Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?

[Pop23]

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

Bull, your reliance on tradition is tiresome. As though there are not current multi partner relationships that one leaves and the partnership remains in tact.

Its not 'tradition'. Its the fact that our marriage law simply cannot answer these questions. Where with same sex marriage, they can. There's no situation in same sex marriage that our marriage laws can't answer. There are situations in plural marriage that our marriage laws can't answer.

And you've already conceded the point. You simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage law and polygamy. Ignore away. The incompatibility remains.

Bull. The tradition of marriage had been destroyed. To say you have a fundamental right to marry the one you love is an absolute period.

You're just trolling now. I've never so much as mentioned 'tradition'. Its your argument. And your strawman.

And you've conceded I'm right, that polygamy is inconsistent with our marriage laws, and that our marriage laws can't answer fundamental questions that arise under polygamy.

Which is my point.

You've been trolling all along dummy. Laws change, that's why we have law makers.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Legally recognized marriage affords hundreds of economic adjustments to the married couple. As such, any two legal-aged people must be permtited to enter into such contracts.

But because of the economic adjustments, allowing multipl incidents of them opens the door to abuse as in theory you could have massive groups of people saying they're married and now pay no taxes, or the federal government winds up paying them. This would be why while polygamy might become legal, it wouldn't result in multiplicative benefits. You'd give such people benefits from the intitial spouse, but not subsequent ones.

But non-economic adjustments like visitation rights and the like, should be afforded to even polyagamous marriages.

Polygamous marriage sounds absurd, will never happen, just like was said 10 years about about gay marriage yet here we are. And nope, if you are going to treat a married couple as one then any number of people can be counted as one. Oh the torturous path we must follow when the SCOTUS makes laws.

Doesn't the child of a polygamous relationship deserve the same dignity that USSC said the children of gay marriage deserves?

Maybe, in due time.

 

[Skylar]

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

Bull, your reliance on tradition is tiresome. As though there are not current multi partner relationships that one leaves and the partnership remains in tact.

Its not 'tradition'. Its the fact that our marriage law simply cannot answer these questions. Where with same sex marriage, they can. There's no situation in same sex marriage that our marriage laws can't answer. There are situations in plural marriage that our marriage laws can't answer.

And you've already conceded the point. You simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage law and polygamy. Ignore away. The incompatibility remains.

Bull. The tradition of marriage had been destroyed. To say you have a fundamental right to marry the one you love is an absolute period.

You're just trolling now. I've never so much as mentioned 'tradition'. Its your argument. And your strawman.

And you've conceded I'm right, that polygamy is inconsistent with our marriage laws, and that our marriage laws can't answer fundamental questions that arise under polygamy.

Which is my point.

You've been trolling all along dummy. Laws change, that's why we have law makers.

I've been pointing out a fundamental incompatibility with polygamy and our marriage laws. And you've conceded I'm right.

Thank you.

 

[Pop23]

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window.

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

States can legalize polygamy if they want to, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Skylar]

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window.

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

 

[Pop23]

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window.

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

 

[Pop23]

States can legalize polygamy if they want to, if I'm not mistaken.

Likely the courts will be forced to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the Court did. The Court said that if your state allows one man and one woman to marry, it will have to allow man/man woman/woman marriage.

 

[Skylar]

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

The USSC never so much as mentions polygamy in the Obergefell ruling. You've hallucinated all of that.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

On the contrary, fundamental incompatibility with our marriage law would be a perfectly valid justification for denying polygamy. As our current marriage laws simply cannot answer questions that arise under polygamy.

While with same sex marriage, they can.

And you've already conceded the point.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the Court did. The Court said that if your state allows one man and one woman to marry, it will have to allow man/man woman/woman marriage.

what the court iimplied was that something being outside of the norms of society is not a constitutional reason to restrict a relationship status.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the Court did. The Court said that if your state allows one man and one woman to marry, it will have to allow man/man woman/woman marriage.

what the court iimplied was that something being outside of the norms of society is not a constitutional reason to restrict a relationship status.

2 person marriage isn't outside the norms of society. Nor outside what our marriage law can answer questions for.

 

[Pop23]

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

The USSC never so much as mentions polygamy in the Obergefell ruling. You've hallucinated all of that.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

On the contrary, fundamental incompatibility with our marriage law would be a perfectly valid justification for denying polygamy. As our current marriage laws simply cannot answer questions that arise under polygamy.

While with same sex marriage, they can.

And you've already conceded the point.

You're still running.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

The USSC never so much as mentions polygamy in the Obergefell ruling. You've hallucinated all of that.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

On the contrary, fundamental incompatibility with our marriage law would be a perfectly valid justification for denying polygamy. As our current marriage laws simply cannot answer questions that arise under polygamy.

While with same sex marriage, they can.

And you've already conceded the point.

You're still running.

Says the poor soul that abandoned any mention of the law, conceded my entire argument....and now refuses to discuss either.

You're done, troll.

 

[Pop23]

Conceeded what?

A new right was established bigot. Now do what we did in the past, make the needed changes to reflect those.

You'll fight it, that's what haters do.

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

The USSC never so much as mentions polygamy in the Obergefell ruling. You've hallucinated all of that.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

On the contrary, fundamental incompatibility with our marriage law would be a perfectly valid justification for denying polygamy. As our current marriage laws simply cannot answer questions that arise under polygamy.

While with same sex marriage, they can.

And you've already conceded the point.

You're still running.

Says the poor soul that abandoned any mention of the law, conceded my entire argument....and now refuses to discuss either.

You're done, troll.

The law changed dummy.

Look in the mirror Skylar, you're looking at a bigot

 

[Skylar]

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

The USSC never so much as mentions polygamy in the Obergefell ruling. You've hallucinated all of that.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

On the contrary, fundamental incompatibility with our marriage law would be a perfectly valid justification for denying polygamy. As our current marriage laws simply cannot answer questions that arise under polygamy.

While with same sex marriage, they can.

And you've already conceded the point.

You're still running.

Says the poor soul that abandoned any mention of the law, conceded my entire argument....and now refuses to discuss either.

You're done, troll.

The law changed dummy.

Says you. Yet the Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy. You've imagined it.

And your imagination has no relevance to the law. Worse for you, you've already conceded my entire argument. Which is why your posts have degenerated into calling me random names. Rather than trying to shore up your failed claims.

 

[Syriusly]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy will be the next freedom the SCOTUS discovers.

Five years max.

You have every right to pursue polygamous marriage through the courts or through legislation.

I doubt you will succeed, but you have every right to pursue your dream.

 

[Syriusly]

People voted for equal rights for EVERYONE in the constitution, including blacks, women AND gays. The court enforced what was already voted on by the people. If the states don't like the constitution, they shouldn't have ratified it long ago.

Wait, gays are just people doing homosexual acts. ...

So straights are just people doing heterosexuals acts?

If you aren't having sex- you aren't gay or straights?

No- homosexuals are people who are attracted to the same gender. Has nothing to do with whether or not they have sex.

 

[Syriusly]

And the troll won't even discuss the law. How did I know that was coming?

Sorry Pop....but you blinked. The moment you abandoned discussion of the law and doubled down on name calling and strawmen, you lost.

Well, the moment you acknowledged that polygamy would have to go outside of marriage law, you lost. So you abandoning the law would be more frosting. But the point is still sound.

Polygamy is a simple extension of the USSC issuance of a right to marry whomever you love.

The USSC never so much as mentions polygamy in the Obergefell ruling. You've hallucinated all of that.

You run like a child in you're denial of that fact. It does not matter what current law states as the right to marry changed with that ruling.

Deal with facts bigot.

On the contrary, fundamental incompatibility with our marriage law would be a perfectly valid justification for denying polygamy. As our current marriage laws simply cannot answer questions that arise under polygamy.

While with same sex marriage, they can.

And you've already conceded the point.

You're still running.

Says the poor soul that abandoned any mention of the law, conceded my entire argument....and now refuses to discuss either.

You're done, troll.

The law changed dummy.

Look in the mirror Skylar, you're looking at a bigot

What law changed?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 10 years- yet there is still no legal polygamous marriage in Mass.

 

[Syriusly]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Friday had nothing to do with polygamy- never did.

If you don't have an argument against polygamy now- then you didn't have one before Friday- which would be your problem if you are against polygamy. Not Friday's ruling.