The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[RetiredGySgt]

That is a very simplistic point of view.

Tell you what, answer this question and I'll reconsider.

What legitimate concerns does society address by banning gay marriage and what legitimate concerns does society address by banning polygamy?

If there are no legitimate reasons to ban gay marriage then exactly what reason is there for denying 3 or 4 people the right to marry each other? I mean if the only criteria, as was stated by gays as consenting adults and love, you haven't a leg to stand on.

No class of persons is adversely effected, no suspect class of persons is being discriminated against, as laws prohibiting plural marriage apply equally to everyone.

That’s not the case with laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as such laws exist only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else. This a state cannot do, ‘a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law. See: Romer v. Evans (1996).

And those seeking to enter into a plural marriage do not constitute a ‘class of persons,’ nor are they a ‘suspect class’ for reasons of judicial review.

And yet it is ILLEGAL in most states for Gays to marry and the Court did not change that.

 

[dilloduck]

polygamy is a choice.

being Gay isn't a choice.

The claim made for legalizing gay marriage was that what consenting adults chose to love each other is no business of anyone else and they should have the right to legalize it. SAME EXACT argument for multiple marriages. By the way Polygamy refers to one husband many wives, I believe the door is open for plural marriages by the very argument that seems to have won it for gays.

polygamy could also be one woman with many husbands.

hell it can be all the same sex now----me and my buddies all wanna get hitched.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Didn't read what Kennedy actually said, did you? It is now illegal to discriminate by hurting people's feelings, want to explain what possible argument the government can use to justify forbidding multiple marriages under those conditions?

 

[Hyrcanus]

The Supreme Court hasnt agreed that an individual has the right to marry someone of the same gender either. So what?

The Supreme Court agreed that recognizing the rights of married straight couples but not married same-sex couples, discriminates against the gay couple.

The Supreme Court has in effect recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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

The issue is that the institution of marriage no longer has a definition. It is what any one believes it is.
You libs have some sort of deviant and deep seated hatred for the distinct American culture and its institutions.
Why this is I have no clue.
Be careful what you wish for.
And when things don't work out as you thought, no complaining allowed.
You created this, you OWN IT.

 

[dilloduck]

That is a very simplistic point of view.

Tell you what, answer this question and I'll reconsider.

What legitimate concerns does society address by banning gay marriage and what legitimate concerns does society address by banning polygamy?

If there are no legitimate reasons to ban gay marriage then exactly what reason is there for denying 3 or 4 people the right to marry each other? I mean if the only criteria, as was stated by gays as consenting adults and love, you haven't a leg to stand on.

No class of persons is adversely effected, no suspect class of persons is being discriminated against, as laws prohibiting plural marriage apply equally to everyone.

That’s not the case with laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as such laws exist only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else. This a state cannot do, ‘a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law. See: Romer v. Evans (1996).

And those seeking to enter into a plural marriage do not constitute a ‘class of persons,’ nor are they a ‘suspect class’ for reasons of judicial review.

Mormans

 

[Avatar4321]

Gay mariage doesnt mean being attracted to people of the same gender either.

I didn't say it did.

You compared polygamy to being gay. A comparison of apples to oranges.

An invalid comparison. Since you were unable to create a legitimate comparison, i extrapolated your intended comparison to show how illogical your position is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If there are no legitimate reasons to ban gay marriage then exactly what reason is there for denying 3 or 4 people the right to marry each other? I mean if the only criteria, as was stated by gays as consenting adults and love, you haven't a leg to stand on.

No class of persons is adversely effected, no suspect class of persons is being discriminated against, as laws prohibiting plural marriage apply equally to everyone.

That’s not the case with laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as such laws exist only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else. This a state cannot do, ‘a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law. See: Romer v. Evans (1996).

And those seeking to enter into a plural marriage do not constitute a ‘class of persons,’ nor are they a ‘suspect class’ for reasons of judicial review.

Mormans

Mormons do not support polygamy and have not since about 1890.

 

[Hyrcanus]

You compared polygamy to being gay....

No, the OP did that.

 

[Avatar4321]

polygamy could also be one woman with many husbands.

The Bible allows polygamy.

And yet Christian Conservatives are against it.

How odd.

God also commanded people in the Bible to build an ark to avoid a flood. He also commanded the Israelites to follow the Law of Moses at one time. Both commands are no longer necessary.

God commands and revokes commands at His pleasure. If He desires a people to raise up a righteous seed to Him, He may command polygamy. Unless He explicitly commands it, we are are to hold to the standard of monogamy.

Doesn't change the fact that of the two, Polygamy is far more natural than gay marriage. One has existed for thousands of years. The other for less than 20.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Supreme Court hasnt agreed that an individual has the right to marry someone of the same gender either. So what?

The Supreme Court agreed that recognizing the rights of married straight couples but not married same-sex couples, discriminates against the gay couple.

The Supreme Court has in effect recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Which is why we still have pro traditional marriage laws on the books in a Super Majority of the States.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Which is why we still have pro traditional marriage laws on the books in a Super Majority of the States.

That will change over time as more people lighten up.

 

[Avatar4321]

If there are no legitimate reasons to ban gay marriage then exactly what reason is there for denying 3 or 4 people the right to marry each other? I mean if the only criteria, as was stated by gays as consenting adults and love, you haven't a leg to stand on.

No class of persons is adversely effected, no suspect class of persons is being discriminated against, as laws prohibiting plural marriage apply equally to everyone.

That’s not the case with laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as such laws exist only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else. This a state cannot do, ‘a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law. See: Romer v. Evans (1996).

And those seeking to enter into a plural marriage do not constitute a ‘class of persons,’ nor are they a ‘suspect class’ for reasons of judicial review.

Mormans

Won't work. Mormons don't practice plural marriage anymore. Those that do are either no longer mormon or never were.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why? Same sex monogamy is less comparable to traditional polygamy than is heterosexual monogamy.

If one man one woman doesn't create a slippery slope to one man 2 women,

why would one man one man create a slippery slope to one man 2 women???

 

[Avatar4321]

Which is why we still have pro traditional marriage laws on the books in a Super Majority of the States.

That will change over time as more people lighten up.

I was unaware that having a Court strike down the laws made by the people is a sign of the people who have lightened up.

The fact is the will of the people does not support gay marriage. Hopefully, it never will.

 

[AmazonTania]

polygamy could also be one woman with many husbands.

The Bible allows polygamy.

And yet Christian Conservatives are against it.

How odd.

Polygamy is a normal culture in Africa.

And yet Liberal Democrats are against it.

Racist...

 

[Papageorgio]

The Supreme Court hasnt agreed that an individual has the right to marry someone of the same gender either. So what?

The Supreme Court agreed that recognizing the rights of married straight couples but not married same-sex couples, discriminates against the gay couple.

The Supreme Court has in effect recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

And a brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and sister and then throw in some fathers and mothers an it should also be recognized, otherwise it is discrimination.

 

[dilloduck]

The Supreme Court hasnt agreed that an individual has the right to marry someone of the same gender either. So what?

The Supreme Court agreed that recognizing the rights of married straight couples but not married same-sex couples, discriminates against the gay couple.

The Supreme Court has in effect recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

And a brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and sister and then throw in some fathers and mothers an it should also be recognized, otherwise it is discrimination.

the flood gates are open. It's discrimination against every "single" person in America.

 

[Hyrcanus]

And a brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and sister and then throw in some fathers and mothers an it should also be recognized, otherwise it is discrimination.

Lions and tiggers, and bears....oh my!!!!


cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria!!!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

If we are to believe same sex marriage is natural because so called gays cannot choose who they are attracted to, then we must also conclude that polygamy is natural because men cannot choose to be attracted to only woman.

The argument for both same sex marriage and polygamy similiar. Problem is just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right or lawful.

It's natural to lie. It's natural to be violent. It's natural to be bigotted. It's natural to be greedy. It's natural to be angry.

And yet we have laws outlawing behavior that results from these natural human responses. Why is that? Could it be that as human beings we have the capability to overcome our natural selves and be a civilized people?

Christianity teaches that we do have the ability to overcome our natural selves and be born again through the atonement of Christ. It's not surprising that those who dont believe in Christ do not believe this. But civilization exists solely based on the assumption that we can be more than we are naturally inclined to be.

When we fail to learn self government and do not overcome our natural selves, it leads to barbarism and a fundamental breakdown of society. That breakdown is inevitable unless we change our ways and learn self governance.