If polygamy can be legalized in Britain, it can be legalized here.

[FA_Q2]

No, you deflected with an answer that is false.

Nope. I've answered your question directly. And you simply don't like the answer. So you're going to ignore it and make up your own.

Um....so what?

Really? So gay marriage has NOT been an issue for longer than the SCOTUS ruling? You are really going to run with that. Never mind - you are fucking pointless to converse with. I have yet to see you EVER engage on a topic past your own assertions. For someone that can actually speak intelligently here you are the most close minded and obtuse person on the board and that is a hell of a title to take. I am done engaging with you - you are not here for debate but rather to lecture and I have no need to be lectured by someone with such twisted views as you seem to have.

 

[FA_Q2]

The green party? really? do you even understand how far off and how unrepresented the UK green party even is? They're a bunch of fucking nut jobs.

On another note, why can't incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage be legalized? In my opinion anyone should be able to marry whoever they want, I see no reason why the state has a right to say who can and can't marry as long as they're both legal consenting adults.

We've already gone over polygamy in this thread and how its fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. All marriage law is predicated on co-equals entering and existing the union of marriage at the exact same time.

Our law has no answers nor precedent for marriages that doesn't follow these two fundamental assumptions. And polygamy doesn't necessarily follow either of them. Where with same sex marriage, you can use the exact same precedent and rules as you do for straight couples.

No, YOU asserted that it was incompatible. Your assertions do not make something fact.

My 'assertions' were accompanied by at least a dozen examples of fundamental incompatibilities. Questions that our law couldn't answer. Questions that you couldn't answer.

When you can, try again. Until you do, my point stands.

You had not 'point' and never have. You have statements and ignore any answers or challenges.

 

[Skylar]

No, you deflected with an answer that is false.

Nope. I've answered your question directly. And you simply don't like the answer. So you're going to ignore it and make up your own.

Um....so what?

Really? So gay marriage has NOT been an issue for longer than the SCOTUS ruling? You are really going to run with that.

Nope, I'm not going to 'run with that'. As that's your argument. I've never made it.

My answer is this: we're focused on gay marriage because the SCOTUS is ruling on the matter in a few weeks.

Ignore as you will. Its really doesn't matter what you 'believe' I 'really mean'.

 

[Skylar]

The green party? really? do you even understand how far off and how unrepresented the UK green party even is? They're a bunch of fucking nut jobs.

On another note, why can't incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage be legalized? In my opinion anyone should be able to marry whoever they want, I see no reason why the state has a right to say who can and can't marry as long as they're both legal consenting adults.

We've already gone over polygamy in this thread and how its fundamentally incompatible with our legal system. All marriage law is predicated on co-equals entering and existing the union of marriage at the exact same time.

Our law has no answers nor precedent for marriages that doesn't follow these two fundamental assumptions. And polygamy doesn't necessarily follow either of them. Where with same sex marriage, you can use the exact same precedent and rules as you do for straight couples.

No, YOU asserted that it was incompatible. Your assertions do not make something fact.

My 'assertions' were accompanied by at least a dozen examples of fundamental incompatibilities. Questions that our law couldn't answer. Questions that you couldn't answer.

When you can, try again. Until you do, my point stands.

You had not 'point' and never have. You have statements and ignore any answers or challenges.

I simply don't accept your strawmen as my own. I'll stick with my own argument.

If you'd like to pick up the polygamy debate again, I"m game. But you're still stuck on the dozen or so examples of fundamental incompatibility with our system of law. Questions neither you nor our law can answer. Because neither of you have precedent covering such matters........as none of them exist in 2 person marriage.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If polygamy can be legalized in Britain, it can be legalized here."

It's already legal in the United States, you ignorant twit:

Sister Wives Federal judge rules anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional - CBS News

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This thread is full of fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages."

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Marriage law can accommodate only two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Marriage law cannot accommodate three or more persons, or persons related to each other, consequently it is in fact true that if the Supreme Court should rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit, having the effect of invalidating measures prohibiting same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts, such a ruling will in no way 'open the door' to three or more persons marrying, or those related to each other marrying.

'Polygamy' is nothing more then 'living together' or 'shacking up,' it is not 'marriage,' nor will be be recognized as such; indeed, laws prohibiting bigamy remain in full effect and are Constitutional

 

[Mustang]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

 

[bripat9643]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

True. And whose going to tell them "no?"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

True. And whose going to tell them "no?"

“No” to what – polygamy is legal in all 50 states; three or more people have the right to live together if they so desire.

 

[bripat9643]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

True. And whose going to tell them "no?"

“No” to what – polygamy is legal in all 50 states; three or more people have the right to live together if they so desire.

What a sleazy dishonest hosebag you are. They don't have the right to get married.

 

[Skylar]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

True. And whose going to tell them "no?"

“No” to what – polygamy is legal in all 50 states; three or more people have the right to live together if they so desire.

Not possible. It was gay marriage that was supposed to 'make' polygamy legal. And the Supreme Court hasn't done that yet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

True. And whose going to tell them "no?"

“No” to what – polygamy is legal in all 50 states; three or more people have the right to live together if they so desire.

What a sleazy dishonest hosebag you are. They don't have the right to get married.

No one ever said they did; three or more people have the right to live together, not marry.

As a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you're clearly confusing 'polygamy' with 'bigamy,' where the former is nothing more than living together, and the latter is a fraud committed against the state, and consequently illegal.

Bigamy is where someone who is already married marries a second person pursuant to the marriage law of a given state, which is illegal, and appropriately so. Bigamy laws are Constitutional because marriage can accommodate only two persons, same- or opposite-sex. Indeed, marriage law is predicated on the fact that one of the two persons marrying are already not married, hence the fraud.

Also as a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you incorrectly believe that by allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law somehow 'changes' marriage, and that if marriage is 'changed' to accommodate same-sex couples, it can be 'changed' to accommodate three or more persons, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, and is unmitigated idiocy.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy – allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in as required by the 14th Amendment will in no way result in three or more persons marrying or brothers and sisters marrying.

 

[AntiParty]

The GAYstapo has claimed there's no cause to worry that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Polygamy a go for UK s Green Party​

Polygamy a go for UK’s Green Party


Sun 10 May 2015 11:49:31 PM EDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 9 replies
One News Now ^ | May 9, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

The radical pro-homosexual activist leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party announced that she is “open” to legalizing “marriages” between three or more people on the island nation.A staunch supporter of LGBT rights, Australian-born Natalie Bennett made her position on the issue of polygamist marriage loud and clear when answering a question asked by the pro-homosexual Pink News. "As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” a Pink News reader inquired of Bennett. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or... ​

Sounds perfectly Biblical to me. No doubt it would make the Mormons happy.

True. And whose going to tell them "no?"

“No” to what – polygamy is legal in all 50 states; three or more people have the right to live together if they so desire.

What a sleazy dishonest hosebag you are. They don't have the right to get married.

No one ever said they did; three or more people have the right to live together, not marry.

As a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you're clearly confusing 'polygamy' with 'bigamy,' where the former is nothing more than living together, and the latter is a fraud committed against the state, and consequently illegal.

Bigamy is where someone who is already married marries a second person pursuant to the marriage law of a given state, which is illegal, and appropriately so. Bigamy laws are Constitutional because marriage can accommodate only two persons, same- or opposite-sex. Indeed, marriage law is predicated on the fact that one of the two persons marrying are already not married, hence the fraud.

Also as a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you incorrectly believe that by allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law somehow 'changes' marriage, and that if marriage is 'changed' to accommodate same-sex couples, it can be 'changed' to accommodate three or more persons, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, and is unmitigated idiocy.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy – allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in as required by the 14th Amendment will in no way result in three or more persons marrying or brothers and sisters marrying.

"No one ever said they did; three or more people have the right to live together, not marry." ~ They don't have the (R)ight to marry because Big Government made law to prevent it in attempt to make all people act like Christians.

Freedom of Religion DOES NOT MEAN Freedom to FORCE Religion.

It means freedom from oppressive religions. The very same thing we migrated from.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court rejected the polygamist argument that because it was a religious practice, it was protected by the 1st Amendment.

That makes it quite amusing to see so many who support a religious 1st amendment right to discriminate throw the 1st Amendment under the bus when it comes to a religious practice they don't like.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear some RW'er go off on how Christians are being persecuted in the US by a government that won't protect their constitutional rights.