Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[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.

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Sorry, that is not how constitutional law works. The questions at issue are entirely different. For the same reason, the fact that disallowing interracial marriage is a violation of civil rights does not mean disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of civil rights.

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

 

[kaz]

The homo lobby swore over and over again that this issue would never come up.

Link? The entire lobby, please.

Marriage quality is about two people.

The issue is where to allow continuing marriages of two people that have a living arrangement.

As an anarcho commie, you have no entry in this.

Who says the definition of marriage is limited to two people? Society used to say marriage is a union between two people of the opposite sex, but the homos all cried about that. They claimed it was about "consenting adults." If three people all consent to be married to each other, what reason can the apologists for "gay marriage" give for denying them?

One person should be able to get a marriage license, then we will have equality. Everyone can marry who they want, including no one, and get government perks.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

Yeah, that's pretty true, but it's not important. These exceptions are no reason to change the laws regarding marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sorry, that is not how constitutional law works. The questions at issue are entirely different. For the same reason, the fact that disallowing interracial marriage is a violation of civil rights does not mean disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of civil rights.

That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

Yeah, that's pretty true, but it's not important. These exceptions are no reason to change the laws regarding marriage.

So elderly married couples who cannot procreate are just fuck buddies because of that? Infertile couples are no more than fuck buddies? In what world is that true? And your basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples is "they are just fuck buddies" but you do not apply that standard to anyone else--only homosexuals. You are a complete idiot and hypocrite.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, that is not how constitutional law works. The questions at issue are entirely different. For the same reason, the fact that disallowing interracial marriage is a violation of civil rights does not mean disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of civil rights.

That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.

False. Nobody has ever made that argument. People compare interracial marriage bans to same-sex marriage bans because opponents of SSM use the same arguments and interests that opponents of interracial marriage used. It has nothing to do with the bans themselves being the same issue.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

Yeah, that's pretty true, but it's not important. These exceptions are no reason to change the laws regarding marriage.

So elderly married couples who cannot procreate are just fuck buddies because of that? Infertile couples are no more than fuck buddies? In what world is that true? And your basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples is "they are just fuck buddies" but you do not apply that standard to anyone else--only homosexuals. You are a complete idiot and hypocrite.

Whether a couple is infertile is something we normally don't know until after the fact. If homosexual activists want to change the law so that couples have to prove they are fertile before they get a marriage license, be my guest. However, as has already been demonstrated in this forum, libturds would be the first to object to such a law.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sorry, that is not how constitutional law works. The questions at issue are entirely different. For the same reason, the fact that disallowing interracial marriage is a violation of civil rights does not mean disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of civil rights.

That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.

False. Nobody has ever made that argument. People compare interracial marriage bans to same-sex marriage bans because opponents of SSM use the same arguments and interests that opponents of interracial marriage used. It has nothing to do with the bans themselves being the same issue.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, right. You believe that if it makes you feel better.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.

You are a homo now: bripat? It's' s your argument. Not the 'liberals', man. You have all makes -- liberals, cons, liberts, middle of the road, men and women, old and young -- for marriage equality.

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

Yeah, that's pretty true, but it's not important. These exceptions are no reason to change the laws regarding marriage.

So elderly married couples who cannot procreate are just fuck buddies because of that? Infertile couples are no more than fuck buddies? In what world is that true? And your basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples is "they are just fuck buddies" but you do not apply that standard to anyone else--only homosexuals. You are a complete idiot and hypocrite.

Whether a couple is infertile is something we normally don't know until after the fact. If homosexual activists want to change the law so that couples have to prove they are fertile before they get a marriage license, be my guest. However, as has already been demonstrated in this forum, libturds would be the first to object to such a law.

False. We know for a fact that all women after a certain age are infertile. You cannot say the inability to procreate is grounds for excluding someone from marriage when that standard is not equally applied to everyone. You are only apply that standard to homosexual couples. That is a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the 14th controls, not the bripats' delusional thinking. He thinks he is a homo now.

 

[bripat9643]

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

Yeah, that's pretty true, but it's not important. These exceptions are no reason to change the laws regarding marriage.

So elderly married couples who cannot procreate are just fuck buddies because of that? Infertile couples are no more than fuck buddies? In what world is that true? And your basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples is "they are just fuck buddies" but you do not apply that standard to anyone else--only homosexuals. You are a complete idiot and hypocrite.

Whether a couple is infertile is something we normally don't know until after the fact. If homosexual activists want to change the law so that couples have to prove they are fertile before they get a marriage license, be my guest. However, as has already been demonstrated in this forum, libturds would be the first to object to such a law.

False. We know for a fact that all women after a certain age are infertile. You cannot say the inability to procreate is grounds for excluding someone from marriage when that standard is not equally applied to everyone. You are only apply that standard to homosexual couples. That is a violation of the 14th amendment.

I'm done talking about this. Intelligent people understand the point I'm making. Your attempt to torture all the details hasn't succeeded in derailing it. However, you will pursue your agenda no matter what the facts and logic say.

We're done.

Now piss off.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, the 14th controls, not the bripats' delusional thinking. He thinks he is a homo now.

Go take your Thorazine, Fakey. You don't want to be put into a straight jacket, now do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat, that argument of polygamy to marriage equality is yours, period.

Son, you are done only when we tell you that you are done.

 

[Kondor3]

Is Polygamy the next Gay Marriage? Probably. Once you open the can of worms that normalizes aberration and perversion - like homosexuality - you establish all the basis for all kinds of claims to precedent, both explicit and implicit.

 

[Pop23]

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.

No, you were arguing that multiple partners would increase the cost of insurance. Is that a compelling interest?

Probably not in the case of opposite sex couples. They would much more likely create additional taxpayers, soldiers, teachers, police officers etc. etc. etc. than same sex couples.

Legal multiple Hetero marriage actually makes more sense than same sex.

Would you not agree?

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?

Sex without any possibility of creating children is just sex. Two gay guys shacking up are a couple of fuck buddies, and nothing more. The same goes for a straight couple who are shaking up.

So all infertile heterosexual couples, or any married couple with a woman who is older and cannot procreate, are just fuck buddies? Really? Wow. Talk about changing the definition of marriage.

What do you have against the disabled?

Are you saying that homosexuals are disabled?

Why do you insist on discriminating against the elderly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you kondor and pop for showing how silly bripat is being: yes, it is the fr right reactionaries that are making the argument for polygamy and gay marriage.,not the liberals.

 

[hunarcy]

Thank you kondor and pop for showing how silly bripat is being: yes, it is the fr right reactionaries that are making the argument for polygamy and gay marriage.,not the liberals.

Actually, what the right is doing is showing that the arguments of the Left on gay marriage apply to the polygamy argument just as easily as they do for gay marriage.