Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Silhouette]

Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities.

Then we need to give a psych test to every married couple and take kids away from the crazy ones. Given that 18% of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness, you are going to be reassigning a lot of kids.

Or you can mind your own fucking business. If you don't like the gay stuff, don't do the gay stuff. Just because you are unhappy doesn't mean you have to inflict your unhappiness on others.

Except there's no contract with crazy parents requiring that they act crazy. However there is a contract in "gay marriage" that explicitly expresses that it will (not may, but will) deprive any children involved for life of either a mother or father.

And that isn't a muse of "probably problematic". It is a FACT of absolutely problematic upon its face. And if your objection to polygamy kinks (instead of LGBTQetc. kinks) is "it will be bad for the children psychologically to be raised polygamy", then you are a hypocrite. Which is why I keep asking you payroll LGBT bloggers (Joe, mdk, Seriously etc.) to tell me why polygamy is still illegal: citing the 2015 Obergefell decision and the 14th Amendment in your answer..

 

[JoeB131]

Except there's no contract with crazy parents requiring that they act crazy. However there is a contract in "gay marriage" that explicitly expresses that it will (not may, but will) deprive any children involved for life of either a mother or father.

50% of marriages end in divorce. 35% of children are born out of wedlock. You are 100% full of shit.

And that isn't a muse of "probably problematic". It is a FACT of absolutely problematic upon its face. And if your objection to polygamy kinks (instead of LGBTQetc. kinks) is "it will be bad for the children psychologically to be raised polygamy",

Oh, I don't have any opinion on Polygamy one way or the other. I think if some fool wants to marry two women, that's perfectly fine. Kids aren't going to care.

Which is why I keep asking you payroll LGBT bloggers (Joe, mdk, Seriously etc.) to tell me why polygamy is still illegal: citing the 2015 Obergefell decision and the 14th Amendment in your answer..

Why is Polygamy still illegal? The people who want to do it aren't a large enough group.

Only about 40,000 polygamists in Utah, the only state where there's a lot of them. Most of them weird Mormon offshoots. (Seriously, how whacked do you have to be to say, "Man, even Mormonism isn't weird enough for me!")

I think the main reason why polygamy doesn't get much traction is human beings by nature are too jealous to share their partners. I would argue for affluent men, we already have polygamy. One is called "The Wife' and the other is called "The Mistress".

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I don't have any opinion on Polygamy one way or the other. I think if some fool wants to marry two women, that's perfectly fine. Kids aren't going to care.

.

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

I'll wait...

 

[JoeB131]

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

wouldn't know, has anyone made a legal argument about Polygamy that addresses those issues?

Seems to me that you have a pretty argument against polygamy. you can't marry someone if you are already married to someone else.

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy should be legal

This!

Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.

Including family members?

 

[Silhouette]

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

wouldn't know, has anyone made a legal argument about Polygamy that addresses those issues?

Seems to me that you have a pretty argument against polygamy. you can't marry someone if you are already married to someone else.

It's funny how you profess to be clever about precedent and law when it suits your argument and then feign ignorance when it doesn't. Do you suddenly have an attack of the vapors?

You know that if some minority sex kinks get special protections ALL of them do. You know how the 14th Amendment is about blind-equality. You know judges cannot arbitrarily favor some in the same category while arbitrarily denying others in the same category. It's OK. I know you know all this.

So exposed, answer the question.

 

[Pop23]

Nice dodge. I didn't ask if you thought polygamy was "perfectly fine". I asked if you thought it was legal or not already, and to cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your answer.

wouldn't know, has anyone made a legal argument about Polygamy that addresses those issues?

Seems to me that you have a pretty argument against polygamy. you can't marry someone if you are already married to someone else.

But why? The State would have to show what interest in denying such. There is no such interest.

 

[JoeB131]

It's funny how you profess to be clever about precedent and law when it suits your argument and then feign ignorance when it doesn't. Do you suddenly have an attack of the vapors?

Uh, guy, you are babbling. The argument against polygamy is "you're already married".

The argument against gay marriage is you think it's icky. You think its SOOOOOO Icky you just can't stop talking about it, that's how icky you think it is, describing it in the most graphic detail so we all know how icky you think it is.

'i think it's icky" isn't a legal argument.

You know that if some minority sex kinks get special protections ALL of them do.

well, no, the slippery slope argument is usually a sign of failure. You really have no argument against gay marriage, so you sputter "Well, what about polygamy"... and most sensible people say, "What about it?"

 

[JoeB131]

But why? The State would have to show what interest in denying such. There is no such interest.

Actually, there is in terms of survivors benefits, legal liablity, etc.

Jesus Christ, imagine if Social Security had to deal with a Polygamist who had 8 wives and died with a big silly smile on his face!

 

[rightwinger]

Polygamy should be legal

If it is consensual.....why does anyone care

 

[Silhouette]

It's funny how you profess to be clever about precedent and law when it suits your argument and then feign ignorance when it doesn't. Do you suddenly have an attack of the vapors?
You know that if some minority sex kinks get special protections ALL of them do. You know how the 14th Amendment is about blind-equality. You know judges cannot arbitrarily favor some in the same category while arbitrarily denying others in the same category. It's OK. I know you know all this.

So exposed, answer the question.

Uh, guy, you are babbling. The argument against polygamy is "you're already married".

Not legally. Why can't polygamists get legally married Joe? Answer the question.

Polygamy should be legal

If it is consensual.....why does anyone care

It's not a question of caring. It's a question of precedent and inclusion in the 14th Amendment.

I'm not asking if you care if polygamists can legally marry. I'm asking if you BELIEVE, DEDUCE, SURMISE OR THINK that polygamists can already legally marry based on the fact that other minority sex kinks "legally" can?

 

[Pop23]

But why? The State would have to show what interest in denying such. There is no such interest.

Actually, there is in terms of survivors benefits, legal liablity, etc.

Jesus Christ, imagine if Social Security had to deal with a Polygamist who had 8 wives and died with a big silly smile on his face!

Why just 8 wives? Could be 8 men? Or 8 partners

But that’s semantics. We already address that when forming LLCs and a multitude of corporations.

The “partners” address this at formation and others must agree before joining or walking away.

This is all addressed in current existing law.

So again, what is the compelling state interest in denial? Here’s the answer.

NONE

 

[Pop23]

It's funny how you profess to be clever about precedent and law when it suits your argument and then feign ignorance when it doesn't. Do you suddenly have an attack of the vapors?

Uh, guy, you are babbling. The argument against polygamy is "you're already married".

The argument against gay marriage is you think it's icky. You think its SOOOOOO Icky you just can't stop talking about it, that's how icky you think it is, describing it in the most graphic detail so we all know how icky you think it is.

'i think it's icky" isn't a legal argument.

You know that if some minority sex kinks get special protections ALL of them do.

well, no, the slippery slope argument is usually a sign of failure. You really have no argument against gay marriage, so you sputter "Well, what about polygamy"... and most sensible people say, "What about it?"

Your only argument against this is dumb. All aspects of multiple partners are addressed in current law.

You just think it’s icky.

 

[Silhouette]

In fact, according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment, ANY minority repugnant deviant sex kink can marry. There can be no arbitrary discrimination. Once two men can used each other's assholes as artificial vaginas and extrapolate that activity (born legally from the PRIVATE decriminalization of sodomy in Lawrence v Texas), and have a contract that bans any children involved for life from a mother (or father in the case of lesbians), then LITERALLY ANYTHING GOES when it comes to minority deviant sex acts marrying.

How would you deny any others with that one ^^ as a paramount example of "acceptable"? Answer: you CAN'T. Ergo: polyamory (polygamy) is already legal.

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy should be legal

If it is consensual.....why does anyone care

So consenting adult family members as well?

There is no state interest to deny the right to contract into such a union that does not require sex, right?

Cuz we all know that entering into a contract for illegal purposes (incest is illegal in all fifty states) is, in itself illegal.

Now, I’d hate to see it legal, but current law makes it appear that it should be, Right?

 

[Silhouette]

Cuz we all know that entering into a contract for illegal purposes (incest is illegal in all fifty states) is, in itself illegal.

OK, good point. So follow the logic here:

1. If it's true that children cannot be involved in a contract with adults that harms them (illegal: see Infancy Doctrine The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer), and,

2. Children are implicitly are involved in marriage which anticipates their arrival as sharers (divorce handling their rights to the contract mother/father separately from the adult's whims or wishes) and

3. People cannot enter into a contract for illegal purposes, and

4. Gay marriage (contract) harms children by psychologically depriving them of either a mother or father for life, then

5. Gay marriage contracts are illegal and it is illegal to enter into them since they harm children and deprive the state and the children in that state of the benefits they pay in order to secure both necessary mother and necessary father to the children anticipated/implicitly involved.

Yes?

 

[Silhouette]

Your only argument against this is dumb. All aspects of multiple partners are addressed in current law.

You just think it’s icky.

So what would court arguments be against polyamory kinks (polygamy)? That it's "icky"?

 

[jknowgood]

Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.

Well the problem is the government is part of the marriage contract. So like welfare benefits, marrieds have to abide by certain rules they set in order to get benefits. That ability to set rules was ripped away in Obegefell 2015. So now the subdominant contract parties (marrieds) are ripping off the states' share of the contract which used to be "pay for father/mother homes for children's best development".

the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.

I agree.

We need to take away the child tax credit and the other government gifts given to marriages and breeding that are subsidized with higher tax rates on everyone.

Clinton did that. I think it was called the marriage penalty act. I went from getting money back. To owing after I got married, sucked.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage doesn't deny anything to anyone. If a gay couple has kids and marry- the only thing that changes is that the kids have more legal protections- and suffer less harm.

And you hate that. You always advocate for what will cause harm for the children of gay couples.

So according to you, possessing a contract which banishes any children implicitly involved from either a mother or in your case ,a father for life, is "not harming anyone".

Yeah, except the children who find themselves newly contractually-banished for life from either a mother or father. Just them. So no problem, right? And I"M the one who advocates for what will cause harm to children?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil union is between two consenting adults up until that line gets pushed past age or species borders. Someone will always try to push that line.

Why just two? Is the polygamy kink "icky"? How is it worse than LGBT kinks?