Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: between
your confusion stems from your poor/dim understanding of the legal argument for gay marriage, which is based on the idea that all citizens should have equal rights before the law. i.e., straight people are able to marry, therefore gay people should be able to do that too. you can't make an equivalent, equality-based legal argument for polygamy, because the rules against polygamous marriage apply to everyone. There are also restrictions relating to age (e.g., people can't marry until they are older than a certain age). these are arbitrary lines in the sand that have been written into law. you can argue against them, but the argument will not be based around equal protection or legal equality.

Your argument doesn't hold water. A homophobe would argue that a law allowing only straight marriage applies to everyone. They would argue that gay people CAN marry, just not people of the same sex and therefore that they had equal rights under the law. The courts that support gay marriage rights are fundamentally saying that gay people should be allowed to marry EACH OTHER. THere is no reason this couldn't be extended to say that polygamists can't marry each other.

This argument is really just grasping at straws; yeah sure, if gays can marry gays then what's next, a woman marrying a flock of penguins? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS

Seriously, gay marriage and polygamy aren't even close to being the same issue. The slippery slope argument has always been and will always be a poor one.

 

[GiggleGirl]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

omgggg STFU immediately. you know nothingggg

 

[GiggleGirl]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

see but that actually has real and feasible reasons as to why it shouldnt be allowed "LEGALLY". there could always be insurance reform that states only your first or one of your wives and the consequent offspring from THAT wife are allowed coverage. but who knows, i dont know shit about insurance. lol

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Those assumptions hold no basis because none of the potential legalities have even been considered.

:thumbsup:

The health care cost issue is one of the arguments that bigots hide behind to attack gay marriage rights.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Those assumptions hold no basis because none of the potential legalities have even been considered.

:thumbsup:

The health care cost issue is one of the arguments that bigots hide behind to attack gay marriage rights.

What I'm saying is that if they were to create a legality involving polygamy, who knows what it'll entail. You can't assume the future and use it as an argument in the present.

His "examples" may not apply if it were to actually be put in place.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Those assumptions hold no basis because none of the potential legalities have even been considered.

:thumbsup:

The health care cost issue is one of the arguments that bigots hide behind to attack gay marriage rights.

What I'm saying is that if they were to create a legality involving polygamy, who knows what it'll entail. You can't assume the future and use it as an argument in the present.

His "examples" may not apply if it were to actually be put in place.

I know, I was agreeing with you

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Those assumptions hold no basis because none of the potential legalities have even been considered.

:thumbsup:

The health care cost issue is one of the arguments that bigots hide behind to attack gay marriage rights.

What I'm saying is that if they were to create a legality involving polygamy, who knows what it'll entail. You can't assume the future and use it as an argument in the present.

His "examples" may not apply if it were to actually be put in place.

I know, I was agreeing with you

Ahh, bonding moment.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Those assumptions hold no basis because none of the potential legalities have even been considered.

:thumbsup:

The health care cost issue is one of the arguments that bigots hide behind to attack gay marriage rights.

What I'm saying is that if they were to create a legality involving polygamy, who knows what it'll entail. You can't assume the future and use it as an argument in the present.

His "examples" may not apply if it were to actually be put in place.

I know, I was agreeing with you

Perk was just giving some quick examples.

Say 3 people are married and one decides to leave.

Who gets the kids?

Who gets the house?

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Those assumptions hold no basis because none of the potential legalities have even been considered.

:thumbsup:

The health care cost issue is one of the arguments that bigots hide behind to attack gay marriage rights.

What I'm saying is that if they were to create a legality involving polygamy, who knows what it'll entail. You can't assume the future and use it as an argument in the present.

His "examples" may not apply if it were to actually be put in place.

I know, I was agreeing with you

Perk was just giving some quick examples.

Say 3 people are married and one decides to leave.

Who gets the kids?

Who gets the house?

Custody hearing?

Divorce court?

Naw, I'm just spouting off phrases. No worries.

 

[Pliablemoose]

If any of you have ever been to family court, you realize it's already a mess with the government intervening in many issues for the "social good". Polygamous marriage is nothing they can't handle, it just adds a wrinkle or two.

Saying that it's too complicated legally to allow polygamous marriage is a cop out and avoiding the issue of equal protection.

Another interesting thought is that "marriage" is predicated on sex currently. If gay marriage is allowed (and I think it should be legal, have for some time) then say for instance, if 2 spinsters marry and don't have sex, they marry just for legal reasons, is it still a "marriage"? Will we have sex fraud police to regulate gay marriage to ensure elderly lesbian sex takes place?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
This. The best reason to support gay marriage is because gay couples deserve to have the same rights as straight couples. By definition, there is no such thing as a polygamous couple.

This entire post is comparing apples to oranges. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is no less insulting than comparing it to bestiality.

Wow. Bestiality? That's a nice straw man argument for you to tackle.

It sounds like YOU are comparing bestiality to polygamy. Don't you get that your attititude towards polygamy is the same attitude that many straights have towards homosexuality? Apples and oranges? Again, that's how pro-prop 8 people feel.

At least some people in this thread have formulated arguments to try to rationalize the difference between polygamy and homesexual marriage: legal complexity and imbalance in coupling. I don't find them convincing but at least they're trying to make logically consistent arguments.

This is the bottom line: do you think consenting adults should be able to form the relationships they want? Sure, you can say yes and then set some arbitrary limits on this, but then you're no better than people that are against gay marriage.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Yeah, I love the inter-species sex argument, it's like referencing Hitler in a political discussion, you automatically lose.

 

[bozack]

I don't see why not, they are or would all be consenting adults. So yes, I do think it should be legal, and to quote moonie anyone who says otherwise is a bigot.

 

[TridenT]

So... Why can't we just not quote the trolls and shit and just ignore them? Best way to stop a troll is to not give a troll attention, that's all they want. Spidey07 is obvious troll and moron.


ATOT should permaban all morans. (I are not moran)

 

[zhwu]

For those people who voted ?yes? on both. Have you guys ever thought about this is going to open up the possibility for gay polygamy (or lesbian polygamy)?

You guys are opening a can of worms and this is going to ruin the definition of marriage. I would rather have the government outlaw marriage all together (so everyone will be equal since no one can be married).

Let?s say we have a group of 5 or 6 males in a gay-only polygamy marriage. Who is going to be the head of that household? (Since every member in that marriage are gay, is household going to allow ?actions? between the non-house head members?)

The purpose of the marriage is for the government and socity offer some protection to the people in such marriage. Once the definition of marriage is ruined and become valueless. I don't see why people would still want to get married.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: zhwu
The purpose of the marriage is for the government and socity offer some protection to the people in such marriage

That's only the 30th or so sentence in these prop 8 threads starting with "the purpose of marriage is" and yet they all end differently, weird.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes for gay no for polygamy. Fact is only losers are polygamists and there is something fvcked with them.

bigot

 

[OutHouse]

my take is that my view of marriage is different than my neighbors, my co-workers etc.. marriage should be between the two people getting married and making that commitment to each other. the church or government should have absolutely no voice on defining what marriage should be. the same goes for polygamy as long as adults are involved and all parties who enter a plural marriage enter of their own free will i do not have any problems with it.

the texas FDLS raid is a perfect example of the government turned jack booted thugs. to date not one case of child abuse has been recorded.

 

[dullard]

Didn't read the thread.

Gay marriage hurts no one. Sure, the gay couple could break up and be hurt, but that would happen with or without marriage. Gay marriage can certainly help - anything that encourages monogomany is beneficial to society as long as the relationship isn't fundamentally flawed (abusive for example).

Polygamy hurts just about everyone. The "top" men will get many, many women. That leaves very few left for you. Think about it. Suppose a society had 100 men and 102 women of dating/marring age. Each man can find a woman and almost every woman can find a man. There are 1.02 eligible women per man. Suppose the top man (he is handsome or rich or powerful or a combination) gets 5 of those women. Suppose the next top 5 men gets 3 women each. Suppose the next group of 10 top men get 2 women each. Thus, with 16 men gone, there are 5 + 5*3 + 10*2 = 40 women taken. Now what is left is 84 men and 62 women. There are now only 0.74 women per man. You have to fight for the scraps. The women are in control since they are in such high demand. Are they really going to settle for you or will they take another "top" man? Everyone is hurt.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

So the primary justification for marriage is procreation? If that's true, you must also be opposed to marriages by the elderly. Or those involving men or women who are sterile. Or heterosexual couples that don't want children.

Come one, wiggle out of this one.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shira
So the primary justification for marriage is procreation? If that's true, you must also be opposed to marriages by the elderly. Or those involving men or women who are sterile. Or heterosexual couples that don't want children.

Come one, wiggle out of this one.

Yes, procreation and protection of that child.

Elderly? Probably already procreated so marriage is OK as it protects their joined offspring.
Sterile? Why are they getting married if they can't have kids?
Hetero who don't want children? Again, why would they want to be married if it goes against the very reason to be married? This is what is known as a "convenience marriage".

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
So the primary justification for marriage is procreation? If that's true, you must also be opposed to marriages by the elderly. Or those involving men or women who are sterile. Or heterosexual couples that don't want children.

Come one, wiggle out of this one.

Yes, procreation and protection of that child.

Elderly? Probably already procreated so marriage is OK as it protects their joined offspring.
Sterile? Why are they getting married if they can't have kids?
Hetero who don't want children? Again, why would they want to be married if it goes against the very reason to be married? This is what is known as a "convenience marriage".

I dunno? They love each other?

What a tool.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
So the primary justification for marriage is procreation? If that's true, you must also be opposed to marriages by the elderly. Or those involving men or women who are sterile. Or heterosexual couples that don't want children.

Come one, wiggle out of this one.

Yes, procreation and protection of that child.

Elderly? Probably already procreated so marriage is OK as it protects their joined offspring.
Sterile? Why are they getting married if they can't have kids?
Hetero who don't want children? Again, why would they want to be married if it goes against the very reason to be married? This is what is known as a "convenience marriage".

So can I take it you believe these marriages should not be legal?

 

[senseamp]

Government needs to get out of the "marriage" definition business, and let churches and individuals define it for themselves.
From government's point of view, it's just another contract between two consenting individuals.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
So the primary justification for marriage is procreation? If that's true, you must also be opposed to marriages by the elderly. Or those involving men or women who are sterile. Or heterosexual couples that don't want children.

Come one, wiggle out of this one.

Yes, procreation and protection of that child.

Elderly? Probably already procreated so marriage is OK as it protects their joined offspring.
Sterile? Why are they getting married if they can't have kids?
Hetero who don't want children? Again, why would they want to be married if it goes against the very reason to be married? This is what is known as a "convenience marriage".

So can I take it you believe these marriages should not be legal?

Of course I do. We must preserve what marriage is for - it's for the children. Won't somebody think of the children!!!???