to be equitable with homeowners, I'm pretty confident that they would win because allowing a deduction for one and not the other is CLEARLY unfair.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
why is investment income taxed at a lower rate, a preference for investment over earned income?
Because rich people are often the ones writing tax code. And rich people aren't known for their generosity and fairness, are they?
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
if you do not think our laws show preferences you are not thinking about it enough...
and you are contradicting your own quote...
Nope. I'm thinking more than you are as evidenced by my ability to support my own claims. You, on the other hand, have STILL yet to support your own claims, have you??

You're STILL trying to pass off illogical arguments as logical. Your claim that because polygamy is illegal, it's also legitimate to make same-sex marriage illegal. TOTALLY not logical.

First off, you have yet to support that laws against polygamy are fair and just, let alone constitutional.

Next, you seem to believe that a family of multiple partners is the same as a same-sex couple, yet you provide no substance for such a claim.

Then you declare that since one is illegal, the other is justly also illegal, without supporting the justice or equity of banning EITHER.

We point out to you that infertile straight couples are allowed to marry and they're clearly in the same group as same-sex couples when it comes to the ability to procreate naturally together, and you simply sweep it away and with, "Doesn't matter! Still one man/one woman. Oooga."

Keep tryin', dude. Someday you might produce a valid argument. I kinda doubt it, but you never know, right?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#348 Jan 25, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
exceptions negate rules?
a turd argument...
so all murder is legal since we can kill in self defense and kill during war, right?
OOPS!!! You DO love those apples and oranges comparisons, don't you??

Here's a hint--they're not logical or supportable, either.

So STILL no supportable, government-based reason to deny marriage equality?? None at all?? Isn't it time to admit that animus is your only reason to deny it??
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#349 Jan 25, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep!
<quoted text>
Yep!
<quoted text>
Nope! Prove that the tax code "prefers" homeowners over renters. Shall we ask it?? Hey!! Tax code!! Do you prefer homeowners over renters???
Do you hear anything? I don't either.
Tax code is like any other law. It's a set of procedures and rules set in place for people to follow. They're SUPPOSED to be fair and equal to everyone. We have many thousands of unjust and/or unfair laws on the books. They get voted in every day either by the voters or a legislature.
If the renters wish to rally together and sue to get a similar deduction for rent so as to be equitable with homeowners, I'm pretty confident that they would win because allowing a deduction for one and not the other is CLEARLY unfair.
<quoted text>
Because rich people are often the ones writing tax code. And rich people aren't known for their generosity and fairness, are they?
<quoted text>
Nope. I'm thinking more than you are as evidenced by my ability to support my own claims. You, on the other hand, have STILL yet to support your own claims, have you??
You're STILL trying to pass off illogical arguments as logical. Your claim that because polygamy is illegal, it's also legitimate to make same-sex marriage illegal. TOTALLY not logical.
First off, you have yet to support that laws against polygamy are fair and just, let alone constitutional.
Next, you seem to believe that a family of multiple partners is the same as a same-sex couple, yet you provide no substance for such a claim.
Then you declare that since one is illegal, the other is justly also illegal, without supporting the justice or equity of banning EITHER.
We point out to you that infertile straight couples are allowed to marry and they're clearly in the same group as same-sex couples when it comes to the ability to procreate naturally together, and you simply sweep it away and with, "Doesn't matter! Still one man/one woman. Oooga."
Keep tryin', dude. Someday you might produce a valid argument. I kinda doubt it, but you never know, right?
actually you are merely denying legal basics and thinking you are making an "argument"...

and being wildly inconsistent in doing it...
psst you admitted the law preferred two spouses and then went on a long rant about how the law doesn't prefer anything...
I'll just leave you to argue with yourself...I hope you go ad hominem like you always do!
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#350 Jan 25, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Who said there's a fundamental right to marry any adult I wish?
not me, there isn't one...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#351 Jan 25, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
actually you are merely denying legal basics and thinking you are making an "argument"...
and being wildly inconsistent in doing it...
psst you admitted the law preferred two spouses and then went on a long rant about how the law doesn't prefer anything...
I'll just leave you to argue with yourself...I hope you go ad hominem like you always do!
Here's another hint. If you would read my posts before you reply to them, you MIGHT look less stupid. Maybe.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#352 Jan 25, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another hint. If you would read my posts before you reply to them, you MIGHT look less stupid. Maybe.
when you contradict yourself in the first three sentences, which is almost always, I kinda quit there...

I am really amazed at this alternative universe you guys live in...
here's a hint, other clueless and angry gays like yourself agreeing with you is not really meaningful...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#353 Jan 25, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>That's a shocker, ain't it?
nope, a shocker is two in the pink and one in the stink...
and by stink I don't mean JERSEY!!!

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#354 Jan 25, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, a shocker is two in the pink and one in the stink...
and by stink I don't mean JERSEY!!!
You stink.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#355 Jan 25, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
You stink.
you are merely irrelevant...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#356 Jan 25, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
when you contradict yourself in the first three sentences, which is almost always, I kinda quit there...
I am really amazed at this alternative universe you guys live in...
here's a hint, other clueless and angry gays like yourself agreeing with you is not really meaningful...
So, in other words, "I can't provide a supportable, government-based reason to deny marriage equality, it's just animus on my part, but I'm not man enough to admit when I'm wrong."

How about we just leave it at that since it's painfully obvious that that's the case?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 4 min GOD 3
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min Static Charge 26,593
Will the Supreme Court End Gay Marriage as an E... 27 min WasteWater 434
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 35 min Joe fortuna 201,149
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr KiMerde 5,267
Op-ed: My Lesbian Moms Saved My Life 1 hr Chance 2
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr KiMerde 2,790
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 2 hr Mikey 4,941
Why (R1) Righteous One is a POS (Dec '12) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 74
More from around the web