If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[rightwinger]

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

It is a contract between three people

If it is done with consent of the parties involved, I see no reason the government should get involved

But should a baker have to bake a cake for their wedding?

This would be more of a Mormon thing, as even if legally plural marriage is allowed, the LDS church gave it up themselves a while ago, and most probably would not want to go back to it.

God knows I couldn't handle it

Two wives could be doable. Two mother-in-laws not so much.

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

 

[WinterBorn]

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

It is a contract between three people

If it is done with consent of the parties involved, I see no reason the government should get involved

But should a baker have to bake a cake for their wedding?

This would be more of a Mormon thing, as even if legally plural marriage is allowed, the LDS church gave it up themselves a while ago, and most probably would not want to go back to it.

God knows I couldn't handle it

Two wives could be doable. Two mother-in-laws not so much.

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

I am polyamorous and have never heard those words. Everyone involved knows the score. Everyone is happy with things.

 

[Silhouette]

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

So your subjective discrimination against polyamorists makes you fit to deny them marriage eh? ie: you believe that if enough people object to a certain sexual orientation, that orientation shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Got it.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no way to stop group marriages.

 

[rightwinger]

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

So your subjective discrimination against polyamorists makes you fit to deny them marriage eh? ie: you believe that if enough people object to a certain sexual orientation, that orientation shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Got it.

I don't care if they marry

But...but....what about the children? <sob>

Don't they have a say?

 

[Skylar]

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

The same way the law judges bigamy.

I'm using the same logic SSM supported used, but for some reason you reject it. Why?

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

 

[Skylar]

There's no way to stop group marriages.

Unless there is.

They'll happen under the law if the people want them. And if the people don't, its pretty unlikely.

 

[Skylar]

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

So your subjective discrimination against polyamorists makes you fit to deny them marriage eh? ie: you believe that if enough people object to a certain sexual orientation, that orientation shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Got it.

A polygamist can marry. They just can't commit bigamy.

 

[Skylar]

I cannot understand why we, as a people, allow the gov't to validate our most sacred and important relationships.

The gov't has no business being in the game at all. And the most amusing thing is all the "small gov't" conservatives advocating for gov't interference in this most personal of relationships.

You certainly have that option. If you want a marriage that the government has nothing to do with nor recognizes even exists.....you can have it. If you want a marriage protected by the law and recognized under the law.......you can have that too.

 

[Skylar]

The same way the law judges bigamy.

Let me get this straight...you're citing law...(remember, Prop 8 and others like it are also laws) to justify denying marriage to people who love each other and want to be married?

That's rich. ...and hypocritical...

I'm citing law that has never been successfully challenged in any court, has never found to withhold a single right and has never been overturned. With bigamy never having been found to be a right by......anyone.

Marriage on the hand....was a recognized right long before Obergefell. Nor was same sex marriage a crime.

If you wish to make an argument for bigamy, feel free.

 

[Silhouette]

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

So your subjective discrimination against polyamorists makes you fit to deny them marriage eh? ie: you believe that if enough people object to a certain sexual orientation, that orientation shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Got it.

I don't care if they marry

But...but....what about the children? <sob>

Don't they have a say?

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. You were making an argument that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's "nasty". Yes, you were. Then I pointed out your hypocrisy. Then you tried to change the subject to children.

For the record, I agree that both homosexual fetish and polyamorous fetish does not qualify as parents to children because just one father and mother is plenty. Lack of one or the other is insufficient. What's best for children is one man, one woman. And that's what the states have said in overwhelming majority.

 

[Skylar]

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

So your subjective discrimination against polyamorists makes you fit to deny them marriage eh? ie: you believe that if enough people object to a certain sexual orientation, that orientation shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Got it.

I don't care if they marry

But...but....what about the children? <sob>

Don't they have a say?

Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

Relevance? None of the bizarre pseudo-legal gibberish you make up about 'contract law' is relevant. So surely you won't fault RW.

For the record, I agree that both homosexual fetish and polyamorous fetish does not qualify as parents to children because just one father and mother is plenty. Lack of one or the other is insufficient. What's best for children is one man, one woman. And that's what the states have said in overwhelming majority.

Do you condemn single parenthood then?

Of course not. As even you don't buy the line of nonsense you're spewing. A single parent denies a child a mother and a father. You've insisted that denial is child abuse. But you carve out an exception for single parents.....because you were one.

For the record, that's hypocrisy.

 

[rightwinger]

Doing them is the easy part

Putting up with "you love her more than you love me" and "why don't you pay more attention to me" is what makes it nasty

So your subjective discrimination against polyamorists makes you fit to deny them marriage eh? ie: you believe that if enough people object to a certain sexual orientation, that orientation shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Got it.

I don't care if they marry

But...but....what about the children? <sob>

Don't they have a say?

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. You were making an argument that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's "nasty". Yes, you were. Then I pointed out your hypocrisy. Then you tried to change the subject to children.

For the record, I agree that both homosexual fetish and polyamorous fetish does not qualify as parents to children because just one father and mother is plenty. Lack of one or the other is insufficient. What's best for children is one man, one woman. And that's what the states have said in overwhelming majority.

If you read my earlier posts, you will see I said I have no problem with polygamy if it involves consenting adults. I just said I couldn't do it myself

Now...What about the children? <sob> <sob>

Don't they have a say in how many wives their father can have?

 

[martybegan]

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

The same way the law judges bigamy.

I'm using the same logic SSM supported used, but for some reason you reject it. Why?

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

 

[Agit8r]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

So those are the libertarians that like Cruz?

 

[WinterBorn]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

So those are the libertarians that like Cruz?

It is hard to imagine a Libertarian liking Cruz.

 

[Agit8r]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

So those are the libertarians that like Cruz?

It is hard to imagine a Libertarian liking Cruz.

could be a media invention

 

[Silhouette]

If you read my earlier posts, you will see I said I have no problem with polygamy if it involves consenting adults. I just said I couldn't do it myself

Now...What about the children? <sob> <sob>

Don't they have a say in how many wives their father can have?

No, the States do, on their behalf. Just as the States do on their behalf of both a mother and father in marriage. You will see this issue come up in the next 2 years. Mark my words.

Noted also you think it's funny, the plight of children in all this. Your entire affect is "fuck the children, they'll do whatever weird fetish says they have to do! Adults come first!". Only that's not the way the Infant Doctrine reads; particularly when it comes to contracts with infants, expressed or implied..

Mark my words right here. You're going to see this issue in the courts. And, better brush up on 1982's New York vs Ferber in preparation.. With what I just said and a combination of US v Windsor 2013 & New York v Ferber 1982, you've got your work cut out for you.

Kids come first in law; always and especially when their physical or mental needs are being threatened....even when adults have clear and concise Constitutional rights, they are shelved if children might come to harm in the exercise of them. Obergefell is about as clear as the Mississippi River after a Midwest flood event.

 

[rightwinger]

If you read my earlier posts, you will see I said I have no problem with polygamy if it involves consenting adults. I just said I couldn't do it myself

Now...What about the children? <sob> <sob>

Don't they have a say in how many wives their father can have?

No, the States do, on their behalf. Just as the States do on their behalf of both a mother and father in marriage. You will see this issue come up in the next 2 years. Mark my words.

Noted also you think it's funny, the plight of children in all this. Your entire affect is "fuck the children, they'll do whatever weird fetish says they have to do! Adults come first!". Only that's not the way the Infant Doctrine reads; particularly when it comes to contracts with infants, expressed or implied..

Mark my words right here. You're going to see this issue in the courts. And, better brush up on 1982's New York vs Ferber in preparation..

<sob> What about the infants? <sob>

Why aren't they consulted ? Does anybody even CARE?

 

[mdk]

If you read my earlier posts, you will see I said I have no problem with polygamy if it involves consenting adults. I just said I couldn't do it myself

Now...What about the children? <sob> <sob>

Don't they have a say in how many wives their father can have?

No, the States do, on their behalf. Just as the States do on their behalf of both a mother and father in marriage. You will see this issue come up in the next 2 years. Mark my words.

Noted also you think it's funny, the plight of children in all this. Your entire affect is "fuck the children, they'll do whatever weird fetish says they have to do! Adults come first!". Only that's not the way the Infant Doctrine reads; particularly when it comes to contracts with infants, expressed or implied..

Mark my words right here. You're going to see this issue in the courts. And, better brush up on 1982's New York vs Ferber in preparation..

Zero is the number of states that acknowledge children being party to a marriage contract. We can 'mark your words' until the cows come home, but your legal prediction rate still blows.