Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[dcraelin]

I say that on the condition that the government should stop giving tax breaks for getting married in the first place. I didn't make that clear in my previous post.

we agree on that much anyway

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

No, marriage is between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. It has always been this. There were also polygamous marriages in history.

Liberals have grossly redefined marriage by striking references to the requirement for both parties to be of the opposite. Only a moron would then claim that all redefinition must now logically stop.

disallowing gay marriage is denying a group of people the right to marry.

Disallowing polygamy is not denying a group of people the right to marry. They are still welcome to marry one person just as everyone else is.

If you can not see the difference, there is not much I can do to help you with it.

You're so deep in the bubble that you can't see your illogic. Polygamous marriage actually has a stronger claim to legitimacy than homosexual marriage in that it's actually practiced all over the world and has been for thousand of years and has hundreds of million adherents. Homosexual marriage is so fringe that only a tiny fraction of homosexuals actually engage in it where it is legal and then 50% of those marriages are forthrightly constructed as open marriages from the get-go.

Of the two conditions, opposite sex and two partners only, you removed the most universally accepted, opposite sex, and now claim the two partners criterion is actually essential when all around thw rold we see that it's not.

That's Bizarro World logic. Further, it's willful ignorance.

I debate to learn. When the insults fly, I end it.

Sorry. But thanks for some info to work with.

One thing is obvious in this debate and that's that homo apologists are not interested in learning anything. They are only interested in ramming their agenda down everyone's throats.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

Company insurance policies do not automatically cover the spouse, at least mine didn't. You have the option of covering additional dependents, but you have to pay extra for each dependent. Covering a child is no more than covering a spouse, so what is the difference between covering 2 wives with a child each or covering one wive with three children? The answer is nothing. Polygamy wouldn't require any changes in current corporate policies regarding insurance coverage for employees.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

So if you're really concerned about marriage equality you'd be fighting to change those insurance policies etc. Yet you aren't.

Weird. One might almost think you were against consenting people of all walks getting married?

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

Company insurance policies do not automatically cover the spouse, at least mine didn't. You have the option of covering additional dependents, but you have to pay extra for each dependent. Covering a child is no more than covering a spouse, so what is the difference between covering 2 wives with a child each or covering one wive with three children? The answer is nothing. Polygamy wouldn't require any changes in current corporate policies regarding insurance coverage for employees.

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

So if you're really concerned about marriage equality you'd be fighting to change those insurance policies etc. Yet you aren't.

Weird. One might almost think you were against consenting people of all walks getting married?

I don't think companies should have to pay insurance for a single man's 100 wives. That would bankrupt them. The point is that polygamy and same-sex marriage are separate questions of law, and the decision regarding one does not change the legality of the other.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

So if you're really concerned about marriage equality you'd be fighting to change those insurance policies etc. Yet you aren't.

Weird. One might almost think you were against consenting people of all walks getting married?

I don't think companies should have to pay insurance for a single man's 100 wives. That would bankrupt them. The point is that polygamy and same-sex marriage are separate questions of law, and the decision regarding one does not change the legality of the other.

You might be smarter than the average bear but that makes you dumber than a post in human terms.

If a company wants to cover multiple partners, just one or none, and at what cost is none of your damn business.

Why can't you stay out of other peoples bedrooms?

Wait, where have I heard this before????

Hey, the arguments for same sex marriage works exactly the same for polygamy.

How cool is that!

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

Company insurance policies do not automatically cover the spouse, at least mine didn't. You have the option of covering additional dependents, but you have to pay extra for each dependent. Covering a child is no more than covering a spouse, so what is the difference between covering 2 wives with a child each or covering one wive with three children? The answer is nothing. Polygamy wouldn't require any changes in current corporate policies regarding insurance coverage for employees.

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

Someone already has sued the government for that very reason.

My company's plan only asks you to list dependents. It doesn't ask anything about "spouses."

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

So if you're really concerned about marriage equality you'd be fighting to change those insurance policies etc. Yet you aren't.

Weird. One might almost think you were against consenting people of all walks getting married?

I don't think companies should have to pay insurance for a single man's 100 wives. That would bankrupt them. The point is that polygamy and same-sex marriage are separate questions of law, and the decision regarding one does not change the legality of the other.

Why should a company have to pay for the insurance coverage for someone's fuck buddy? In the case of a wife, we're normally talking about the mother of the man's children. It's obvious why a corporation would agree to cover her. But why would would some homo's fuck buddy need coverage? Doesn't he already have his own coverage?

 

[bendog]

It's a sure sign of genius to start a post with a personal insult. It makes one seem much smarter that others.

But isn't this a bit of a non-issue? An employer can limit how much it pays for health benefits for kiddies by charging for enrolling them. One can cost L, and three can cost 3xL.

 

[Silhouette]

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

See, there you go again making the case for why *some people* should be denied the privelege of marriage. You're describing marriage as a privilege that should be denied to some [oh yes, you are] and then also claiming it's a "right" that should be denied to none. Which is it?

 

[bripat9643]

It's a sure sign of genius to start a post with a personal insult. It makes one seem much smarter that others.

But isn't this a bit of a non-issue? An employer can limit how much it pays for health benefits for kiddies by charging for enrolling them. One can cost L, and three can cost 3xL.

I get tired of reading the same regurgitated bullshit that I've shot down 100 times already. That's when I start insulting the people who post it.

How corporations handle the matter is irrelevant. They had to make changes to handle "life partners" of homosexuals, so they can easily arrive at some arrangement for multiple wives. So can the IRS.

 

[bripat9643]

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

See, there you go again making the case for why *some people* should be denied the privelege of marriage. You're describing marriage as a privilege that should be denied to some [oh yes, you are] and then also claiming it's a "right" that should be denied to none. Which is it?

Yes, ShackledNation hates polygamists. That's the only reason for his opposition to marriage equality.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

So if you're really concerned about marriage equality you'd be fighting to change those insurance policies etc. Yet you aren't.

Weird. One might almost think you were against consenting people of all walks getting married?

I don't think companies should have to pay insurance for a single man's 100 wives. That would bankrupt them. The point is that polygamy and same-sex marriage are separate questions of law, and the decision regarding one does not change the legality of the other.

You might be smarter than the average bear but that makes you dumber than a post in human terms.

If a company wants to cover multiple partners, just one or none, and at what cost is none of your damn business.

Why can't you stay out of other peoples bedrooms?

Wait, where have I heard this before????

Hey, the arguments for same sex marriage works exactly the same for polygamy.

How cool is that!

I was not arguing that a company should or should not cover multiple partners. I actually said the company should not have to do anything. They should be able to do what they want. I don't think you have once responded to my actual argument in any thread.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

Company insurance policies do not automatically cover the spouse, at least mine didn't. You have the option of covering additional dependents, but you have to pay extra for each dependent. Covering a child is no more than covering a spouse, so what is the difference between covering 2 wives with a child each or covering one wive with three children? The answer is nothing. Polygamy wouldn't require any changes in current corporate policies regarding insurance coverage for employees.

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

Someone already has sued the government for that very reason.

My company's plan only asks you to list dependents. It doesn't ask anything about "spouses."

Your company is irrelevant to what other companies do. Many do ask about spouses. But you knew that already.

As to the lawsuit, good. They are exercising their right to sue. We will see whether or not the courts side with the state or not. At the end of the day, however, same-sex marriage is a totally separate issue.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals is allowing one group something another group can not do.
Denying polygamy is not allowing one group of people to enjoy something that another can not. Those who believe in polygamy can still marry one person if they wish....just like everyone else.
It is an ill informed argument.

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

So if you're really concerned about marriage equality you'd be fighting to change those insurance policies etc. Yet you aren't.

Weird. One might almost think you were against consenting people of all walks getting married?

I don't think companies should have to pay insurance for a single man's 100 wives. That would bankrupt them. The point is that polygamy and same-sex marriage are separate questions of law, and the decision regarding one does not change the legality of the other.

Why should a company have to pay for the insurance coverage for someone's fuck buddy? In the case of a wife, we're normally talking about the mother of the man's children. It's obvious why a corporation would agree to cover her. But why would would some homo's fuck buddy need coverage? Doesn't he already have his own coverage?

Married gay men and women are no more fuck buddies than married straight men and women. Why do you think marriage is just about sex?

 

[bripat9643]

Why just two? Because more than two is more psychologically disturbing to kids than two men or two women playing at "mom and dad" ?

If so, how?

Many marriage benefits do not transfer over the marriages between more than two people. For example, insurance policies offered by employers often cover the spouse. But what if I have 100 spouses? The company now has to pay for 100 more insurance plans, likely bankrupting it. Allowing same-sex marriage has no such affect.

If you feel that is a good enough reason, and you want to marry multiple people, feel free to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage will continue to be legalized, because it's legalization does not hinge on whether or not polygamy should be legal.

Company insurance policies do not automatically cover the spouse, at least mine didn't. You have the option of covering additional dependents, but you have to pay extra for each dependent. Covering a child is no more than covering a spouse, so what is the difference between covering 2 wives with a child each or covering one wive with three children? The answer is nothing. Polygamy wouldn't require any changes in current corporate policies regarding insurance coverage for employees.

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

Someone already has sued the government for that very reason.

My company's plan only asks you to list dependents. It doesn't ask anything about "spouses."

Your company is irrelevant to what other companies do. Many do ask about spouses. But you knew that already.

As to the lawsuit, good. They are exercising their right to sue. We will see whether or not the courts side with the state or not. At the end of the day, however, same-sex marriage is a totally separate issue.

Wrong. The two issues are inseparable. If disallowing same sex marriage is a violation of civil rights, then so is disallowing polygamy.

 

[ShackledNation]

You pay more for each dependent, but so does the company. That is typically how it works. Some may only cover spouses, not children. If that is the case, do they cover all spouses? What about join taxes returns? Do all spouses combine their income into one return? The number of people will effect the income, and thus effect the tax rate and potential benefits.

But again, if you don't find those reasons convincing enough, sue the government when you try to get married to multiple people and they say no.

See, there you go again making the case for why *some people* should be denied the privelege of marriage. You're describing marriage as a privilege that should be denied to some [oh yes, you are] and then also claiming it's a "right" that should be denied to none. Which is it?

I didn't say polygamists should be denied the right to marriage or that they should be granted it. I merely speculated on possible government interests that exist in denying polygamist marriages but do not exist in denying same-sex marriages.

What you fail to understand is that fundamental rights can be denied if the government shows that the law denying them serves a compelling government interest. The compelling interests in each type of denial are different and have no bearing on the legitimacy of the interests for other types of denial.

There is no compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Zip. Nada. None.