Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[Silhouette]

If gay marriage attains federal protection, the federal government will only have arbitrary reasons to deny polygamists the same federal protection, or any other coupling of the imagination between people of any relation as long as they are consenting. The ages of consent will be challenged to all come in line with New Hampshire's age of 13 over the next 20 years. Maybe less.

It's called legal precedent. There can be no denial of any other conceivable combination once the church of LGBT has successfully retooled & muddied the meaning of marriage to mean only "consenting people in love (?)".

 

[JakeStarkey]

redfish, show us where the courts have supported you on that.

I know your opinion, now give us the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The age of consent and polygamy issues are non-starters, Sil: move along if you don't have evidence other than your opinion.

 

[Seawytch]

Quite amusing watching morons trying to justify changing marriage laws for gay "marriage" then turning around and saying "nope can't change laws to make polygamy legal"

Idiots.

That may be your opinion of the discussion, but it is far from the truth.

Is there a difference between two consenting adults and more than two? How is the argument the same?

If you truly believe that gays marrying will "naturally" lead to polygamy becoming legal, it's interracial marriage and the 14th to blame, not gays.

 

[bripat9643]

You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.

Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.

What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.

What are you talking about?

A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.

But it is silly

I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.


>>>>

Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.

Understand also that fertility is only an issue with heterosexual couplings.

WW likes to avoid that little factoid

But here comes the old "some heterosexual couples can't procreate"

As pointed out to him time and time again, they can't because of physical, mental or because of age. All of these are easily classified as disabilities and those couples should be included to keep their civil rights intact. You do NOT lose rights because of disability.

Homosexuals can't make such claims.

Masturbation does not a child make

What are you talking about? Try reading the COTUS, then come back and tell me where the federal government is empowered to define marriage..

How YOU define it is irrelevant. I just put gay "marriage" in quotes and go on. who cares if they think they're married?

If the federal government has no authority to define marriage, then it has no authority to overrule state constitutions that have defined marriage, but that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[bripat9643]

Quite amusing watching morons trying to justify changing marriage laws for gay "marriage" then turning around and saying "nope can't change laws to make polygamy legal"

Idiots.

That may be your opinion of the discussion, but it is far from the truth.

Is there a difference between two consenting adults and more than two? How is the argument the same?

If you truly believe that gays marrying will "naturally" lead to polygamy becoming legal, it's interracial marriage and the 14th to blame, not gays.

There is also a difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples, but the petulant homosexuals insisted the difference was irrelevant. They insisted that the only thing that mattered was whether the participants were "consenting adults." If the members of a polygamous marriage are all consenting, then what's the objecting from the homosexual crowd?

 

[mdk]

It should be legal. If all parties consent to the marriage then why should any of us care?

We should care partly due to what Rikurzhen says below. But also if this is approached from a "rights" perspective what are the tax costs?, if there is a tax benefit to one marriage then shouldn't each multiple partner also get that benefit?, after all it is a "right".......I think the very fact that Hollywood is promoting shows like Sister Wives shows they think gay marriage will lead to a "right" to plural marriages...which shows the limitations to the idea of marriage as a "right".

It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.

It's hard to say how trendy it will become but using the attitudes of today for guidance is simply bad analysis. Mali has widespread polygamy where 40% of all married women are in polygamous marriages.
Why do women consent? That's the key. The choice usually breaks down like this - marry a poor man and have him all to yourself or marry a rich man and share him with other wives. 40% of women seem content with marrying a wealthier man and sharing him rather than marrying a goat herder and having that man all to themselves.

That same dynamic is likely to develop here. Look at how much time and energy women spend watching and reading about rich people, celebrities, gossip and voyeur shows are the bread and butter of media companies today. Women seem to want to escape from the mundane drudgery of existence.

How women has Charlie Sheen had? How many wives? Women keep showing up in that dude's life and not always sequentially.

For those who don't care, you should, because this is society destabliizing. Having hordes of angry young men who can't afford to entice a woman means that they express their anger at society or they just give up on life. Neither is a good outcome and the blowback of social upheaval always hits the rest of us.

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.

 

[Silhouette]

There is also a difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples, but the petulant homosexuals insisted the difference was irrelevant. They insisted that the only thing that mattered was whether the participants were "consenting adults." If the members of a polygamous marriage are all consenting, then what's the objecting from the homosexual crowd?

Bingo.

And BTW, "Sister Wives" [The Brown polygamy group] ARE ALREADY SUING to decriminalize polygamy in Utah and have openly declared they are "waiting in the wings" with their constitutional [and famous] attorney Jonathan Turley hoping gay marriage will get federal protection. Their spoken intent is to immediately launch for polygamy to gain the same protection using the same "consenting adults" argument.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

 

[Seawytch]

Quite amusing watching morons trying to justify changing marriage laws for gay "marriage" then turning around and saying "nope can't change laws to make polygamy legal"

Idiots.

That may be your opinion of the discussion, but it is far from the truth.

Is there a difference between two consenting adults and more than two? How is the argument the same?

If you truly believe that gays marrying will "naturally" lead to polygamy becoming legal, it's interracial marriage and the 14th to blame, not gays.

There is also a difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples, but the petulant homosexuals insisted the difference was irrelevant. They insisted that the only thing that mattered was whether the participants were "consenting adults." If the members of a polygamous marriage are all consenting, then what's the objecting from the homosexual crowd?

Cite these supposed differences between opposite sex and same sex couples in relation to civil marriage. Is there a difference between two and more than two, yes or no?

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Obviously their genders are different. One kind of couple can reproduce. The other can't. The differences are more significant than the differences between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage.

 

[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.

The homos fully realize that if their campaign to legalize "gay marriage" opens the door for polygamy, then they will destroy what they hoped to gain. They wanted gay marriage to legitimize their lifestyle, but all it's going to end up doing is making the institution of marriage a joke that won't confer any kind of moral legitimacy on any relationship.

 

[Jarhead]

Obviously their genders are different. One kind of couple can reproduce. The other can't. The differences are more significant than the differences between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage.

I understand your position....but there are holes in it.
Can two sterile people marry? One sterile and one fertile?
Marriage is not about sex and reproduction. That is biology.
Marriage is about love.

Can I love another man? Not to the point where I would want to marry him. Can I love most women to the point of marry them? No. Truth is, there was only one I was able to find.

You do not need to be part of the gay lifestyle to respect the fact that two human beings love each other so much, they are willing to be made fun of, excluded, pushed aside....all in an effort to express and enjoy their devotion for each other.

Have a heart man. It has absolutely no affect on you whatsoever.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Obviously their genders are different. One kind of couple can reproduce. The other can't. The differences are more significant than the differences between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage.

I understand your position....but there are holes in it.
Can two sterile people marry? One sterile and one fertile?
Marriage is not about sex and reproduction. That is biology.
Marriage is about love.

There has never been any impediment to Steve and Bruce walking together to a beach and at sunset pledging their eternal love to each other and marrying each other and then living together and celebrating their love. That's a marriage about love.

There is absolutely NO BENEFIT to society when two people pledge their love to each other. Normal people or homosexuals. None.

The only benefit to society is when children are born. Society, as an entity onto itself, needs to be self-sustaining. Society doesn't give a flying **** about how happy people are, society cares about continuing on.

Marriage is about raising a family. That existed long before the notion of love being the basis upon which two people join together. Even today we see arranged marriages. There's no love when these marriages begin so by your definition that husband and wife who are trying to have kids and begin a family are not really married.

You do not need to be part of the gay lifestyle to respect the fact that two human beings love each other so much, they are willing to be made fun of, excluded, pushed aside....all in an effort to express and enjoy their devotion for each other.

Have a heart man. It has absolutely no affect on you whatsoever.

Down the block from my home lies a widower and his divorced daughter and her two sons also live there. I've known them for about 5 years and while they're not close friends I can't recall every seeing either of them with what looked like same-age dates. To me it appears that they've settled into a comfortable life raising her sons, his grandsons. She's the "wife" and he's the "husband."

To my mind they deserve to be married more than do Steve an Bruce and the 6 partners they bring into their marital bed every year,.

Why can't a father marry his daughter? Remember, you're claiming that procreation is not a necessary component of marriage.

 

[Jarhead]

Obviously their genders are different. One kind of couple can reproduce. The other can't. The differences are more significant than the differences between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage.

I understand your position....but there are holes in it.
Can two sterile people marry? One sterile and one fertile?
Marriage is not about sex and reproduction. That is biology.
Marriage is about love.

There has never been any impediment to Steve and Bruce walking together to a beach and at sunset pledging their eternal love to each other and marrying each other and then living together and celebrating their love. That's a marriage about love.

There is absolutely NO BENEFIT to society when two people pledge their love to each other. Normal people or homosexuals. None.

The only benefit to society is when children are born. Society, as an entity onto itself, needs to be self-sustaining. Society doesn't give a flying **** about how happy people are, society cares about continuing on.

Marriage is about raising a family. That existed long before the notion of love being the basis upon which two people join together. Even today we see arranged marriages. There's no love when these marriages begin so by your definition that husband and wife who are trying to have kids and begin a family are not really married.

You do not need to be part of the gay lifestyle to respect the fact that two human beings love each other so much, they are willing to be made fun of, excluded, pushed aside....all in an effort to express and enjoy their devotion for each other.

Have a heart man. It has absolutely no affect on you whatsoever.

Down the block from my home lies a widower and his divorced daughter and her two sons also live there. I've known them for about 5 years and while they're not close friends I can't recall every seeing either of them with what looked like same-age dates. To me it appears that they've settled into a comfortable life raising her sons, his grandsons. She's the "wife" and he's the "husband."

To my mind they deserve to be married more than do Steve an Bruce and the 6 partners they bring into their marital bed every year,.

Why can't a father marry his daughter? Remember, you're claiming that procreation is not a necessary component of marriage.

First....I know many gay couples that do not have "6 partners a year" in their bed. I know many straight couples that do.

But putting that stereotype aside, I DO understand and respect your argument as it pertains to the father and daughter. I don't have a response to it for it is a valid argument.

Interesting.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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 the world we see that it's not.

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

 

[Jarhead]

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.

 

[bendog]

Quite amusing watching morons trying to justify changing marriage laws for gay "marriage" then turning around and saying "nope can't change laws to make polygamy legal"

Idiots.

That may be your opinion of the discussion, but it is far from the truth.

Is there a difference between two consenting adults and more than two? How is the argument the same?

If you truly believe that gays marrying will "naturally" lead to polygamy becoming legal, it's interracial marriage and the 14th to blame, not gays.

Exactly. Unless there's a logical and scientifically supportable reason to say polygamy damages either one of the parties or their offspring, who is to say it should be prohibited? Personally, I think that argument can be made. Some local judges, or even state wide judges, in places like Utah may disagree, but that's a fact about a lot of issues.