Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.

The bolded do not apply.

They are also not equal to homosexuality.

Why do they not? Be specific.

 

[Wake]

Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.

The bolded do not apply.

They are also not equal to homosexuality.

Why do they not? Be specific.

Like I said earlier, homosexuality involves two consenting adults that aren't hurting each. They're also involved in disgusting behavior, but that's alright in America, because America is free and America is not only for Christians.

Pedophilia involves children. Children are minors, and minors aren't competent to think for themselves. Bestiality involves no consent. And silicon dolls involve no consent either.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

Feel free to prove your suspicion. Be specific.

And 'deviance as part of natural human programming". Gee....that sounds awfully familar from a new poster. Almost exactly the words of an old poster.

I've been posting here and elsewhere since 1997. Hardly a "new poster".

"Deviance as normal" is a fairly new and heavily promoted means to justify any type of behavior. Do you think that the ones waiting in the wings have not been observing the success of the initial group to use the angle?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The bolded do not apply.

They are also not equal to homosexuality.

Why do they not? Be specific.

Like I said earlier, homosexuality involves two consenting adults that aren't hurting each. They're also involved in disgusting behavior, but that's alright in America, because America is free and America is not only for Christians.

Pedophilia involves children. Children are minors, and minors aren't competent to think for themselves. Bestiality involves no consent. And silicon dolls involve no consent either.

This is all true, but things change as we have seen. There have been societies tolerant - even encouraging - of pedophilia throughout history.

Bestiality is a crime. Those so indulging will bring a case eventually.

Silicon dolls was meant as comic relief, but you can bet someone will bring up something eventually.

BTW/FYI: I am not religious.

 

[Wake]

Why do they not? Be specific.

Like I said earlier, homosexuality involves two consenting adults that aren't hurting each. They're also involved in disgusting behavior, but that's alright in America, because America is free and America is not only for Christians.

Pedophilia involves children. Children are minors, and minors aren't competent to think for themselves. Bestiality involves no consent. And silicon dolls involve no consent either.

This is all true, but things change as we have seen. There have been societies tolerant - even encouraging - of pedophilia throughout history.

Bestiality is a crime. Those so indulging will bring a case eventually.

Silicon dolls was meant as comic relief, but you can bet someone will bring up something eventually.

BTW/FYI: I am not religious.

I'm not religious either, and have no problem mocking both gay-advocatism and religion.

 

[Skylar]

I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

Feel free to prove your suspicion. Be specific.

You're predicting future outcomes based on nothing but baseless speculation. Specifically, this:

'Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.'

You can't back any of that up. You're offering your imagination as your argument.

Why would we accept your imagination as anything than more than baseless speculation? Be specific.

And 'deviance as part of natural human programming". Gee....that sounds awfully familar from a new poster. Almost exactly the words of an old poster.

I've been posting here and elsewhere since 1997. Hardly a "new poster".
[/quote]

Your current handle has only been around since 2013. And has less than 500 posts. So you clearly have multiple sock puppets. With the 'deviance as part of natural human programming' sounding very familiar.

"Deviance as normal" is a fairly new and heavily promoted means to justify any type of behavior. Do you think that the ones waiting in the wings have not been observing the success of the initial group to use the angle?

Who says that homosexuality is 'deviant'? Be specific.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

Feel free to prove your suspicion. Be specific.

You're predicting future outcomes based on nothing but baseless speculation. Specifically, this:

'Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.'

You can't back any of that up. You're offering your imagination as your argument.

Nope. Merely that talking monkeys learn by example.

Why would we accept your imagination as anything than more than baseless speculation? Be specific.

Because the wise man realizes that human nature does not change.

And 'deviance as part of natural human programming". Gee....that sounds awfully familar from a new poster. Almost exactly the words of an old poster.

I've been posting here and elsewhere since 1997. Hardly a "new poster".

Your current handle has only been around since 2013. And has less than 500 posts.

Here, yes. But this is not the only board available.

So you clearly have multiple sock puppets.

I post as no one other than Billy Kinetta, nor have I since 2002.

"Deviance as normal" is a fairly new and heavily promoted means to justify any type of behavior. Do you think that the ones waiting in the wings have not been observing the success of the initial group to use the angle?

Who says that homosexuality is 'deviant'? Be specific.

Put it to a national referendum, and you'll have your answer.

Tolerance does not equal acceptance, and never will. Force the issue, and the level of tolerance will fall.

 

[Pop23]

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

I speak practically. There are events that occur in polygamy that are impossible in 2 person marriage. For example: people entering and exiting the union at different times. That can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have no precedent in our marriage laws for one person to leave a union....but the other person to still be married. We don't have any precedent on division of property in such scenarios, if one person leaving dissolves the entire union or only the union between the people leaving and everyone else. We have no conditions for child support, spousal support, etc for multiple partners.

Our marriage laws can't answer these questions.....as in 2 person marriage the union starts and ends for both parties at the exact same time. Always. There's never a circumstance where one person exits a marriage while the other is still married within it. So no have no precedent in our marriage laws regarding such circumstances.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

Nope. A contract is defined exclusively by the participants. A marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. A personal contract is over whenever the participants say it is. A marriage is over when the state recognizes that it is. And in many states you must go through trial separations, full separations, and then divorce. You don't decide if you get to skip any of that. The courts do.

As marriage isn't defined by the individual. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no precedent to deal with the unique situations that occur in polygamy.

Funny how you rely on tradition.

Tradition is irrelevant. We just don't have the precedent in our marriage to deal with polygamy. We can't answer fundamental questions unique to polygamy with our marriage laws. As the situations involved are physically impossible in 2 person marriage.

While gay marriage works perfectly with all the same rules for 2 person marriage. All the same rules apply.

There is NOTHING UNIQUE about a multi partner marriage that can't be resolved by simple boilerplate contracts.

You're only demonstrating how different polygamy is from 2 person marriage. As 2 person marriage isn't defined by 'simple boilerplate contracts'. Its defined by society within the boundaries of individual rights. Society has a say on when a marriage begins, what the terms of the marriage are, what the distribution of resources after the marriage are, child custody, when marriages end, and what must be done in order to exit a marriage.

You've essentially conceded my point, admitting that polygamy would have to go outside legal precedent of our marriage laws. And demonstrated the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage laws and polygamy.

Marriage is simply a contract that bestows governmental benefits and allows for the combination of property.

No, it isn't. It such were the case then there would be no need for yesterday's. As anyone could enter into any contract they wish. But Marriage is far more than simply a contact. As it isn't defined by the particpants, but by society within the bounds of individual rights.

Where as simple contracts are defined exclusively by the participants.

You've already conceded that polygamy can't be resolved within our current marriage law. And that polygamy would have to go OUTSIDE our current marriage law to operate. Which demonstrates it fundamental incompatibility with marriage law. If it were compatible, you would'nt have to go outside marriage law to make polygamy work.

You are delusional. Marriage is always, ALWAYS defined by the individuals agreeing to the contract. ALWAYS.

Just because more than 2 want to define such arrangements is simply against your TRADITIONAL way of thinking.

I'll bet you don't think interracial couples should marry and GOVERNMENT HAD A RIGHT TO DEFINE THEIR RELATIONSHIP, as something other then marriage.

Arguing against multi partner marriage is defining today's new bigots.

 

[Silhouette]

You are delusional. Marriage is always, ALWAYS defined by the individuals agreeing to the contract. ALWAYS....Just because more than 2 want to define such arrangements is simply against your TRADITIONAL way of thinking....I'll bet you don't think interracial couples should marry and GOVERNMENT HAD A RIGHT TO DEFINE THEIR RELATIONSHIP, as something other then marriage. ...Arguing against multi partner marriage is defining today's new bigots.

Well played Sir!

Justice Kennedy gets this Century's "Dumb **** of the Century" award. Has he NEVER heard of the word "precedent" as applied to equal rights?

Jesus, it's like the SCOTUS' left half is composed of either jackbooted arrogant stooges for the LGBT CULT or drooling morons who should be disbarred. I can't WAIT to see the logic Kennedy uses if he tries to deny polygamy. That's gonna be a very amusing game of twister for the 5 loonies on the left in that outfit.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, turning down polygamists at this point is going to be impossible. Welcome to the neo-family kids!

 

[Silhouette]

Who says that homosexuality is 'deviant'? Be specific.

...well, since you asked..

A man using another man's anus and colon as an artificial vagina (closet hetero anyone?) comes with all sorts of issues.

1. Mental, he is crosswiring himself to regard a man's anus as a female receptacle for his penis.

2. The colon evolved to resorb large particles of dissolved solids and fluids to survive famine and drought. It doesn't know semen from its own digestive processes. Since the HIV virus lives quite nicely in semen, it has a superhighway right into the human bloodstream in the colon. In the vagina, there are more rigorous barriers since the vagina evolved for sex, it is a sexual organ and cleanses itself and has walls that are resistant to invasion. The colon is the lower part of the human digestive tract.

3. The HIV epidemic is spreading like wildfire, especially and disturbingly increasing in youth. This, in spite of heightened education of prevention of STDs and free condoms literally everywhere for kids to access at health clinics and the like. So the conclusion there is that more young men are "becoming gay". This suggests a social context for sexual orientation; which is born out quite well and matches the findings of this study from Quebec Canada "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review" :
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

4. The HIV virus, growing worse in this youngest of "gay" male populations is spreading more and more through the general population as young people are far more reckless with practicing safe sex.

5. As heriocs to artificially prolong the lives of AIDS patients continues, superbugs of otherwise benign bacteria are being created and passed on to the general population.

6. Since yesterday's decision essentially normalized gay sex in the eyes of every child in America, more and more of them are likely to fall prey to the findings in the link in item #3 above. Monkey see/monkey do.

For all the "great efforts" at instructing youth on safe sex and the supposedly "fixed" number of gays in any given population (since the claim is "we're born this way!"), the following statistics are both unexplained, and alarming:

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yep, turning down polygamists at this point is going to be impossible. Welcome to the neo-family kids!

BFD, we already had them...

 

[Indofred]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

If there were tax advantages to polygamy you can bet it would be on the docket.

If Jews commonly did it, it would have been US law years ago.

 

[Avatar4321]

Mormon church has nothing to do with it.

But there Really are no good reasons not to legalize polygamy. Heck it's always been more reasonable than same sex marriage.

 

[Wake]

Marriage is a man-made construct.

Unlike sex between a man and a woman, a man and a man go at it in a way that it wasn't intended.

The cornhole's an exit. You don't put a penis in there.

However, when it comes to people, they have generally higher intelligence, and are capable of doing really stupid, irrational things. There are a lot of things that aren't natural. Look at Furries for example, which are yet another bright and shining champion of liberalism.

Along these lines, anal sex at all is unnatural, and so is oral sex. That aside, I daresay a child is in a better situation if he or she has a mommy and a daddy to raise him or her.

...speaking of man-made constructs, almost everything not found in nature is one. The vagina was designed to have a penis put into it, in order to achieve reproduction. That's the truth of it: if people weren't bumping naughties, there'd be no people. What the hell is the evolutionary purpose for putting dick in asshole? Pleasure? Don't masochists do weird s*** for pleasure, too? Makes no sense at all, and I'm content with keeping my distance as society circles the drain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mormon church has nothing to do with it.

But there Really are no good reasons not to legalize polygamy. Heck it's always been more reasonable than same sex marriage.

Polygamy is legal, bigamy, not.

In order to allow three or more persons to marry, bigamy laws would need to be repealed, and marriage law rewritten or amended to accommodate three or more persons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is a man-made construct.

Unlike sex between a man and a woman, a man and a man go at it in a way that it wasn't intended.

The cornhole's an exit. You don't put a penis in there.

However, when it comes to people, they have generally higher intelligence, and are capable of doing really stupid, irrational things. There are a lot of things that aren't natural. Look at Furries for example, which are yet another bright and shining champion of liberalism.

Along these lines, anal sex at all is unnatural, and so is oral sex. That aside, I daresay a child is in a better situation if he or she has a mommy and a daddy to raise him or her.

...speaking of man-made constructs, almost everything not found in nature is one. The vagina was designed to have a penis put it into it, in order to achieve reproduction. That's the truth of it: if people weren't bumping naughties, there'd be no people. What the hell is the evolutionary purpose for putting in an asshole? Pleasure? Don't masochists do weird s*** for pleasure, too? Makes no sense at all, and I'm content with keeping my distance as society circles the drain.

Yet few take issue with a man and woman having anal sex, rendering this post both stupid and irrational.

 

[Wake]

Marriage is a man-made construct.

Unlike sex between a man and a woman, a man and a man go at it in a way that it wasn't intended.

The cornhole's an exit. You don't put a penis in there.

However, when it comes to people, they have generally higher intelligence, and are capable of doing really stupid, irrational things. There are a lot of things that aren't natural. Look at Furries for example, which are yet another bright and shining champion of liberalism.

Along these lines, anal sex at all is unnatural, and so is oral sex. That aside, I daresay a child is in a better situation if he or she has a mommy and a daddy to raise him or her.

...speaking of man-made constructs, almost everything not found in nature is one. The vagina was designed to have a penis put it into it, in order to achieve reproduction. That's the truth of it: if people weren't bumping naughties, there'd be no people. What the hell is the evolutionary purpose for putting in an asshole? Pleasure? Don't masochists do weird s*** for pleasure, too? Makes no sense at all, and I'm content with keeping my distance as society circles the drain.

Yet few take issue with a man and woman having anal sex, rendering this post both stupid and irrational.

Did you even read the post.

Try trying it for once.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who says that homosexuality is 'deviant'? Be specific.

...well, since you asked..

A man using another man's anus and colon as an artificial vagina (closet hetero anyone?) comes with all sorts of issues.

1. Mental, he is crosswiring himself to regard a man's anus as a female receptacle for his penis.

2. The colon evolved to resorb large particles of dissolved solids and fluids to survive famine and drought. It doesn't know semen from its own digestive processes. Since the HIV virus lives quite nicely in semen, it has a superhighway right into the human bloodstream in the colon. In the vagina, there are more rigorous barriers since the vagina evolved for sex, it is a sexual organ and cleanses itself and has walls that are resistant to invasion. The colon is the lower part of the human digestive tract.

3. The HIV epidemic is spreading like wildfire, especially and disturbingly increasing in youth. This, in spite of heightened education of prevention of STDs and free condoms literally everywhere for kids to access at health clinics and the like. So the conclusion there is that more young men are "becoming gay". This suggests a social context for sexual orientation; which is born out quite well and matches the findings of this study from Quebec Canada "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review" :
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

4. The HIV virus, growing worse in this youngest of "gay" male populations is spreading more and more through the general population as young people are far more reckless with practicing safe sex.

5. As heriocs to artificially prolong the lives of AIDS patients continues, superbugs of otherwise benign bacteria are being created and passed on to the general population.

6. Since yesterday's decision essentially normalized gay sex in the eyes of every child in America, more and more of them are likely to fall prey to the findings in the link in item #3 above. Monkey see/monkey do.

For all the "great efforts" at instructing youth on safe sex and the supposedly "fixed" number of gays in any given population (since the claim is "we're born this way!"), the following statistics are both unexplained, and alarming:

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

Again, few take issue with a man and woman having anal sex, rendering this post both stupid and irrational as well.

Or is it your position that heterosexual anal sex is “deviant” and should be 'outlawed' as well.

The mistake you make is to perceive and define gay Americans only in the context of their sexuality, which is not the case with heterosexuals, for whom sexuality is one of many aspects of who heterosexuals are.

 

[rightwinger]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

but they will resort to the courts as the gays did....what will stop them now....?

Well let me ask you this- do you have any argument as to why polygamous marriage should not be married?

If you don't have such an argument- well then that is the problem with your position.

If you do have an argument- well then it still applies regardless of whether homosexuals marry or not.

the same argument as for gays....THE PEOPLE should decide....not a few old lawyers in black robes...

the majority of states, i.e. THE PEOPLE, voted against gay marriage but it was shoved through the courts anyway.....the same will happen now with polygamy......just wait until the Muslims insist on it....they are allowed to have up to 4 wives...

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what for supper

Nobody should get to vote on what rights others are entitled to

Sure, but we know that when YOU ARE the wolf you seem to think differently

Example por favor