Marriage Equality Warriors: "Not without Polygamy"

[Annisman*]

Hahaha, moral fabric. From conservatives, how delightful. Are you upset about race mixing still?

That doesn't bother me one bit, does it bother you ?

 

[FelixDeCat]

What a highly ignorant and blinded world you live in. Do you actually think you are American?

In your small-minded world, blacks and women would still be property.

"The law is the law. People need to accept it and move on."

Casting aspersions does not detract from the fact that you cannot legally be married to multiple people at once. Nor will you or anyone else be able to, no matter how much you bitch, whine and complain about it.

Thats the way it is and thats the way it will always be.

 

[sandorski]

That doesn't bother me one bit, does it bother you ?

People thought similar to you regarding inter-racial marriage.

 

[zinfamous]

Casting aspersions does not detract from the fact that you cannot legally be married to multiple people at once. Nor will you or anyone else be able to, no matter how much you bitch, whine and complain about it.

Thats the way it is and thats the way it will always be.

Three weeks ago, you couldn't get gay-married in Texas. That was the law and that's how it always would be!

Except that now it isn't. Lucky for you.

 

[TeeJay1952]

If corporations are people and can break up (change owner or stock sales) then shouldn't married people get the same rights? Poly marriages will be one day. It will be like buying into (and out of)a Law practice.
I don't want to waste any more of my time on who can marry who. (Dogs and toasters are out because no consent possible){OTOH what do I care about a person and their 4 slice bagel toaster. Keep the government out of my kitchen!}

 

[FelixDeCat]

Three weeks ago, you couldn't get gay-married in Texas. That was the law and that's how it always would be!

Except that now it isn't. Lucky for you.

But you seem to think extreme leftist desires to undermine basic principals of marriage will again be successful. They wont. The recent change was made by judicial action, not the will of the people. The people still say "no".

We have had enough of the fruitcakes and their fruity leftist nonsense.

 

[WelshBloke]

But you seem to think extreme leftist desires to undermine basic principals of marriage will again be successful. They wont. The recent change was made by judicial action, not the will of the people. The people still say "no".

We have had enough of the fruitcakes and their fruity leftist nonsense.

Mormons are extreme lefties?

 

[Moonbeam]

But you seem to think extreme leftist desires to undermine basic principals of marriage will again be successful. They wont. The recent change was made by judicial action, not the will of the people. The people still say "no".

We have had enough of the fruitcakes and their fruity leftist nonsense.

People on the right who were not infected with the disgusting bigotry that infects you support and supported gay marriage. Any sane mind, therefore, will dismiss your arguments as the disgusting bigotry they are, either from the left or the right. Any real opposition to polygamy therefore, will have to rest on some different form of bigotry or on arguments that are in fact rational.

The point that I find interesting is the claim that polygamy is natural, the desire to have sex with many people. I can understand the desire to have sex with many people but the most recent evolution of people seems to point to the best way for a large brained animal to survive a long childhood development is for there to be pair bonding. I think also that marriage most probably exists as a manifestation of this evolutionary trend. What I can't understand, therefore, is why people would want to change the expression of pair bonding as marriage to include many people when the exact opposite was the intention of marriage in the first place.

So if there are these two phenomenon of pair bonding and gender attraction coupled with sexual desire, there are people who will want to have one sex partner of either gender or multiple sex partners of either or both genders and that marriage as it relates to the pair bonding type would make no sense extended to the others. In that case the definition of marriage would have completely lost the meaning for which it was intended, to honor the fact that pair bonding is respected and encouraged for its evolutionary success.

I think the issue of polygamy then faces more than the challenge of proving it isn't harmful to society as the traditional bias against it might imply. I think the issue it faces for marriage equality is that it isn't about pair bonding at all and marriage is.

 

[zinfamous]

But you seem to think extreme leftist desires to undermine basic principals of marriage will again be successful. They wont. The recent change was made by judicial action, not the will of the people. The people still say "no".

We have had enough of the fruitcakes and their fruity leftist nonsense.

actually, the majority of people say yes to gay marriage. Your not believing the truth doesn't make the lie real.

You also don't understand shit about the role of SCOTUS, and the historic rejection of constitutional principles when many laws are left to "the will of the people." This is why SCOTUS exists.

Again, I wonder if you actually understand how this country works. I don't think you do.

 

[werepossum]

Imagine the Honey Do list that multiple wives could generate. I can't keep up with my one wife's list.

You younger guys wanting more than one wife will understand one day.

There is a huge difference between wanting to and having to.

QFT

With a solid argument like that, I fail to see why this debate continues.

Lol I too fail to see why this debate continues. Yes, polygamous marriage has a better chance now that same sex marriage is legal. This is a good thing. Any form of government infringing upon individual liberty needs a fair hearing on its own merits, not tradition.

 

[WelshBloke]

Lol I too fail to see why this debate continues. Yes, polygamous marriage has a better chance now that same sex marriage is legal. This is a good thing. Any form of government infringing upon individual liberty needs a fair hearing on its own merits, not tradition.

It is a different issue to same sex marriage though.

Same sex marriage could use the same framework that marriage has always used. The fact that the participants are of the same sex doesn't really offer any logistics problems.

Multiple concurrent marriage partners is going to open up a raft of issues that would need solving. And solving them would fundamentally change a marriage.
This is an area where a civil partnership with an individual contract would make sense.
Traditional marriage is just not equipped to deal with multiple partners of equal standing.

 

[werepossum]

It is a different issue to same sex marriage though.

Same sex marriage could use the same framework that marriage has always used. The fact that the participants are of the same sex doesn't really offer any logistics problems.

Multiple concurrent marriage partners is going to open up a raft of issues that would need solving. And solving them would fundamentally change a marriage.
This is an area where a civil partnership with an individual contract would make sense.
Traditional marriage is just not equipped to deal with multiple partners of equal standing.

Exactly right. Same sex marriage has no fundamental differences from hetero marriage except those we introduce. Poly marriage does have fundamental differences, so it should be evaluated on that basis. The only connection to gay marriage is that we as a society have now shown a willingness to redefine marriage where doing so makes sense, and even here we weren't expanding the definition so much as removing an artificial constraint that hasn't served any useful societal need for a long time.

 

[Subyman]

People on the right who were not infected with the disgusting bigotry that infects you support and supported gay marriage. Any sane mind, therefore, will dismiss your arguments as the disgusting bigotry they are, either from the left or the right. Any real opposition to polygamy therefore, will have to rest on some different form of bigotry or on arguments that are in fact rational.

The point that I find interesting is the claim that polygamy is natural, the desire to have sex with many people. I can understand the desire to have sex with many people but the most recent evolution of people seems to point to the best way for a large brained animal to survive a long childhood development is for there to be pair bonding. I think also that marriage most probably exists as a manifestation of this evolutionary trend. What I can't understand, therefore, is why people would want to change the expression of pair bonding as marriage to include many people when the exact opposite was the intention of marriage in the first place.

So if there are these two phenomenon of pair bonding and gender attraction coupled with sexual desire, there are people who will want to have one sex partner of either gender or multiple sex partners of either or both genders and that marriage as it relates to the pair bonding type would make no sense extended to the others. In that case the definition of marriage would have completely lost the meaning for which it was intended, to honor the fact that pair bonding is respected and encouraged for its evolutionary success.

I think the issue of polygamy then faces more than the challenge of proving it isn't harmful to society as the traditional bias against it might imply. I think the issue it faces for marriage equality is that it isn't about pair bonding at all and marriage is.

I see part of your argument. I can see merit in the argument that marriage between more than two people (exclusive pairing) goes against the intention of marriage. I think your evolutionary argument goes completely out the window when taking into account gay marriage though, which prohibits reproduction completely. Marriage seems to me like an exclusive commitment (not necessarily sexual, as some have open marriages) between two people. I'd like to hear more arguments for polygamy though and not from butthurt bible thumpers.

 

[Moonbeam]

I see part of your argument. I can see merit in the argument that marriage between more than two people (exclusive pairing) goes against the intention of marriage. I think your evolutionary argument goes completely out the window when taking into account gay marriage though, which prohibits reproduction completely. Marriage seems to me like an exclusive commitment (not necessarily sexual, as some have open marriages) between two people. I'd like to hear more arguments for polygamy though and not from butthurt bible thumpers.

I don't claim to understand human sexuality in all its details. For example, I can't understand gay attraction. But I can see that homosexuallit exists and from an early age. I donT know if it is the result of some statistically difference in imprinting or if it is genetic, jut in either case it has to confer some level of survivability to the human race or is neutral for it to exist in the animal kingdom. So my argument, in either case, does not go out the window at all.

I don't know to whom you're butt hurt remark was intended but it certainly wouldn't apply to me.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Trust me, this polygamy thing is going nowhere. It will die a miserable death, and deservedly so.

Imagine an entire city being "married" to each other. That is the lunacy some would like to see.

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[FelixDeCat]

People on the right who were not infected with the disgusting bigotry that infects you support and supported gay marriage. Any sane mind, therefore, will dismiss your arguments as the disgusting bigotry they are, either from the left or the right. Any real opposition to polygamy therefore, will have to rest on some different form of bigotry or on arguments that are in fact rational.

The point that I find interesting is the claim that polygamy is natural, the desire to have sex with many people. I can understand the desire to have sex with many people but the most recent evolution of people seems to point to the best way for a large brained animal to survive a long childhood development is for there to be pair bonding. I think also that marriage most probably exists as a manifestation of this evolutionary trend. What I can't understand, therefore, is why people would want to change the expression of pair bonding as marriage to include many people when the exact opposite was the intention of marriage in the first place.

So if there are these two phenomenon of pair bonding and gender attraction coupled with sexual desire, there are people who will want to have one sex partner of either gender or multiple sex partners of either or both genders and that marriage as it relates to the pair bonding type would make no sense extended to the others. In that case the definition of marriage would have completely lost the meaning for which it was intended, to honor the fact that pair bonding is respected and encouraged for its evolutionary success.

I think the issue of polygamy then faces more than the challenge of proving it isn't harmful to society as the traditional bias against it might imply. I think the issue it faces for marriage equality is that it isn't about pair bonding at all and marriage is.

Polygamy is quite harmful to society because theoretically there would be no limit to married parternerships, which would be confusing, wrong and stupid for everyone involved.

 

[Moonbeam]

Trust me, this polygamy thing is going nowhere. It will die a miserable death, and deservedly so.

Imagine an entire city being "married" to each other. That is the lunacy some would like to see.

It ain't gonna happen.

You mean like imagining all the women in Paris are my wives? I think I like you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh please, spare me the "bigotry" card. You cant play it every time and expect to get your way. Polygamy is quite harmful to society because theoretically there would be no limit to married parternerships, which would be confusing, wrong and stupid for everyone involved.

That being said, there are misguided weirdos who think its cool to have 20+ children out of wedlock and provide support to none. That should be a crime punished by involuntary servitude (to provide support to said babbys).

When you say confusing wrong and stupid you are ringing a bell by pulling tour dick. I gave what seemed to me to be obstacles polygamy must face. I think they are logical but they could be bigotry. I put them out there for comment and to share what I see. I could be wrong about all of it. But I have no doubt at all that you area bigotry simply because the are absolutely sure you are right but can't give a single logical argument for why you are and you don't even see that is what you do because you assume that what you say is right because you say it. You have defective thinking without a doubt.

 

[bshole]

QFT
Lol I too fail to see why this debate continues. Yes, polygamous marriage has a better chance now that same sex marriage is legal. This is a good thing. Any form of government infringing upon individual liberty needs a fair hearing on its own merits, not tradition.

In general, polygamy has always been about the repression of women. These fucks pass their daughters off to each other. There is a wealth of documentation regarding the amount of abuse that goes along with the polygamous marriage cult.

Polygamy is BAD for women, BAD for children and BAD for society. I would never support such a thing. Neither should you.

If you want your polygamy, move to the Middle East and bask in the glory of middle ages culture, otherwise keep your woman hating bullshit to yourself.

“I didn’t want to share my husband,” Decker said.

Raised in a polygamous family herself, she felt she had to stay in her own marriage because of her religion.

“I was told that if I didn’t support my husband in plural marriage, then I wouldn’t be able to see my children in heaven,” Decker said. “It killed me when my husband left for his honeymoon with his new wife … I was thinking suicidal [thoughts] when I heard about the details of their honeymoon.”

Meri Brown, Kody Brown’s first wife, faced Decker and assured her that they wouldn’t be doing this if they didn’t believe in it.

Kollene Star was raised in a polygamous community. She was emotionally abused as a child and claimed her mother was always unhappy. After enduring this pain for years, Star’s mother finally took the children and left. Star says she’ll never go back.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...gamy-show-my-five-wives-accuses-father-abuse/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5338/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/11/fleeing.polygamy.hammon/

http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/books/shattereddreams.aspx

etc....

 

[MongGrel]

J/K, a little.

 

[zinfamous]

Trust me, this polygamy thing is going nowhere. It will die a miserable death, and deservedly so.

Imagine an entire city being "married" to each other. That is the lunacy some would like to see.

It ain't gonna happen.

I think polygamy will be extremely difficult to legalize in this country.

Extremely.

But now that you have made such a bold proclamation about its efficacy, and knowing that you are always wrong about everything--E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G.--I think it now has a solid chance here.

 

[MongGrel]

I think polygamy will be extremely difficult to legalize in this country.

Extremely.

But now that you have made such a bold proclamation about its efficacy, and knowing that you are always wrong about everything--E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G.--I think it now has a solid chance here.

Of course it would be.

I only joined in to put some options out there as far as some entities in the US seem to operate all ready.

You could literally be married to your job...

 

[FelixDeCat]

 

[lopri]

I will only example some practical issues that will follow institutionalized polygamous marriage. I could engage in a higher level of generality but I do not think that is necessary to show why polygamous marriages would change the institution of marriage in the U.S. while a marriage between two persons of the same sex does not.

1. Who will offer health insurance to employees' spouses, if an employee may have an unlimited number of spouses?
   
2. How long the spousal immunity should last when the entire gang members enter into a group marriage?
   
3. Which spouse should a hospital listen to when a person in a group marriage goes into coma?
   
4. How will INS monitor the naturalization processes of unlimited foreign spouses who group-marry a U.S. citizen?
   
5. If spouse A divorces her/his spouses out of a group marriage and remarry one of them in the future, what are the legal statuses of the other spouses in relation to the spouse A?
   
6. Which spouse in the group marriage should have a custody of a child if the child's natural parents die in an unfortunate accident and the rest of the spouses want to divorce?
   
7. If a spouse in a group marriage takes a child to a foreign country and does not return, what happens?

We can make these up (and multiply them) all day.

 

[MongGrel]

Thats a lot of pre-nups.



I've pretty much spelled out my anti-poligamy arguments already in a somewhat haphazard fashion over several posts. I think most would argue that I am exactly right and there is no need for further discussion.

You're tilting at windmills pretty much atm to begin with.