The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[nodoginnafight]

the simple fact of the matter is that there is no good reason why polygamy shouldnt be treated the same as homosexuality before the law (assuming always we are talking about the choices of consenting adults). None whatsoever. There should be no more restriction on the ability of adults to marry as many people as they want as there should be on gays. Simple as that.

There are several legitimate concerns for society if polygamy is allowed that are not present in allowing gay marriage.

For example: If a husband is incapable of articulating healthcare decisions, which wife makes the call? Can insurance companies or the IRS be forced to extend spousal benefits to an infinite number of beneficiaries? Who holds the primary position for the purposes of probate?

Marriage contracts create order in these legal issues. Polygamy creates chaos for them.

That's a few distictions that would need to be reconciled.

Children deal in simplistic absolutes. Most adults deal with real-world applications.

 

[auditor0007]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

The main reason I don't see that happening is that nobody is allowed that right. With anti-gay marriage laws, we were denying a specific group of people from having the right to marry. Since nobody is permitted to be married to more than one person at a time, nobody is being deprived of a right that others have.

 

[Katzndogz]

the simple fact of the matter is that there is no good reason why polygamy shouldnt be treated the same as homosexuality before the law (assuming always we are talking about the choices of consenting adults). None whatsoever. There should be no more restriction on the ability of adults to marry as many people as they want as there should be on gays. Simple as that.

It shouldn't stop with simply polygamy. Why not have both several husbands and several wives? With same sex marriage and polygamy, a family can bring in a husband or husbands (of both husband and wife) as well as a new wife or wives (of both husband and wife).

Actually, that was a goal explained to me at an ACLU meeting in 1982. It's why I quit the ACLU. They were looking at families of 20 or more husbands and wives. We used to call such "families" a cult. They will be just the folks next door.

 

[bodecea]

the simple fact of the matter is that there is no good reason why polygamy shouldnt be treated the same as homosexuality before the law (assuming always we are talking about the choices of consenting adults). None whatsoever. There should be no more restriction on the ability of adults to marry as many people as they want as there should be on gays. Simple as that.

It shouldn't stop with simply polygamy. Why not have both several husbands and several wives? With same sex marriage and polygamy, a family can bring in a husband or husbands (of both husband and wife) as well as a new wife or wives (of both husband and wife).

Actually, that was a goal explained to me at an ACLU meeting in 1982. It's why I quit the ACLU. They were looking at families of 20 or more husbands and wives. We used to call such "families" a cult. They will be just the folks next door.

Let your Imagination run wild!

 

[Nosmo King]

I never understood the now fading and soon disappearing Social Conservative attitude against marriage equality. If indeed the social conservative sees marriage as a beneficial and stabilizing institution, shouldn't marriage be made available to further benefit and stabilize society? Shouldn't it make sense then that social conservatives would embrace marriage equality?

Or is it merely fear, hatred, misunderstanding and old warped conceptions? And do those make a basis for denying rights? They never have worked toward that end before. In fact the more equally we treat one another, the better society is for it.

 

[Pheonixops]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

I would think that separate pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements could solve that problem.

 

[bendog]

I never understood the now fading and soon disappearing Social Conservative attitude against marriage equality. If indeed the social conservative sees marriage as a beneficial and stabilizing institution, shouldn't marriage be made available to further benefit and stabilize society? Shouldn't it make sense then that social conservatives would embrace marriage equality?

Or is it merely fear, hatred, misunderstanding and old warped conceptions? And do those make a basis for denying rights? They never have worked toward that end before. In fact the more equally we treat one another, the better society is for it.

it's the ick factor. Personally, i've never felt an ick factor with girl on girl, and actually find it fascinating. But the guy stuff ...... ick. (-:

 

[High_Gravity]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

If I want to marry my 2 girlfriends, whats the problem? they have polygamy in Muslim countries, just follow their system with that and be done with it.

 

[chikenwing]

Let us know when a SOLID legal reason can be presented for polygamy. Ok?

What??

how about the the ruling handed down yesterday??

That ruling had nothing to do with polygamy.

Not that day,but it will

 

[Katzndogz]

What??

how about the the ruling handed down yesterday??

That ruling had nothing to do with polygamy.

Not that day,but it will

In less than a year.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

If I want to marry my 2 girlfriends, whats the problem? they have polygamy in Muslim countries, just follow their system with that and be done with it.

and you can stone them if they "start without you"

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Polygamy actually had a historical point to make and was necessary. That's why ancient cultures had polygamy but not polyandry.

Seeing that polygamy is normal in a "state of nature," as you only need one dominant, powerful male to reproduce with countless women, it's strange that we would allow "gay marriage" before we allowed polygamy, unless we dig deep into the minds of the eugenicists.

Gays can't reproduce unless they have sex with a female. Gaydom only occurs as a unfortunate series of genetic defects (at birth). By the standards of evolution, according to Darwin, Gays should fail to reproduce significantly with females in order to plague the future of mankind with gaydom, thus "survival of the fittest" kicks in quite well.

So, we don't have a "gay problem" because the numbers of gays have been the same as they've always been (even if they are more open today) and they'll never increase proportionally because they won't reproduce.

In fact, gay marriage is a good way to make gays come out into the open, and only copulate with each other, further reducing the risk of them living in the closet and marrying a woman and spreading their genetic variant of gaydom.

Thus, gay marriage is actually the fastest solution to culling the gay bloodlines. Damn, those White Democrat Eugenicist baby-killers (50% black infants are aborted) are very good at committing peaceful genocides by making certain cultures, identities and races kill themselves!

Now we have solved the mystery of why gays are being allowed to marry and not polygamists!

One misconception about the human genome is the “cookie-cutter” version, the fallacy that one gene controls one aspect behavior or physical feature of the body. Unfortunately, biology is an accumulation of small changes in the genome, acting randomly, causing a vast array of effects. Most aspects that make us “us” are in fact controlled by tons of genes acting together, much more like an extremely large orchestra, where a flute player might be holding up their partner’s trombone with his feet and a saxophone musician might have his hand on the clarinet in front of him (while playing his own instrument of course). It would simply be the most impressive orchestra you’ve ever seen.

The point being is that sexuality is extremely complex and the idea of discovering a single gene that controls it is highly unlikely to happen. The reality will likely be painted in shades of gray for individuals, where-by each person experiences degrees of homosexuality.

And once all those gays become married, the government will have a nice list (registration) of most gays, then some modern Nazi will use that list and exterminate what remains of them!

 

[Katzndogz]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

If I want to marry my 2 girlfriends, whats the problem? they have polygamy in Muslim countries, just follow their system with that and be done with it.

Every culture that has a high female mortality rate has polygamy. That's why so many ancient cultures had polygamy. When women die young, more wives are needed.

 

[rdean]

The stuff these white wingers come up with. Can you imagine how well they would do if they put their tiny minds to work at some worthwhile pursuits?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

No it won't.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

I would think that separate pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements could solve that problem.

There are several legitimate concerns for society if polygamy is allowed that are not present in allowing gay marriage.

For example: If a husband is incapable of articulating healthcare decisions, which wife makes the call? Can insurance companies or the IRS be forced to extend spousal benefits to an infinite number of beneficiaries? Who holds the primary position for the purposes of probate?

Marriage contracts create order in these legal issues. Polygamy creates chaos for them.

That's a few distictions that would need to be reconciled.

And yes, pre-nups could address some of these issues. But even a pre-nup contract may not be enforceable in the areas of social security survivor benefits, tax filings, insurance beneficiaries, etc...

Marriage used to be the domain of the church - but the legal benefits granted by governments have forced it out of the doimain of the church and into the realm of government.

That's why I still believe that the doctrine of separation of church and state protects the church as much or more than it protects the state.

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

If I want to marry my 2 girlfriends, whats the problem? they have polygamy in Muslim countries, just follow their system with that and be done with it.

and you can stone them if they "start without you"

I'm not advocating Sharia but if I have 2 girls I want to marry, why not? who am I hurting?

 

[chikenwing]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

No it won't.

why?

What will be said when the first law suit is filed,and there will be,will you say its not their right to marry who they want to?

 

[chikenwing]

If I want to marry my 2 girlfriends, whats the problem? they have polygamy in Muslim countries, just follow their system with that and be done with it.

and you can stone them if they "start without you"

I'm not advocating Sharia but if I have 2 girls I want to marry, why not? who am I hurting?

No one ,its the same argument used by gays.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

If I want to marry my 2 girlfriends, whats the problem? they have polygamy in Muslim countries, just follow their system with that and be done with it.

Every culture that has a high female mortality rate has polygamy. That's why so many ancient cultures had polygamy. When women die young, more wives are needed.

I've never seen a society that has a higher mortality rate for women. I would think the opposite would be true. When men die young, there are more women than men and in order to provide support for all those extra women, they allow men to marry more than one.