Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Pop23]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

Are you saying the boilerplate between three partners is the same as if there are only two partners?

No, can't be, but that would be the third persons choice and expense, just like an LLC

 

[Pop23]

[
How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

Every state in the unions has an anti-bigamy law.

The underlying behavior is illegal.

For now, but you successfully argued it shouldn't be illegal

Geez, take credit when credit is due

What you afraid of, man the hell up

 

[Pop23]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

Not really. Polygamy and Incest, the underlying behaviors are already illegal.

Once Lawrence got rid of all the "sodomy" laws that no one was actually enforcing, there was no logical reason to prevent marriage equality.

Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument.

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it

 

[Pop23]

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

There is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.

There is only marriage.

no there is not----there are different types of marriages now. You have to embrace the difference, liberal boy.

Listen to you, you non-mainstream far right freak.

Marriage is between two people. There is no other kind of marriage. Tough on that, freak boy.

Calling hetros freaks?

You can't make this chit up!

 

[JoeB131]

For now, but you successfully argued it shouldn't be illegal

Geez, take credit when credit is due

What you afraid of, man the hell up

I don't think that anyone argued that there was a constitutional issue with bigamy laws. Nor do I think anyone is actually arguing for polygamy.

Do I have a problem with polygamy? Meh. Not really. We already have defacto polygamy. One is called "the wife' and the other is called "the mistress".

But you guys making the "slippery slope argument" just doesn't fly.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument.

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it

The key thing here is "successful argument". No one is arguing for polygamy right now at all. No one is bringing a court case against bigamy laws.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

It did no such thing. After DOMA, Utah said it would not do benefits for federal entitlees. The feds said that all government money would be cut off if Utah did not comply. The state fell over backward complying.

Don't post nonsense, froota loop, please.

From the majority opinion:

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws which equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved. The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.[ Windsor, 570 U.S., at 25–26 (slip op.).

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?

We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?

We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.

Incorrect.

No 'door' has been opened, nothing is being 'redefined,' marriage is and functions now as it did before the Marriage Cases began: a union of two equal partners whose commitment is recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Consequently, three or more people cannot marry because there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration.

Indeed, when same-sex couples wed they enter into a marriage contract identical to that of an opposite-sex couple.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?

We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.

Incorrect.

No 'door' has been opened, nothing is being 'redefined,' marriage is and functions now as it did before the Marriage Cases began: a union of two equal partners whose commitment is recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Consequently, three or more people cannot marry because there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration.

Indeed, when same-sex couples wed they enter into a marriage contract identical to that of an opposite-sex couple.

Society has redefined the definition by allowing same sex partners to wed, there's no reason why new definitions cannot now be added.
I'm aware of current laws, I'm asking for an argument against allowing more than two people to wed.

 

[Iceweasel]

Incorrect.

No 'door' has been opened, nothing is being 'redefined,' marriage is and functions now as it did before the Marriage Cases began: a union of two equal partners whose commitment is recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Consequently, three or more people cannot marry because there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration.

Indeed, when same-sex couples wed they enter into a marriage contract identical to that of an opposite-sex couple.

LOL. Typical double talk lying bullshit. Marriages have been one male/female pair, you couldn't get a license or state recognition for anything but. Your type wants to disregard tradition while demanding we adhere to tradition so only two can marry.

There are too many dishonest people these days, the government needs to get out of the marriage business and let people make any agreement they want with whoever they want.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Incorrect.

Marriage law is written to accommodate two equal adult partners who have made a commitment to build a life together recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is violated when the state seeks to disallow same-sex couples from entering into a marriage contract they're eligible to participate in.

That's not the case with three or more persons, for whom there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration. No Equal Protection Clause violation manifests because there's no 'marriage law' to 'disallow' three or more persons from entering into.

Consequently, bringing to the debate demagoguery such as 'polygamy' or 'plural marriage' does in fact fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

All you are doing is limiting the definition to meet your requirements. There is no logical reasoning behind your position. NONE of the marriage laws written in the past considered same sex couples, which can easily be inferred by the licenses containing the words "bride" and "groom" or some modification of each. Its the same as only two lines being available on the license.

Top oppose plural marriage you are using the EXACT same logical construct current opponents of same sex marriage are using.

 

[Pop23]

[
Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument.

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it

The key thing here is "successful argument". No one is arguing for polygamy right now at all. No one is bringing a court case against bigamy laws.

Key words "right now"

 

[Geaux4it]

I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?

We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.

Incorrect.

No 'door' has been opened, nothing is being 'redefined,' marriage is and functions now as it did before the Marriage Cases began: a union of two equal partners whose commitment is recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Consequently, three or more people cannot marry because there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration.

Indeed, when same-sex couples wed they enter into a marriage contract identical to that of an opposite-sex couple.

Dude- You are worse than a broken clock, Never being right twice a day.

-Geaux

I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

wife
noun \ˈwīf\
: a married woman : the woman someone is married to

plural wives
woman

b : a woman acting in a specified capacity —used in combination <fishwife>
2
: a female partner in a marriage

 

[dilloduck]

I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?

We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.

nothing---all that matters is that they are all consenting adults. There is no other reasonable argument to prohibit multiple people from entering into a marriage. If two can, why not three ?

 

[Seawytch]

There is no slippery slope

Polygamy from Wiki

Recognized under civil law
Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Brunei Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad CAR Comoros Congo Djibouti Egypt Ethiopia Gabon The Gambia India1 Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kenya Kuwait Libya Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania Morocco Myanmar Niger Oman Pakistan Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Senegal Singapore1 Somalia Sri Lanka1 Sudan Syria Tanzania Togo Uganda UAE Yemen Zambia [TBODY] [/TBODY]
Now...can someone tell me which of those countries also marries gays?

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[dilloduck]

You didn't respond to the question. Why shouldn't 3 or more consenting adults be allowed to marry ? You're polyphobic aren't you ??

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You didn't respond to the question. Why shouldn't 3 or more consenting adults be allowed to marry ? You're polyphobic aren't you ??

Because there's no marriage law to accommodate 3 or more persons.

 

[dilloduck]

You didn't respond to the question. Why shouldn't 3 or more consenting adults be allowed to marry ? You're polyphobic aren't you ??

Because there's no marriage law to accommodate 3 or more persons.

You mean the law shouldn't be changed to allow these deprived people of the same "marriage benefits" that twosomes can have ? How cruel..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Stop Calling It Marriage Equality"

Nonsense.

It is indeed about equality:

Equal protection of the law, equal access to the law, equal treatment under the law.