If polygamy can be legalized in Britain, it can be legalized here.

[bripat9643]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

 

[TheOldSchool]

Mittens will be pleased.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Go with tradition, many wives, and husbands, not to mention getting married to your little sister. All traditional. God help them...

 

[HenryBHough]

Arab countries see no problem with a male having multiple wives but aren't so liberal when it comes to a female having muiltiple husbands.

Now let's talk about equality.......

 

[Katzndogz]

Once a culture starts down the road of depravity and degredation it doesn't stop until the end.

 

[September]

Why do people even care if others have multiple husbands or multiple wives? Why does that bother you people so much? Jealousy? Lol

​

 

[Billy000]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Lol yes it is end of our nation as we know it if polygamy is legalized here. God's wrath will surely put an end to our sinning nation!

 

[TheOldSchool]

God will smite us!

 

[Bootneck]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Lol! Natalie Bennett won't influence anything in Britain. She didn't even get elected in our recent elections and the Green Party hold only one seat in parliament. You could say that the Greens have as much influence as a pimple on an elephant's arse.

 

[FA_Q2]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Obviously they are incorrect. There certainly is a strong possibility that those polygamists and incestuous people will recognize that the exact same arguments made in gay marrages apply to them as well.

The real question though is why not? You are a self admitted anarchist are you not? Why the hell do you still want the government recognizing one marriage over another? Government should be out of marriage altogether. Barring that, they can recognize every marriage that involves consent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homos are liars.

 

[Skylar]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Polygamy has all sorts of possible problems, legally. First, our legal system is utterly unprepared for it and fundamentally incompatible with it. We're set up for co-equals entering and exiting marriage at the exact same time. Our legal precedent, both state and federal, is built around these fundamental assumptions.

But polygamy doesn't necessarily work that way. And has all sorts unanswered questions. Are all three people married to each other? Or are they only married to one partner? Would consumation with all three participants be a requirement? Or only with one of the participants?

If one partner wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are also divorced? Or do they just leave the two remaining participants married?

If they entered into the marriage at different times, how do you distribute resources during a divorce? A percentage of the time they've been part of the marriage or a straight 3 way split?

With child custody, are all members equal co-parents. Or only the biological parents of the child?

Worse, what if you go to 4. Or 8. The legal complications increase exponentially.

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. So we'd either prevent it on that basis. Or we'd have to make radical changes to precedent. Which would take decades and be accompanied by a period of comparative legal chaos.

 

[Skylar]

Homos are liars.

So are straights. Or bisexuals. Or asexuals.

Lying happens in any group of sufficient size.

 

[Skylar]

Once a culture starts down the road of depravity and degredation it doesn't stop until the end.

Well given that polygamy was in the Old Testament, you're gonna have a hard time moralizing about it intrinsically.

 

[FA_Q2]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Polygamy has all sorts of possible problems, legally. First, our legal system is utterly unprepared for it and fundamentally incompatible with it. We're set up for co-equals entering and exiting marriage at the exact same time. Our legal precedent, both state and federal, is built around these fundamental assumptions.

But polygamy doesn't necessarily work that way. And has all sorts unanswered questions. Are all three people married to each other? Or are they only married to one partner? Would consumation with all three participants be a requirement? Or only with one of the participants?

If one partner wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are also divorced? Or do they just leave the two remaining participants married?

If they entered into the marriage at different times, how do you distribute resources during a divorce? A percentage of the time they've been part of the marriage or a straight 3 way split?

With child custody, are all members equal co-parents. Or only the biological parents of the child?

Worse, what if you go to 4. Or 8. The legal complications increase exponentially.

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. So we'd either prevent it on that basis. Or we'd have to make radical changes to precedent. Which would take decades and be accompanied by a period of comparative legal chaos.

None of those questions are difficult to work out or 'incompatible' with our current legal system. Marriage is nothing more than a contract and legal contracts with multiple parties are common. Such issues would simply be worked out in an equitable and common sense manner.

 

[Skylar]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Polygamy has all sorts of possible problems, legally. First, our legal system is utterly unprepared for it and fundamentally incompatible with it. We're set up for co-equals entering and exiting marriage at the exact same time. Our legal precedent, both state and federal, is built around these fundamental assumptions.

But polygamy doesn't necessarily work that way. And has all sorts unanswered questions. Are all three people married to each other? Or are they only married to one partner? Would consumation with all three participants be a requirement? Or only with one of the participants?

If one partner wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are also divorced? Or do they just leave the two remaining participants married?

If they entered into the marriage at different times, how do you distribute resources during a divorce? A percentage of the time they've been part of the marriage or a straight 3 way split?

With child custody, are all members equal co-parents. Or only the biological parents of the child?

Worse, what if you go to 4. Or 8. The legal complications increase exponentially.

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. So we'd either prevent it on that basis. Or we'd have to make radical changes to precedent. Which would take decades and be accompanied by a period of comparative legal chaos.

None of those questions are difficult to work out or 'incompatible' with our current legal system. Marriage is nothing more than a contract and legal contracts with multiple parties are common. Such issues would simply be worked out in an equitable and common sense manner.

Its not like same sex marriage where all the same rules apply as for straight couples. Polygamy is a different legal animal. The same rules don't apply as many of the fundamental assumptions in 2 person marriage don't apply. Most obvious, when participants enter and exit a marriage. In a 2 person marriage, its always the same time. In a 3 or more person marriage....not necessarily. Historically, very rarely.

And that alone causes all sorts of complications. Complications that grow more elaborate the more participants join the union. None of them could use our existing frame work for marriage. We'd have to make all new rules, establish all new precedent. Which would take years. Polygamy's incompatibility with our existing framework of laws would be a defensible basis of denial.

And marriage is more than a contract. As its not solely defined by the participants.

 

[FA_Q2]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Polygamy has all sorts of possible problems, legally. First, our legal system is utterly unprepared for it and fundamentally incompatible with it. We're set up for co-equals entering and exiting marriage at the exact same time. Our legal precedent, both state and federal, is built around these fundamental assumptions.

But polygamy doesn't necessarily work that way. And has all sorts unanswered questions. Are all three people married to each other? Or are they only married to one partner? Would consumation with all three participants be a requirement? Or only with one of the participants?

If one partner wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are also divorced? Or do they just leave the two remaining participants married?

If they entered into the marriage at different times, how do you distribute resources during a divorce? A percentage of the time they've been part of the marriage or a straight 3 way split?

With child custody, are all members equal co-parents. Or only the biological parents of the child?

Worse, what if you go to 4. Or 8. The legal complications increase exponentially.

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. So we'd either prevent it on that basis. Or we'd have to make radical changes to precedent. Which would take decades and be accompanied by a period of comparative legal chaos.

None of those questions are difficult to work out or 'incompatible' with our current legal system. Marriage is nothing more than a contract and legal contracts with multiple parties are common. Such issues would simply be worked out in an equitable and common sense manner.

Its not like same sex marriage where all the same rules apply as for straight couples. Polygamy is a different legal animal. The same rules don't apply as many of the fundamental assumptions in 2 person marriage don't apply. Most obvious, when participants enter and exit a marriage. In a 2 person marriage, its always the same time. In a 3 or more person marriage....not necessarily. Historically, very rarely.

And that alone causes all sorts of complications. Complications that grow more elaborate the more participants join the union. None of them could use our existing frame work for marriage. We'd have to make all new rules, establish all new precedent. Which would take years. Polygamy's incompatibility with our existing framework of laws would be a defensible basis of denial.

And marriage is more than a contract. As its not solely defined by the participants.

Of course there would be differences. Never said there wouldn't be - most notably in gathered assets as there is no longer a way to divide it up so 'cleanly' if you can call it that but it is not only doable but also not even that difficult to create the framework IMHO.
And, yes it is a contract. YOU don’t draw it up but that really does not change the fact that it is a contract. Just one that has already been drawn up by the state and has more complexities than a standard contract.

.

 

[Skylar]

Take.....Social security survivor benefits. Does anyone in poly marriage get them? Or does only one spouse?

Its a non-issue in 2 person marriage.

Medical decisions: if there's more than one spouse and they disagree, who wins? Is weight given to the longest spouse? If no, then what? If yes, then we're not talking about 'co-equals'. But subordinate spouses with secondary rights. Which again is incompatible with current marriage law.

Its a non-issue in 2 person marriage.

If two members of a poly marriage have a kid and a third wishes to leave....does the third have to pay child support? If so, how much and for how long?

If one member leaves, do the others owe them alimony? If so how much? What if there were two stay at home participants and one decides to leave. Does the OTHER stay at home participant owe alimony? Do the two stay at home participants owe it to each other? And what if there are more than 3 participants? Do they start splitting up the alimony?

Its a non-issue in 2 person marriage.

There are a litanny of unique issues with polygamy that don't exist in 2 person marriage. And our legal system is fundamentally unprepared to deal with.

 

[Skylar]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Polygamy has all sorts of possible problems, legally. First, our legal system is utterly unprepared for it and fundamentally incompatible with it. We're set up for co-equals entering and exiting marriage at the exact same time. Our legal precedent, both state and federal, is built around these fundamental assumptions.

But polygamy doesn't necessarily work that way. And has all sorts unanswered questions. Are all three people married to each other? Or are they only married to one partner? Would consumation with all three participants be a requirement? Or only with one of the participants?

If one partner wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are also divorced? Or do they just leave the two remaining participants married?

If they entered into the marriage at different times, how do you distribute resources during a divorce? A percentage of the time they've been part of the marriage or a straight 3 way split?

With child custody, are all members equal co-parents. Or only the biological parents of the child?

Worse, what if you go to 4. Or 8. The legal complications increase exponentially.

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. So we'd either prevent it on that basis. Or we'd have to make radical changes to precedent. Which would take decades and be accompanied by a period of comparative legal chaos.

None of those questions are difficult to work out or 'incompatible' with our current legal system. Marriage is nothing more than a contract and legal contracts with multiple parties are common. Such issues would simply be worked out in an equitable and common sense manner.

Its not like same sex marriage where all the same rules apply as for straight couples. Polygamy is a different legal animal. The same rules don't apply as many of the fundamental assumptions in 2 person marriage don't apply. Most obvious, when participants enter and exit a marriage. In a 2 person marriage, its always the same time. In a 3 or more person marriage....not necessarily. Historically, very rarely.

And that alone causes all sorts of complications. Complications that grow more elaborate the more participants join the union. None of them could use our existing frame work for marriage. We'd have to make all new rules, establish all new precedent. Which would take years. Polygamy's incompatibility with our existing framework of laws would be a defensible basis of denial.

And marriage is more than a contract. As its not solely defined by the participants.

Of course there would be differences.

Not merely differences. A legion of legal questions that our legal system would have no answer for. As its fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. Its simply not prepared for these situations as they don't occur in 2 person marriage. Such as those already listed.

Could we adapt? Sure. It would take years, but we could do it. However the lack of compatibility would be a defensible basis to deny polygamy here.

And, yes it is a contract. YOU don’t draw it up but that really does not change the fact that it is a contract. Just one that has already been drawn up by the state and has more complexities than a standard contract.

A contract between two people alone is based on whatever they agree to. A marriage is subject to the state, who acts as a participant. A normal contract can be dissolved by mere terms within it. A marriage requires the permission of the state to terminate. And enter into.

A normal contract would impart no special constitutional protections. Most states grant married couples rights that they wouldn't have otherwise; the right not to testify against their spouse, for example. You can't gain that merely by signing an ordinary contract. Marriage brings with it certain benefits. Survivor benefits from social security. It doesn't matter what ordinary contract you sign, you're not getting SS survivor benefits.

Marriage is quite simply more than merely a contract. And the issues involved would be fundamentally incompatible with our current system of law because of it.

 

[Syriusly]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

I support your right to court to argue that you should be able to marry your brother or sister.

The only ones I see in favor of such things are Conservative whackos like you.