Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[Pop23]

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.

Fakey is just being fakey

 

[bendog]

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.

It's not new. The Supremes found a prohibition on polygamy didn't run afoul of the First Amendment. If it can't pass the EP test, then the prohibition should be overturned.

 

[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.

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.

They don't actually, and have easily been turned aside,

I do appreciate that you admit that the right is railig on about this, not the left, like bripat seems to think.

 

[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.

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?

It could be a compelling interest. I'm not sure what the court would say. Again, it was an example of an interest that does exist. What is the compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

*crickets*

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?

It is your arguments that lead to those conclusions if applied consistently. Your stated reason against same-sex marriage is the couples cannot reproduce together. If that truly is your stated reason, you must also be against the marriage of any couple that cannot reproduce together, otherwise you are a hypocrite or a liar.

 

[Pop23]

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?

It could be a compelling interest. I'm not sure what the court would say. Again, it was an example of an interest that does exist. What is the compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

*crickets*

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?

It is your arguments that lead to those conclusions if applied consistently. Your stated reason against same-sex marriage is the couples cannot reproduce together. If that truly is your stated reason, you must also be against the marriage of any couple that cannot reproduce together, otherwise you are a hypocrite or a liar.

I have never discriminated based on disability. Why do you wish too?

 

[ShackledNation]

That's what I thought. Nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

It could be a compelling interest. I'm not sure what the court would say. Again, it was an example of an interest that does exist. What is the compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

*crickets*

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?

It is your arguments that lead to those conclusions if applied consistently. Your stated reason against same-sex marriage is the couples cannot reproduce together. If that truly is your stated reason, you must also be against the marriage of any couple that cannot reproduce together, otherwise you are a hypocrite or a liar.

I have never discriminated based on disability. Why do you wish too?

By your reasoning, Pop, yeah, you would discriminate on disability, based on the above discussion, if that would stop marriage equality.

Since marriage equality is inevitable, don't worry.

 

[Silhouette]

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 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.

Whoa there a minute. You're supporting an insurance company's refusal to cover "certain married people"?

Did you know that a medical insurance company's greatest risk would be insuring gay male "married" men? Statistically they do not curb their promiscuity just because they are "married". It may actually be an arrangement of convenience for HIV riskers to get health coverage they're otherwise denied as single men on the streets. Covering just one HIV patient from diagnosis to grave costs in excess of $500,000 on average. So if you're supporting an insurer's "legitimate refusal to cover some people", be sure to add to that list "gay men"...because they are the most predictable demographic to cost that company the most money over any other married person, hand's down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The above comment explains much about the poster.

 

[bripat9643]

The above comment explains much about the poster.

yeah, it explains that the poster has a firm grip on reality, as opposed to a senile old coot like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cute: an anarcho commie talking about reality.

 

[Silhouette]

My point is that shacklednation believes it's OK for some folk to be denied marriage privileges. So my point is also, how do you determine who does and who doesn't get the priveleges of marriage? I think Windsor addressed how to determine that very nicely actually.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My point is that shacklednation believes it's OK for some folk to be denied marriage privileges. So my point is also, how do you determine who does and who doesn't get the priveleges of marriage? I think Windsor addressed how to determine that very nicely actually.

You are right, Windsor did very clearly layout the way they are determined. There are TWO measurements:

1. The State makes the laws.

2. The laws the States make MUST be constitutional.​

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is
necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-
thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradi-
tion. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons"


The emphasized part of course is the question that wasn't before the court in Windsor because Windsor was about Federal law, not State law. That analysis will likely occur in the next term if the court decides to take one of the cases presently only appeal.

 

[dblack]

My point is that shacklednation believes it's OK for some folk to be denied marriage privileges. So my point is also, how do you determine who does and who doesn't get the priveleges of marriage? I think Windsor addressed how to determine that very nicely actually.

The problem is that there are government granted "privileges of marriage".

 

[ShackledNation]

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 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.

Whoa there a minute. You're supporting an insurance company's refusal to cover "certain married people"?

No.

 

[Silhouette]

My point is that shacklednation believes it's OK for some folk to be denied marriage privileges. So my point is also, how do you determine who does and who doesn't get the priveleges of marriage? I think Windsor addressed how to determine that very nicely actually.

The problem is that there are government granted "privileges of marriage".

Yes but my point is that gays keep coming on these websites and threads posting "all their good and sound reasons why polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry...or at least be required to petition separately for the right to marry.."

While at the same time maintaining a mantra of "Equal Rights For All!!" Get it? They don't want polygamy discussed at the next SCOTUS hearing on gay marriage. Long story short. So I'm nailing them on it now in advance to expose the weak scale in their legal strategy.

 

[Silhouette]

Oops...have I said something? Those darn cats are so hard to get back in the bag..

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Polygamy is far more natural then abomination of Gaydom. If Gaydom is acceptable, then there is no reason that Polygamy should be illegal.

 

[Mr. Ofo Oao]

...It most likely has already been pointed out on this thread but just in case it hasn't the Bible has many instances of polygamy...I don't see what is so wrong about polygamy that it should be illegal. Can anyone show me what is so wrong about polygamy that it should be illegal?...

Peace.

 

[Silhouette]

...It most likely has already been pointed out on this thread but just in case it hasn't the Bible has many instances of polygamy...I don't see what is so wrong about polygamy that it should be illegal. Can anyone show me what is so wrong about polygamy that it should be illegal?...

Peace.

Then stand up at the SCOTUS hearing pending and say exactly just that...as they're simultaneously considering other forms of marriage not currently legal in all but three states in the US. An amicus brief will do. Maybe I'll start writing one right now come to think of it...