Legalize Polygamy!

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
But clearly you're not interested, this is just a talking point to make liberal pro-gay marriage supporters look like hypocrites, so you can shove in the face that omg they're the bigots!

Actually, they are hypocrites. What if we banned gay marriage until we discussed "exactly how laws should be changed", such as working out who'd get custody if a lesbian couple divorces?

The only reason we don't do that with gay marriage is because its "in" now.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Actually, they are hypocrites. What if we banned gay marriage until we discussed "exactly how laws should be changed", such as working out who'd get custody if a lesbian couple divorces?

The only reason we don't do that with gay marriage is because its "in" now.

This argument is retarded and I don't know how any of you can be saying it with a straight face.

We don't have to discuss exactly how laws should be changed to accommodate gay marriage because they don't have to be changed at all beyond the part about "let gay people marry", which is what's being discussed. Can you name even one implication that was there? Your example of custody is stupid, there aren't laws that say that anyone automatically gets specific custody in a divorce, it's always determined on a case by case basis (and it doesn't favor women, it favors the biological mother, in straight marriages that just happens to be the same thing)
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Did I say that it can't be done or can't be understood? No. I said that if you're really interested you'd want to start talking about exactly how the laws should be changed. Instead of deflecting by saying, well it'd be kind of like other stuff you can do right now right?

I and everyone that I know that actually lives a poly lifestyle agrees. I don't know anyone in real life that thinks it is a good idea to simply add poly to the current laws with out dealing with the consequences. But, this is a topic that is being actively discussed in the poly community and if you listen we have already worked out several methods that would work.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
Nope been married 21 years and she alone owns my ass and moon knows I defended gay rights as well whole time in these forums too. I'm just consistent and believe in liberty for all and it's amusing to ferret out hypocrites.

Moon I reply later to you had a big post type and hit escape and it all got delete and pissed me off and I gotta go.

I don't know this whole battle, but while I don't agree with you nor Moonie all the time. I don't see a problem other than looking at different directions.

Personally, I have a ton of gay and bit off the path sexuals in my social circle.

I like good relationships.

Sex to me is easy, finding that partner that will get you thru your day much harder.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
this is just a talking point to make liberal pro-gay marriage supporters look like hypocrites, so you can shove in the face that omg they're the bigots!

They are hypocrites and bigots. They argue that you love who you love and that everyone should have the right to marry who they love and then turn around and turn their collective noses at polygamists.

At least Conservatives are honest enough to tell you straight-up that they don't think you should have a right to get married.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Did I say that it can't be done or can't be understood? No. I said that if you're really interested you'd want to start talking about exactly how the laws should be changed. Instead of deflecting by saying, well it'd be kind of like other stuff you can do right now right?

But clearly you're not interested, this is just a talking point to make liberal pro-gay marriage supporters look like hypocrites, so you can shove in the face that omg they're the bigots!

Well yes, I do enjoy making "liberals" look like bigots. It's a pastime, what can I say.



Exactly my point. Another stupid comparison, because adoption regulation laws have no gender specific component. And I'm not being an idiot nor am I making excuses - I already said, if it were up to me I'd do away with the legal concept of marriage entirely. And I have zero issue whatsoever with people engaging in poly relationships.

I'd be all for eliminating marriage. I'm against the government sanction of just about any activity. Why should I have to request that the state allow me to marry someone, do drugs, hire a prostitute, or any number of other activities that a person should be allowed to choose to do?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
This argument is retarded and I don't know how any of you can be saying it with a straight face.

We don't have to discuss exactly how laws should be changed to accommodate gay marriage because they don't have to be changed at all beyond the part about "let gay people marry", which is what's being discussed. Can you name even one implication that was there? Your example of custody is stupid, there aren't laws that say that anyone automatically gets specific custody in a divorce, it's always determined on a case by case basis (and it doesn't favor women, it favors the biological mother, in straight marriages that just happens to be the same thing)

It was convenient that you chose gay women, where one of them can be the biological mother, rather than the example of gay men I chose.

If you believe that current heterosexual child custody is truly on a case by case basis without massive institutional bias against fathers, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Crack addict mothers get custody all the time while good fathers get told to fuck off.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
(and it doesn't favor women, it favors the biological mother, in straight marriages that just happens to be the same thing)

That's like saying Jim Crow laws didn't favor white people. It just favored people with lighter skin color :awe:
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
TerryMatthews said:
They are hypocrites and bigots. They argue that you love who you love and that everyone should have the right to marry who they love and then turn around and turn their collective noses at polygamists.

At least Conservatives are honest enough to tell you straight-up that they don't think you should have a right to get married.

I don't know what "they" do, but I know for sure this isn't what I'M doing and it doesn't look to me like this is what shira is doing (and he's getting all the shit about being a bigot)

Kind of funny how the guy here who actually engages in poly relationships seems to agree with me that there are legal challenges that should be addressed...

It was convenient that you chose gay women, where one of them can be the biological mother, rather than the example of gay men I chose.

I don't know what you're talking about. I was responding to Retro Rob who brought up custody in a lesbian divorce as an example of legal challenge in gay marriage. Are you saying that male divorce custody presents a legal problem because it removes bias for women?

If you believe that current heterosexual child custody is truly on a case by case basis without massive institutional bias against fathers, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Crack addict mothers get custody all the time while good fathers get told to fuck off.

Uh, no, I didn't say there wasn't an institutional bias, I said that there wasn't a rigid legal framework for who got custody. Do you not understand how it can be both decided on a case by case basis AND contain heavy bias? The question here is what laws are challenged, not what biases are challenged.

This whole thing is a really dumb strawman. I've never seen anyone say that they would support gay marriage but are holding off to make sure that the laws are fair first. You're only grasping at really silly examples to try to make anyone who says that poly has legal challenges look like a hypocrite.

The whole legal marriage system can be abused enough as it is, excuse me for having a concern about letting it be abused any further. Like when a wealthy person marries someone who makes nothing only to be pushed into a higher tax bracket - what's the natural extension for poly marriage, make the brackets higher with every additional person? So the wealthy person can instead marry 10 broke women and get a huge tax cut? Yeah maybe you think the answers to this are obvious, fuck, maybe they are and I'm just too dumb to see them. Then spell it all out for me instead of this hand waving bullshit and the usual partisan antagonism.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The whole legal marriage system can be abused enough as it is, excuse me for having a concern about letting it be abused any further. Like when a wealthy person marries someone who makes nothing only to be pushed into a higher tax bracket - what's the natural extension for poly marriage, make the brackets higher with every additional person? So the wealthy person can instead marry 10 broke women and get a huge tax cut? Yeah maybe you think the answers to this are obvious, fuck, maybe they are and I'm just too dumb to see them. Then spell it all out for me instead of this hand waving bullshit and the usual partisan antagonism.

Well for one he would then be expected to support all 10 broke women taking them off welfare. I fail to see how that is a negative to society?

Well except it kinda torpedoes the liberal dream of having women dependent on THE man instead of A man.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
They are hypocrites and bigots. They argue that you love who you love and that everyone should have the right to marry who they love and then turn around and turn their collective noses at polygamists.

At least Conservatives are honest enough to tell you straight-up that they don't think you should have a right to get married.

lol, you shit-kicking retard.
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
I am thinking most in this thread haven't been in relationships as adults.

Out of curiosity, what's the point of a comment like this?

It seems like you are suggesting we should disregard most people's comments in this thread because they are childish. However, your comment is also childish, so shouldn't we apply the same logic to your comment and disregard it? Of course, once we disregard your comment, then we can't rely upon it to disregard the others, which puts us back in the exact same situation as before you posted - the need to evaluate the comments based on their substantive information.

Perhaps you would care to fulfill that need by offering substantive information as to why you think other people's comments are childish, so that we can properly distinguish them from your comment and disregard only those comments?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
The whole legal marriage system can be abused enough as it is, excuse me for having a concern about letting it be abused any further. Like when a wealthy person marries someone who makes nothing only to be pushed into a higher tax bracket - what's the natural extension for poly marriage, make the brackets higher with every additional person? So the wealthy person can instead marry 10 broke women and get a huge tax cut? Yeah maybe you think the answers to this are obvious, fuck, maybe they are and I'm just too dumb to see them. Then spell it all out for me instead of this hand waving bullshit and the usual partisan antagonism.

So you're content to prevent certain people from marrying one another because there are so many other fucked up laws surrounding the natural right of mating? Tax law being broken is a good enough reason for you to tell people that they're not allowed to marry whoever they choose?

Your argument is no less ridiculous than some of the arguments against gay marriage.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The whole legal marriage system can be abused enough as it is, excuse me for having a concern about letting it be abused any further. Like when a wealthy person marries someone who makes nothing only to be pushed into a higher tax bracket - what's the natural extension for poly marriage, make the brackets higher with every additional person? So the wealthy person can instead marry 10 broke women and get a huge tax cut? Yeah maybe you think the answers to this are obvious, fuck, maybe they are and I'm just too dumb to see them. Then spell it all out for me instead of this hand waving bullshit and the usual partisan antagonism.

Which actually sounds like an excellent argument against same-sex marriage.

After all creating an entirely new concept of marriage with none of the traditional social checks on who should marry seems like a recipe for people using marriage to abuse the tax system if I ever heard one.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I don't see why tax laws depends on marital status. Every state has its own laws. Before Obama and the current supreme court the supreme court for 100 years never decided a case on marriage. They don't have any legal standing to decide cases on marriage. With no DOM act there is no real federal law defining marriage. It is a state rights issue which has been overturned through the Tyranny of the Imperial Federal Government. Every marriage case decided by the supreme court could at some point be thrown out of court based on lack of jurisdiction.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Until gays wanted to get married, Marriage was thought to be becoming an increasingly irrelevant issue. It is a strange world where everyone sleeps together with no real moral values. It is all about the money. I think the term Marriage is irrelevant and should be removed from the tax code along with single parent. Just base it on number of children period or do a flat tax with the same rate for everyone.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Before Obama and the current supreme court the supreme court for 100 years never decided a case on marriage.

Turner v. Safley (1987)
Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)
Baker v. Nelson (1972)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Edit:
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
What I don't get is why, if you are so enlightened, you keep insisting on telling other people, who by your own admission won't understand, how they are wrong.

I would think a wise man would know that there is no point in telling the rain not to fall.

And yet you complain that you don't get what you obviously are in no position to get yet you want me to explain that to you. By your own logic it would be useless to tell you and not worth the effort, no?

There was no chance at all that I would ever see anything either, but I did, or let's say instead, I saw in spite of myself. I am that hope that you yourself do not have. The fact of my identity as Moonbeam is irrelevant. I, myself, am just a nobody. It's all the egos that are challenged by what I say that focus on my personhood instead of the directions I point to.

Take poor Bober there who is sure that he knows human nature because the data we have on humanity is the data of sleeping machines. He doesn't know what it means to be real. There is a story called the Magic Horse that expresses this pretty well, a magical horse that takes a person to his hearts desire. Do you know what yours is? I say that the soul longs for one thing and that thing is the unity of love. And you know that love is blind. No use telling me I'm just a romantic. Hehe. Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou! It makes you rather deaf to the notion of polygamy, you see. Come on now. Let us hoot like mad apes as we swing through the trees, drunk on the Attar of Roses, the wine glass turned up.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
And yet you complain that you don't get what you obviously are in no position to get yet you want me to explain that to you. By your own logic it would be useless to tell you and not worth the effort, no?

I never asked you to explain it. There was no question mark behind either of those sentences.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
I never asked you to explain it. There was no question mark behind either of those sentences.

What I don't get is why you would tell me you don't get something and not have any internal curiosity as to why you don't get it. You will find in life, I think that telling people you don't get something is just like asking for an explanation. Understand that I undertook to respond to your stated lack of comprehension out of this convention even though you didn't ask a question. I don't need to be told you don't understand why I did what I did. That is a constant with me.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Moonie is the consummate "liberal", feigning concern for others in order to project his imagine superiority and then exert control over others for what he believes to be their benefit.

Yes, poor Bober, not falling for Moonie's shtick.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
What I don't get is why you would tell me you don't get something and not have any internal curiosity as to why you don't get it. You will find in life, I think that telling people you don't get something is just like asking for an explanation.
You may believe so, but I have come to a deeper understanding of the human experience and I know better then to try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and annoys the pig.