Marriage Equality Warriors: "Not without Polygamy"

[alcoholbob]

OP, why are you not talking about toasters? What do you have against toasters?

Cylons have not been created yet.

 

[ViperXX]

I don't really have any ideological opposition to polygamy, but I don't see the discrimination at work in polygamy bans that existed with the bans on same-sex marriage. There is no class of citizens enjoying some right that some other class is being denied in this case. If the government can impose speed limits on everybody without being discriminatory, it can certainly legislate number-of-spouse limits.

WTF my second wife can't file a joint tax return. Isn't that what the gays wanted. But we love each other.

 

[ViperXX]

Now my 3rd wife wants to file a tax return, wtf we love each other.

 

[ViperXX]

Now my 4th wife wants to file a tax return, wtf we love each other.

 

[ViperXX]

Now my 5th wife wants to file a tax return, wtf we love each other.

 

[Blanky]

He has a point, and historically speaking it's even got a stronger precedent than gay marriage.

 

[IronWing]

Let the dominos being to fall - time for incest next!

Where you been?

Anyway, what consenting adults do is none of my business and I don't see a state interest in dictating who tags whom(s). Insurance schemes would have to be written as "employee plus one" or "employee plus two", etc. Though if we went to a single payer system it wouldn't even matter.

 

[Moonbeam]

How unusual. A religious person posting stupid shit.

He's an optimist. He believes not only that God is a bigot, but that he can convince other people that a bigot could possibly be God. It won't work out too well with people who are religious and understand that God can't be flawed. Poor guy believes in the Devil and is evil. The Devil is tricky as hell.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, the tears are yours. Unintended consequences.

If you read the actual ruling rather than the puffery, you'll notice that it refers explicitly to *couples* repeatedly rather than groups.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html

Might want to address that when performing your little superior dance.

It seems unlikely that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of polygyny or polyandry anytime RSN but knock yourself out if that's what you want.

If they do, Liberals likely won't be nearly as butthurt about it as you seem to be now.

Or just show us on the doll where icky homosexuals might touch you.

 

[justoh]

He has a point, and historically speaking it's even got a stronger precedent than gay marriage.

Explain? I have a feeling that what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Religious by any chance?

 

[Blanky]

Explain? I have a feeling that what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Religious by any chance?

You know there was a time before the United States, right?

 

[justoh]

thanks for clearing that up

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't really have any ideological opposition to polygamy, but I don't see the discrimination at work in polygamy bans that existed with the bans on same-sex marriage. There is no class of citizens enjoying some right that some other class is being denied in this case. If the government can impose speed limits on everybody without being discriminatory, it can certainly legislate number-of-spouse limits.

This.

 

[soulcougher73]

The definition changes depending on what he supports/opposes. They just need to be honest: They don't want polygamy.

Id be fine with it for consenting adults, im sure it would be a legal nigthmare though, but thats no reason to oppose it.

 

[IronWing]

thanks for clearing that up

Polygamy is legal in many countries, maybe more so than gay marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

 

[soulcougher73]

How unusual. A religious person posting stupid shit.

Yeah its what happens unfortunately when they think and try to talk. You get used to it though after awhile.

 

[Blanky]

Polygamy is legal in many countries, maybe more so than gay marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

Yep, it's been around for a long time in many parts of the world. It's certainly been more popular over the ages than gay marriage.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yep, it's been around for a long time in many parts of the world. It's certainly been more popular over the ages than gay marriage.

Yep, and the US doesn't want to be on the "wrong side of history".

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe war will end when all men marry each other.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't really have any ideological opposition to polygamy, but I don't see the discrimination at work in polygamy bans that existed with the bans on same-sex marriage. There is no class of citizens enjoying some right that some other class is being denied in this case. If the government can impose speed limits on everybody without being discriminatory, it can certainly legislate number-of-spouse limits.

:thumbsup:

The phrase "class of citizen" sounds like an arbitrary distinction here.

For SSM, it's not even about protecting a class of citizen, it's about gender equality.

Previously men were not universally allowed to marry men, that right already being afforded to women, and the same in the other direction. Now there is no distinction based on gender, and both sexes are afforded the exact same rights.

As it stands with polygamy, nobody has the right to marry more than one person, so no group is currently being afforded a right that the other is not. This is why the latest precedent is not directly applicable.

 

[Jhhnn]

He has a point, and historically speaking it's even got a stronger precedent than gay marriage.

Other than the Mormons, you have to go way back in western history to find either state or church sanctioned polygamy. Even that never was strictly legal. Anti-polygamist fervor was a big part of why they fled en masse to Deseret. Holding to polygamy delayed statehood for decades. The practice if not the paperwork has never been 100% suppressed, obviously.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_ch...ssive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html

 

[hawtdawg]

Considering that Polygamy is the true traditional marriage, I don't know why Christians aren't fighting tooth and nail for it.

 

[Retro Rob]

:thumbsup:



For SSM, it's not even about protecting a class of citizen, it's about gender equality.

Previously men were not universally allowed to marry men, that right already being afforded to women, and the same in the other direction. Now there is no distinction based on gender, and both sexes are afforded the exact same rights.

As it stands with polygamy, nobody has the right to marry more than one person, so no group is currently being afforded a right that the other is not. This is why the latest precedent is not directly applicable.

Actually, as long as the parties agree and are of legal consenting age, they should be allowed to.

That's "marriage equality". Why should marriage be limited only to couples?

 

[glenn1]

The definition changes depending on what he supports/opposes. They just need to be honest: They don't want polygamy.

Polygamists aren't likely Democratic constituents and those who support same-sex marriage are. Maybe they need to threaten riots if they don't get their way and make the progressives think they're in line for a lynching unless they support plural marriage, it works for other groups to rally the left to support their desires.

 

[Blanky]

Other than the Mormons, you have to go way back in western history to find either state or church sanctioned polygamy. Even that never was strictly legal. Anti-polygamist fervor was a big part of why they fled en masse to Deseret. Holding to polygamy delayed statehood for decades. The practice if not the paperwork has never been 100% suppressed, obviously.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_ch...ssive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html

And how much state or church sanctioned gay marriage has there been in the west except in very recent times? it is, pretty much world-wide, a very recent thing. Polygamy is not. It's been around for a very long time and remains legal in dozens of countries.