Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[Pop23]

Of course they don't ( give me a friggin break )

Why you may ask? ( and I know you will )

Polygamy is now illegal!

When it's no longer illegal, these boiler plate arrangements can easily be modified to fill in the blanks.

Progressive thinkers sure don't think progressively.

Your right, you can't even begin to duplicate the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage for close to the $50 bucks. Let alone the MASSIVE expansion of government required to then deal with N Men: N Women spousal relationships and N Parents : N Children issues. Something not needed since the 1 Spouse : 1 Spouse relationship is already well established in the family code.

Thanks for agreeing.


>>>>

You deflect then claim my agreement

You have become a disappointment WW.

I said: "And they sure as hell don't do it for the 50 bucks it cost for a Civil Marriage license."

You said: "Of course they don't ( give me a friggin break )"



There is no way in hell that a business partnership or LLC can duplicated all the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage for $50 bucks - for those that can be duplicated, some can't.



>>>>

The question is polygamy and how the government could handle the paperwork to handle the relationships within such, not the expense to do so.

You deflect in order that it would appear I agree.

The relationships are not much different than my example showed.

The post that I responded to said there was no reason to opposed Polygamy, not true I provided one.

My explanation was a function of government, YOU jumped in the the business partner/LLC deflection - that was not something I brought up.

The relationship between family members (and the government when such relationships have legal bearing) are much different then business partnerships and LLC's as many aspects of the spousal relationship cannot be duplicated through a business license. The cost of setting up such a business partnership relationship can be thousands of dollars on the low end and millions on the high end for a large LLC.

It would take a massive expansion of family code law to deal with families where there are 3, 6, 9, 50, 100... adults all married to each other in terms of rights, property, and children in such a situation. The structure to deal with two adults in a legal family relationship where one did not exist before already exists - it would take no expansion of government.

Therefore there is a secular, non-morality reason for limiting the legal recognition of such relationships - something that was said does not exist.



>>>>

That's funny

You come up with a long litany of reasons polygamy is a non starter and give all kinds of things that need to change, and I show you that a format indeed exists that can be used, and is used that addresses very complex relationships, and you respond that it, the template would need to be modified?

Duh, big guy, THAT HAPPENS EVERY TIME LAWS CHANGE! This surprises you?

Good lord

Should we NOT have gone to the moon because it was complicated?

And what nerve you have basing a large amount of your objection on how to handle children in these relationship. Remember, it is YOUR contention that procreation should play no part in this discussion.

I am not in favor of either polygamy or incestuous marriage, but your arguments in favor of same gender marriage works deliciously well for both.

To deny it is frivolous and silly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's funny

You come up with a long litany of reasons...

False Pop, go back and read. The poster I responded to said there was no reason, none that would allow for not having government recognition of polygamy.

I gave one reason, there may be others, but I didn't go into them. Not a "long litany of reasons".

And what nerve you have basing a large amount of your objection on how to handle children in these relationship. Remember, it is YOUR contention that procreation should play no part in this discussion.

Feel free to quote me where I've ever said that "procreation should play no part in this discussion".

If "procreation" is to be part of the discussion then that is fine. Apply it equally to both groups and we can move on.

1. Either "procreation" is a requirement of Civil Marriage or it isn't. Require fertility tests as part of the Civil Marriage License process and only let procreation capable couples Civilly Marry.

or

2. Don't require a procreation test and allow those that are infertile couples to marry.​

Pick a standard and I'm fine with it. But the idea is that we are going to apply a standard to one group and discriminate against them that another group is not required to also adhere to the same stanard is the vary basis of unequal protection under the law.

If different-sex couples are raising children they can get married, if same-sex couples are raising children they can get married. OR Different-sex couples do not have to have children to get Civilly Married, same-sex couples do not have to have children to get Civilly Married.


Pretty easy.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

That's funny

You come up with a long litany of reasons...

False Pop, go back and read. The poster I responded to said there was no reason, none that would allow for not having government recognition of polygamy.

I gave one reason, there may be others, but I didn't go into them. Not a "long litany of reasons".


>>>>

Why clip the whole damn thing then say go back and read??

Good lord Man

I blasted your "one reason" out of the damn water. Is that why you clipped it?

Bring more dude. Your. "One reason" proved false.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why clip the whole damn thing then say go back and read??

The post I was talking about wasn't even in the post. You would have had to go back a few pages anyways. (And no I don't continue to quote dozen's of posts in a reply just to occupy screen real estate.)

I blasted your "one reason" out of the damn water. Is that why you clipped it?

One you didn't "blast" it as your business partner/LLC deflection was wrong to begin with.

Your. "One reason" proved false.

No it wasn't "proved false". Your opinion isn't "proof" of anything. I laid out a logical result of N:N (many to many) spousal relationships withing a legal framework. You have not laid out any logical disagreement to the arguments presents except simply to say "your wrong" - which of course isn't proof.

>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is a non-starter, and that Pop23 wishes it were is a non-starter as well.

 

[Pop23]

Why clip the whole damn thing then say go back and read??

The post I was talking about wasn't even in the post. You would have had to go back a few pages anyways. (And no I don't continue to quote dozen's of posts in a reply just to occupy screen real estate.)

I blasted your "one reason" out of the damn water. Is that why you clipped it?

One you didn't "blast" it as your business partner/LLC deflection was wrong to begin with.

Your. "One reason" proved false.

No it wasn't "proved false". Your opinion is "proof" of anything. I laid out a logical result of N:N (many to many) spousal relationships withing a legal framework. You have not laid out any logical disagreement to the arguments presents except simply to say "your wrong" - which of course isn't proof.

>>>>

I'm sure showing how multiple relationships currently exist in millions of partnership entities proves nothing?

Just as the fact that all human beings exist due to the couplings between opposing genders proves nothing.

My god!

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy is a non-starter, and that Pop23 wishes it were is a non-starter as well.

Link to a post in which I favor the government recognizing polygamy.

Or admit you are a dishonest hack.

 

[Pop23]

That's funny

You come up with a long litany of reasons...

False Pop, go back and read. The poster I responded to said there was no reason, none that would allow for not having government recognition of polygamy.

I gave one reason, there may be others, but I didn't go into them. Not a "long litany of reasons".

And what nerve you have basing a large amount of your objection on how to handle children in these relationship. Remember, it is YOUR contention that procreation should play no part in this discussion.

Feel free to quote me where I've ever said that "procreation should play no part in this discussion".

If "procreation" is to be part of the discussion then that is fine. Apply it equally to both groups and we can move on.

1. Either "procreation" is a requirement of Civil Marriage or it isn't. Require fertility tests as part of the Civil Marriage License process and only let procreation capable couples Civilly Marry.

or

2. Don't require a procreation test and allow those that are infertile couples to marry.​

Pick a standard and I'm fine with it. But the idea is that we are going to apply a standard to one group and discriminate against them that another group is not required to also adhere to the same stanard is the vary basis of unequal protection under the law.

If different-sex couples are raising children they can get married, if same-sex couples are raising children they can get married. OR Different-sex couples do not have to have children to get Civilly Married, same-sex couples do not have to have children to get Civilly Married.


Pretty easy.


>>>>

False, no hard and fast premise is ever required.

We make exceptions under the various laws for the disabled, the elderly, fear of physical harm, economic damage and the list goes on and on.

We do not make exceptions because.....,

I don't want too

That's what YOU want, the majority doesn't make that claim b

 

[WorldWatcher]

False, no hard and fast premise is ever required.

We make exceptions under the various laws for the disabled, the elderly, fear of physical harm, economic damage and the list goes on and on.

We do not make exceptions because.....,

I don't want too

That's what YOU want, the majority doesn't make that claim b

So procreation isn't a requirement to enter into Civil Marriage? OK, I'm fine with that position. (Which is good because there are places in this country where the couple must prove they CAN'T procreate to be able to enter in to Civil Marriage.)

Now we just apply it evenly. If procreation isn't a standard that is applied to different-sex couples, then that standard doesn't apply to same-sex couples.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, hard and fast support for premises is a requirement of legislation that restricts or punishes people's actions.

That anyone wants to restrict marriage equality or polygamy or group marriage needs solid, objective evidence.

 

[Pop23]

False, no hard and fast premise is ever required.

We make exceptions under the various laws for the disabled, the elderly, fear of physical harm, economic damage and the list goes on and on.

We do not make exceptions because.....,

I don't want too

That's what YOU want, the majority doesn't make that claim b

So procreation isn't a requirement to enter into Civil Marriage? OK, I'm fine with that position. (Which is good because there are places in this country where the couple must prove they CAN'T procreate to be able to enter in to Civil Marriage.)

Now we just apply it evenly. If procreation isn't a standard that is applied to different-sex couples, then that standard doesn't apply to same-sex couples.


>>>>

Lol, you are a piece of work. Pick out certain words and claim agreement.

You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.

What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.

Sorry WorldWatcher, facts are facts, your clipping posts won't ever change facts.

But it is silly

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop23 fails to derail the thread.

Polygamy is a non-starter of any sort in relation to marriage equality.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, hard and fast support for premises is a requirement of legislation that restricts or punishes people's actions.

That anyone wants to restrict marriage equality or polygamy or group marriage needs solid, objective evidence.

Ummm, you might want to check building remodeling requirements under the ADA or physical requirements for entrance into the Military, fire departments, Law enforcement. Age restrictions etc. etc. etc.

None of the above are civil rights violations.

You might want to do a bit of research before posting shit you don't understand.

Now, have you come up with that post in which you claim I support polygamy?

Of course not.

You are just a dishonest hack after all.

Lmao.

 

[Pop23]

Pop23 fails to derail the thread.

Polygamy is a non-starter of any sort in relation to marriage equality.

^^^ the failure speaks ^^^^

 

[JakeStarkey]

And WW continues to make Pop's arguments look silly.

As I and many others also do.

Pop, your arguments do not sustain your position, and your personal opinion remains meaningless.

 

[bripat9643]

That's funny

You come up with a long litany of reasons...

False Pop, go back and read. The poster I responded to said there was no reason, none that would allow for not having government recognition of polygamy.

I gave one reason, there may be others, but I didn't go into them. Not a "long litany of reasons".

And what nerve you have basing a large amount of your objection on how to handle children in these relationship. Remember, it is YOUR contention that procreation should play no part in this discussion.

Feel free to quote me where I've ever said that "procreation should play no part in this discussion".

If "procreation" is to be part of the discussion then that is fine. Apply it equally to both groups and we can move on.

1. Either "procreation" is a requirement of Civil Marriage or it isn't. Require fertility tests as part of the Civil Marriage License process and only let procreation capable couples Civilly Marry.

or

2. Don't require a procreation test and allow those that are infertile couples to marry.​

Pick a standard and I'm fine with it. But the idea is that we are going to apply a standard to one group and discriminate against them that another group is not required to also adhere to the same stanard is the vary basis of unequal protection under the law.

If different-sex couples are raising children they can get married, if same-sex couples are raising children they can get married. OR Different-sex couples do not have to have children to get Civilly Married, same-sex couples do not have to have children to get Civilly Married.


Pretty easy.


>>>>

The standard is having the right body parts. That's been good enough for thousands of years. Why should we change it? The fact that some couples are infertile is irrelevant. It's noise in the system - not enough of a factor to justify changing the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Polygamy is a non-starter, and that Pop23 wishes it were is a non-starter as well.

No one pays attention to your babbling, Fakey. Go back to your nursing home before the orderlies discover that you're missing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.

Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.

What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.

What are you talking about?

A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.

But it is silly

I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The standard is having the right body parts. That's been good enough for thousands of years. Why should we change it? The fact that some couples are infertile is irrelevant. It's noise in the system - not enough of a factor to justify changing the law.

What state inventories body parts before issuing a Civil Marriage license?


>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

The standard is having the right body parts. That's been good enough for thousands of years. Why should we change it? The fact that some couples are infertile is irrelevant. It's noise in the system - not enough of a factor to justify changing the law.

What state inventories body parts before issuing a Civil Marriage license?


>>>>

hmmmm, they all did before the homos started whining about their so-called "right" to be married.