Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[my2¢]

Yes well there is a "conspiracy" in the form of a concerted effort to shut down these people who would make themselves kings over this minority group. This group of homophobes used to be a majority group.. and is now finding themselves in the minority. Their complaint is equivalent to a robber complaining that we won't let him continue robbing people. Yes it is that dumb. They think stopping them from harming gays is a harm on them. It's as if we're supposed to believe they get some sort of gratification from harming gays... and if we stop them they will loose their fix hmmm

Homophobes in the majority? The only possible way I can see that as possible is if you take a very broad definition of "kings" to include anybody holding a traditional view of marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well... Since there is literally no such thing as a homophobe... It's unlikely that such could become a majority of anything.

 

[Skylar]

Well... Since there is literally no such thing as a homophobe... It's unlikely that such could become a majority of anything.

The dictionary says otherwise. And we've played this game, where you start making up imaginary 'root meanings' of words, trying to convince us that homo actually means 'self', pulled sideways out of your ass. All while you ignore the dictionary.

While undoubtedly you consider whatever batshit you imagine to be irrefutable truth....outside the confines of your own skull, you citing yourself means very close to jack shit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well... Since there is literally no such thing as a homophobe... It's unlikely that such could become a majority of anything.

The dictionary says otherwise. And we've played this game, where you start making up imaginary 'root meanings' of words, trying to convince us that homo actually means 'self', pulled sideways out of your ass. All while you ignore the dictionary.

While undoubtedly you consider whatever batshit you imagine to be irrefutable truth....outside the confines of your own skull, you citing yourself means very close to jack shit.

The Dictionary cites a colloquial expression; a point to which such has already been stipulated; along with the explanation for the existence of the colloquialism, which is that such is an illicit instrument; in the form of a rhetorical bludgeon designed to cow contests of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You're invited to show an etymological reference wherein there exists foundational evidence demonstrating the literal existence of an irrational 'fear of same'.

Where you fail to show such; which is an axiomatic certainty as such does not exist... you must inevitably concede the point.

And rest assured that after a reasonable period of time I will duly note your concession and summarily accept such, on behalf of the board.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Where you fail to show such; which is an axiomatic certainty as such does not exist... you must inevitably concede the point.

One doth not invoke axiopisty within stead of a Marxist.

 

[Skylar]

Well... Since there is literally no such thing as a homophobe... It's unlikely that such could become a majority of anything.

The dictionary says otherwise. And we've played this game, where you start making up imaginary 'root meanings' of words, trying to convince us that homo actually means 'self', pulled sideways out of your ass. All while you ignore the dictionary.

While undoubtedly you consider whatever batshit you imagine to be irrefutable truth....outside the confines of your own skull, you citing yourself means very close to jack shit.

The Dictionary cites a colloquial expression; a point to which such has already been stipulated; along with the explanation for the existence of the colloquialism, which is that such is an illicit instrument; in the form of a rhetorical bludgeon designed to cow contests of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

'Colloquial' is merely common parlance. Calling a word 'colloquial' doesn't change its existence nor application. Which is your contention. You're simply ignoring the dictionary on the meaning of words and replacing it with whatever relativistic definition you wish to invent. Just like you do every other topic.

Which demonstrates my point for me on how objectively worthless you citing yourself actually is.

You're invited to show an etymological reference wherein there exists foundational evidence demonstrating the literal existence of an irrational 'fear of same'.

Says you making up your own definition and ignoring the dictionary. Once again you're offering us the subjective (your made up definition) and insisting that whatever you imagine is more authoritative than the objective (the dictionary). You're simply the most relativistic poster on this board.

And of course, your 'etymological reference ' changes, as pure relativism is wot to do. Remember this gem?

Oh! LOOK KIDS! A dictionary accepted their colloquial pretense ... why, its as if that changes something.

Homo- Self.

Phobia: Irrational fear.

Homo-phobia: An irrational Fear of Self.

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA Page 220 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And of course you citing you was wrong, wasn't it? But this time, my little relativist......you making up the meaning of words and ignoring the dictionary words is authoritative?

Um, no. You citing you is objectively meaningless. On this and every other topic.

Thank you for again demonstrating my point.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes well there is a "conspiracy" in the form of a concerted effort to shut down these people who would make themselves kings over this minority group. This group of homophobes used to be a majority group.. and is now finding themselves in the minority. Their complaint is equivalent to a robber complaining that we won't let him continue robbing people. Yes it is that dumb. They think stopping them from harming gays is a harm on them. It's as if we're supposed to believe they get some sort of gratification from harming gays... and if we stop them they will loose their fix hmmm

Homophobes in the majority? The only possible way I can see that as possible is if you take a very broad definition of "kings" to include anybody holding a traditional view of marriage.

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

 

[my2¢]

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

Not on our system of law. US Jurisprudence has no precedent for it. And can't answer any of those questions. It can answer them for 2 person marriage.

I'm not saying that we couldn't develop precedent for plural marriage. But it would be a long, complicated process that would likely take decades. And if you're looking for a reason why we wouldn't have plural marriage, the fundamental incompatibility with our legal system would be more than adequate justification.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, the people with the traditional view of marriage that used to ... have laws that made it illegal to be gay at all let alone legal to be gay and married.

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

Not on our system of law. US Jurisprudence has no precedent for it. And can't answer any of those questions. It can answer them for 2 person marriage.

I'm not saying that we couldn't develop precedent for plural marriage. But it would be a long, complicated process that would likely take decades. And if you're looking for a reason why we wouldn't have plural marriage, the fundamental incompatibility with our legal system would be more than adequate justification.

We have tons of precedent for contract law. What works for two people works the same way for three, four, five etc..

 

[Skylar]

I'm all for treating them the same as bigamist.

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

Not on our system of law. US Jurisprudence has no precedent for it. And can't answer any of those questions. It can answer them for 2 person marriage.

I'm not saying that we couldn't develop precedent for plural marriage. But it would be a long, complicated process that would likely take decades. And if you're looking for a reason why we wouldn't have plural marriage, the fundamental incompatibility with our legal system would be more than adequate justification.

We have tons of precedent for contract law. What works for two people works the same way for three, four, five etc..

We have zero for plural marriage. And if it worked the same way, then feel free to answer all the questions I asked you:

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

You can't. As there's simply no precedent in US marriage law.

 

[RKMBrown]

Me too... I don't see why we don't allow plural marriages either. It's none of our business.

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

Not on our system of law. US Jurisprudence has no precedent for it. And can't answer any of those questions. It can answer them for 2 person marriage.

I'm not saying that we couldn't develop precedent for plural marriage. But it would be a long, complicated process that would likely take decades. And if you're looking for a reason why we wouldn't have plural marriage, the fundamental incompatibility with our legal system would be more than adequate justification.

We have tons of precedent for contract law. What works for two people works the same way for three, four, five etc..

We have zero for plural marriage. And if it worked the same way, then feel free to answer all the questions I asked you:

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

You can't. As there's simply no precedent in US marriage law.

>>> So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other

Yes a plural marriage would be a plural marriage.


>>> If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve

No, not unless they want the entire union to dissolve. All Plural contracts have ways for any number of the parties to leave the contract.

>>> Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage

That would work the same way it works today.

>>> Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it?

That would work the same way it does today. See situations where there are 3 parents involved when there has been a divorce and a new marriage.

>>> Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another?

Why not? You can do that today.

>>> If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree?

The same as it's done today, pick someone, write it down.

>>> Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Of course there would be.. the same as today, though probably divided by the count.

I think you are overthinking it.

 

[Skylar]

Our system of laws isn't set up for it. In a 2 person marriage, both parties enter and exit the union at the exact same time. In a 3 or more person union that's not always the case. Historically, its almost never the case.

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Our legal system has no precedent for any of this. Our system of law is fundamentally incompatible with polygamy. And the issues only get exponentially more complicated as the number of participants increase.

Where with same sex marriage, you just apply all the same rules you do for hetero marriage And you're done.

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

Not on our system of law. US Jurisprudence has no precedent for it. And can't answer any of those questions. It can answer them for 2 person marriage.

I'm not saying that we couldn't develop precedent for plural marriage. But it would be a long, complicated process that would likely take decades. And if you're looking for a reason why we wouldn't have plural marriage, the fundamental incompatibility with our legal system would be more than adequate justification.

We have tons of precedent for contract law. What works for two people works the same way for three, four, five etc..

We have zero for plural marriage. And if it worked the same way, then feel free to answer all the questions I asked you:

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

You can't. As there's simply no precedent in US marriage law.

>>> So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other

Yes a plural marriage would be a plural marriage.

Says who? Would that mean that if two straight women married one straight man....that the straight would women would be expected to sleep with each other?

>>> If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve

No, not unless they want the entire union to dissolve. All Plural contracts have ways for any number of the parties to leave the contract.

Says who? The law certainly doesn't.. See, this is the problem. Marriage laws aren't personally decided. If you're getting divorced for example, the process and conditions of divorce aren't yours to set. You can choose to enter them, choose to become legally separated, choose to divorce. But you can't create your own steps that have any legal authority.

Marriage is a contract that involves the folks getting married and the society within which it occurs. And barring a violation of rights, society gets a say. This is not like any other contract. And society has no rules for when a divorce occurs....but doesn't. Where one person leaves the marriage....but another is still married.

There's no precedent, no procedures, no legal answers to those questions. Oh, you can type your answer. But its not legally authoritative. You can't cite any law regarding marriage where one person leaves the marriage but the other is STILL married within that union. It doesn't exist.

Which is exactly my point. There is no answer in the law for any of these questions.

>>> Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage.

That would work the same way it works today.

The way it works today is every participant in a marriage is always in it for the same amount of time. But that's not the case in plural marriage. You can have one person who was in it for 10 years and another for 10 months.

And we have no law to cover divorces when participants have been in the marriage for different amounts of time. As it never occurs in 2 person marriage.

So the 'same way it works today' wouldn't apply. As there is no instance of people being in the same marriage for different amounts of time. There's no precedent for it. There is no legal answer.

>>> Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it?

That would work the same way it does today. See wheresituations there are 3 parents involved when there has been a divorce and a new marriage.

There is no obligation for the new marriage partner to support the any child from a previous marriage. Support requirements remain with the biological parents.

So......biological parents and 'plural' parents would have different rights and obligations? That doesn't sound right. As any child born into a 2 person marriage, even if one isn't the biological parent, is equal.

>>> Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another?

Why not? You can do that today.

No, you can't. You can't divorce one person while remaining married to another. That's called bigamy and its a crime. There is no precedent in US law for a marriage and a 'kinda' divorce, where you get divorced but are STILL married.

Zero. Nada. Zilch. It simply can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have law to cover it when it does under plural marriage.

>>> If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree?

The same as it's done today, pick someone, write it down.

That's not it works today. A spouse automatically has say over medical decision unless there is some directive otherwise. There could be nothing inherent in your plural system in terms of medical decisions. It would have to be an arrangement outside the marriage.

As we have no precedent for dealing with competing spouses within one. None.

>>> Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Of course there would be.. the same as today, though probably divided by the count.

That isn't the same as today. As there's one and only one survivor today. Now you're potentially dozens. All different ages. And Social security having to continuing paying until the youngest one dies. And would it be divided based on how long they were in the marriage, how many participants there are, how young they are?

We have no precedent for it. You can arbitrarily declare what YOU would do. But our law no answers. Making your solutions legally meaningless.

I think you are overthinking it.

I'm simply pointing out that there's no legal source to cite on any of this. There's no law on any of this. As we have no instances of a marriage occurring where the participants can in it for different periods of time. All marriage begins and ends for all participants at the exact same time.

 

[RKMBrown]

Believe it or not we've had plural contracts of three or more people for hundreds of years.

Not on our system of law. US Jurisprudence has no precedent for it. And can't answer any of those questions. It can answer them for 2 person marriage.

I'm not saying that we couldn't develop precedent for plural marriage. But it would be a long, complicated process that would likely take decades. And if you're looking for a reason why we wouldn't have plural marriage, the fundamental incompatibility with our legal system would be more than adequate justification.

We have tons of precedent for contract law. What works for two people works the same way for three, four, five etc..

We have zero for plural marriage. And if it worked the same way, then feel free to answer all the questions I asked you:

So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other...or merely married to the same person in the union? If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve, or are the remaining participants still married? Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage....or a division based on the number of people in the union. Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it? Or is it only the biological parents? Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another? If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree? Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

You can't. As there's simply no precedent in US marriage law.

>>> So if 3 people get married, are they married to each other

Yes a plural marriage would be a plural marriage.

Says who? Would that mean that if two straight women married one straight man....that the straight would women would be expected to sleep with each other?

>>> If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve

No, not unless they want the entire union to dissolve. All Plural contracts have ways for any number of the parties to leave the contract.

Says who? The law certainly doesn't.. See, this is the problem. Marriage laws aren't personally decided. If you're getting divorced for example, the process and conditions of divorce aren't yours to set. You can choose to enter them, choose to become legally separated, choose to divorce. But you can't create your own steps that have any legal authority.

Marriage is a contract that involves the folks getting married and the society within which it occurs. And barring a violation of rights, society gets a say. This is not like any other contract. And society has no rules for when a divorce occurs....but doesn't. Where one person leaves the marriage....but another is still married.

There's no precedent, no procedures, no legal answers to those questions. Oh, you can type your answer. But its not legally authoritative. You can't cite any law regarding marriage where one person leaves the marriage but the other is STILL married within that union. It doesn't exist.

Which is exactly my point. There is no answer in the law for any of these questions.

>>> Do they get spousal support and property based on how long they were in the marriage.

That would work the same way it works today.

The way it works today is every participant in a marriage is always in it for the same amount of time. But that's not the case in plural marriage. You can have one person who was in it for 10 years and another for 10 months.

And we have no law to cover divorces when participants have been in the marriage for different amounts of time. As it never occurs in 2 person marriage.

So the 'same way it works today' wouldn't apply. As there is no instance of people being in the same marriage for different amounts of time. There's no precedent for it. There is no legal answer.

>>> Are all people in a union the parents of every child born within it?

That would work the same way it does today. See wheresituations there are 3 parents involved when there has been a divorce and a new marriage.

There is no obligation for the new marriage partner to support the any child from a previous marriage. Support requirements remain with the biological parents.

So......biological parents and 'plural' parents would have different rights and obligations? That doesn't sound right. As any child born into a 2 person marriage, even if one isn't the biological parent, is equal.

>>> Can a person divorce one member but remained married to another?

Why not? You can do that today.

No, you can't. You can't divorce one person while remaining married to another. That's called bigamy and its a crime. There is no precedent in US law for a marriage and a 'kinda' divorce, where you get divorced but are STILL married.

Zero. Nada. Zilch. It simply can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have law to cover it when it does under plural marriage.

>>> If there are 3 people and one gets sick.....who gets to make the health decisions if the 2 remaining participants disagree?

The same as it's done today, pick someone, write it down.

That's not it works today. A spouse automatically has say over medical decision unless there is some directive otherwise. There could be nothing inherent in your plural system in terms of medical decisions. It would have to be an arrangement outside the marriage.

As we have no precedent for dealing with competing spouses within one. None.

>>> Are there SS survivor benefits for every surviving member of plural marriage? Or just one?

Of course there would be.. the same as today, though probably divided by the count.

That isn't the same as today. As there's one and only one survivor today. Now you're potentially dozens. All different ages. And Social security having to continuing paying until the youngest one dies. And would it be divided based on how long they were in the marriage, how many participants there are, how young they are?

We have no precedent for it. You can arbitrarily declare what YOU would do. But our law no answers. Making your solutions legally meaningless.

I think you are overthinking it.

I'm simply pointing out that there's no legal source to cite on any of this. There's no law on any of this. As we have no instances of a marriage occurring where the participants can in it for different periods of time. All marriage begins and ends for all participants at the exact same time.

I said a plural marriage would be a plural marriage.
You said...
>> Says who?

Uhmm... that's how all plural contracts work.

>> Would that mean that if two straight women married one straight man....that the straight would women would be expected to sleep with each other?

No, there is no forcing of sexual relations in marriage contract.

You asked...
>>> If one wants to leave the union, does the entire union dissolve

I said no, not unless they want the entire union to dissolve. All Plural contracts have ways for any number of the parties to leave the contract.

You said...
>> Says who?
Uhmm... that's how all plural contracts work.

You said...

The law certainly doesn't.. See, this is the problem. Marriage laws aren't personally decided. If you're getting divorced for example, the process and conditions of divorce aren't yours to set. You can choose to enter them, choose to become legally separated, choose to divorce. But you can't create your own steps that have any legal authority.

Marriage is a contract that involves the folks getting married and the society within which it occurs. And barring a violation of rights, society gets a say. This is not like any other contract. And society has no rules for when a divorce occurs....but doesn't. Where one person leaves the marriage....but another is still married.

There's no precedent, no procedures, no legal answers to those questions. Oh, you can type your answer. But its not legally authoritative. You can't cite any law regarding marriage where one person leaves the marriage but the other is STILL married within that union. It doesn't exist.

Which is exactly my point. There is no answer in the law for any of these questions.

Incorrect.. plural contracts already exist. You can enter them now. Marriage is not required for a plural contract. Adding the label "marriage" to a plural contract does not have to change contract law. It will just add another type of marriage. Stating that there is no precedent for plural contracts because plural marriage is against the law.. is an incorrect statement. Plural marriage is against the law not plural contracts. Thus our liberty to enter into a plural marriage has been taken away from us by the law, again that does not mean we can't enter into a plural contract today, many people already do.

You said...
"The way it works today is every participant in a marriage is always in it for the same amount of time. But that's not the case in plural marriage. You can have one person who was in it for 10 years and another for 10 months. And we have no law to cover divorces when participants have been in the marriage for different amounts of time. As it never occurs in 2 person marriage. So the 'same way it works today' wouldn't apply. As there is no instance of people being in the same marriage for different amounts of time. There's no precedent for it. There is no legal answer."

Make up your mind you state that's not the case in plural marriage... What legal precedent are you citing to that shows it is not the case in plural marriage that a divorce would work the same way as it does today? I say it will work the same. You say it does not work the same. You are apparently not able to divide by larger fractions than 1/2. Not sure why you think 1/3 is impossible. Again we already have plural contracts, we already have instances where one of the plural leaves. It is a common thing. Just because you are not familiar with contract law does not mean contract law does not exist.

You state...
"You can't divorce one person while remaining married to another. That's called bigamy and its a crime. There is no precedent in US law for a marriage and a 'kinda' divorce, where you get divorced but are STILL married."

Bigamy is illegal, but happens. It's not illegal to finalize a divorce when you are married to two people. You are being ridiculous. Of course it's legal to get a divorce to become legal to make the one pairing the legal marriage. Again, you are trying to use the fact that plural marriages are illegal to prove that plural marriages would not work... it's a silly circular argument. It's equivalent to plural marriages won't work because I say so.

You asked who decides health matters... I answered the same as it's done today, you write someone's name down.
You followed with ...

"That's not it works today. A spouse automatically has say over medical decision unless there is some directive otherwise. There could be nothing inherent in your plural system in terms of medical decisions. It would have to be an arrangement outside the marriage."

Incorrect, we already have situations today where there are a plural number of people who could make health care decisions and to resolve said issue we write down the name of the person who we want to make said decisions. Again, this is not rocket science... writing down a name as the person who will make said decisions is really easy and done all the time. Again, you are trying to use a circular argument that plural marriages are illegal so this is a problem to prove that writing down a name today in a plural marriage can't work... uhmm... try again.


You pretty much stated that you can't handle the concept of fractions with regard to SS survivor benefits. Uhm... fractions are not that hard, do you need a link?


>>> I'm simply pointing out that there's no legal source to cite on any of this. There's no law on any of this. As we have no instances of a marriage occurring where the participants can in it for different periods of time. All marriage begins and ends for all participants at the exact same time.

So what? All new contracts begin and end for all participants at the signing of the contract. There's no reason to believe a plural marriage contract would be any different. Again, you are making circular arguments that there is no way to make a plural marriage work because plural marriages are illegal. Really this is pretty simple stuff. Plural contracts are not new. Again, you are over thinking it.

 

[quorthon]

Plural contracts are not new.

It's clear. You see, the time of legalizing polygamy hasn't come yet, but I think it's just around the corner.

 

[RKMBrown]

Plural contracts are not new.

It's clear. You see, the time of legalizing polygamy hasn't come yet, but I think it's just around the corner.

Ayup.. just a matter of time.. As long as the folks are consenting adults... I don't see why it is illegal today. The attack on polygamy seems like just another religious crusade.

 

[quorthon]

Ayup.. just a matter of time.. As long as the folks are consenting adults... I don't see why it is illegal today. The attack on polygamy seems like just another religious crusade.

We have too many values that are still important for the society, actually it's traditional marriage, and it would become widely unpopular if legalize polygamy today. Conservative's nightmare