Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Syriusly]

Its the Bill of Rights that prevents the State from imposing a specific religion upon unwilling people. And the judge is a representative of the State, a gate keeper of state authority. And he's using his religious beliefs as a basis of denying couples state services they have a constitutional and legal right to.

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Marriage is an elective power of a judge, not a duty.....or did it never occur to you to wonder why the only consequences he's facing is a few calls for impeachment from rabid Leftists? Sorry, you can't force people to accept your lifestyle. Get used to freedom because it's not going away any time soon.

I don't think impeachment is the answer but - if he performs marriages he should perform all legally sanctioned marriages or none. It's not "accepting" a lifestyle. It's performing a job.

Yes it is accepting a lifestyle from his point of view. And marriage is an elective function of judges. Nothing ill will befall this judge for daring to have values you hate.

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do that part of his job? How far do you stretch "religious freedom" before it becomes an infringement on other people's rights?

Just because democrats misinterpreted the bible (until Republicans set them straight) back then doesn't make them right now.

You got the bible wrong when you were trying to deny blacks rights, and you have it wrong now you're trying to deny Christians rights. Get out of town.

Thanks for the Nazi point of view.

 

[Syriusly]

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

Are you saying that you have not advocated against the right's of gays to be married and have children?

There is no potential for a right wherein the exercise of such injures another.

Sexual Deviancy; the processes of the disordered mind which accept sex with a person of the same gender or an animal, is a LIE... .

Deceit is axiomatically injurious to the individual advancing it and the individual being mislead by it.

There is therefore: NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT.

You see scamp... for a right to exist, that right must first be recognized in EVERY INDIVIDUAL... You claim a right, you must recognize that same right in me. Understand?

Now where you claim a right to deceive another, you must recognize the right in another to deceive you. And in doing so you injure yourself and the other.

PRESTO... there's no right to injure another.

This is how we can be SO SURE... that you don't have a right to murder the child you conceived through your willful behavior... which is how we can be so sure that you have no right to engage in such behavior UNTIL you're in a position to bear the responsibilities central to and unavoidably intrinsic IN... that behavior.

Feel better?

I feel just fine. However, I fear...No know, that you have run off the rails

You realize of course that most everyone here knows that your insane, except of course those who are themselves insane? Of course you don't. You are INSANE. You are imagining that somehow your rights are being taken away and that you are being injured . That is a paranoid delusion. Understand?

You are back on ignore, for good

And your concession is AGAIN! duly noted and summarily accepted.

And I want ya to know that it's clear to me that you're doin' the VERY BEST YOU CAN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is an elective power of a judge, not a duty.....or did it never occur to you to wonder why the only consequences he's facing is a few calls for impeachment from rabid Leftists? Sorry, you can't force people to accept your lifestyle. Get used to freedom because it's not going away any time soon.

I don't think impeachment is the answer but - if he performs marriages he should perform all legally sanctioned marriages or none. It's not "accepting" a lifestyle. It's performing a job.

Yes it is accepting a lifestyle from his point of view. And marriage is an elective function of judges. Nothing ill will befall this judge for daring to have values you hate.

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do that part of his job? How far do you stretch "religious freedom" before it becomes an infringement on other people's rights?

Just because democrats misinterpreted the bible (until Republicans set them straight) back then doesn't make them right now.

You got the bible wrong when you were trying to deny blacks rights, and you have it wrong now you're trying to deny Christians rights. Get out of town.

Thanks for the Nazi point of view.

ROFLMNAO!

So huh... LOL! SO the Nazis were big proponents of the Scriptures were they?

ROFL! You people are HELPLESS!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

Are you saying that you have not advocated against the right's of gays to be married and have children?

There is no potential for a right wherein the exercise of such injures another.

Sexual Deviancy; the processes of the disordered mind which accept sex with a person of the same gender or an animal, is a LIE... .

Deceit is axiomatically injurious to the individual advancing it and the individual being mislead by it.

There is therefore: NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT.

You see scamp... for a right to exist, that right must first be recognized in EVERY INDIVIDUAL... You claim a right, you must recognize that same right in me. Understand?

Now where you claim a right to deceive another, you must recognize the right in another to deceive you. And in doing so you injure yourself and the other.

PRESTO... there's no right to injure another.

This is how we can be SO SURE... that you don't have a right to murder the child you conceived through your willful behavior... which is how we can be so sure that you have no right to engage in such behavior UNTIL you're in a position to bear the responsibilities central to and unavoidably intrinsic IN... that behavior.

Feel better?

I feel just fine. However, I fear...No know, that you have run off the rails

You realize of course that most everyone here knows that your insane, except of course those who are themselves insane? Of course you don't. You are INSANE. You are imagining that somehow your rights are being taken away and that you are being injured . That is a paranoid delusion. Understand?

You are back on ignore, for good

And your concession is AGAIN! duly noted and summarily accepted.

And I want ya to know that it's clear to me that you're doin' the VERY BEST YOU CAN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

There is no such thing as "Sibling Marriage" as Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Two beings that join into ONE BEING. Siblings are the consequence of ONE BEING... thus they represent that singular being.

 

[Pop23]

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

There can't be one

You then can't exclude any siblings from THE RIGHT.

You can then claim that the requirement be that the straight siblings must prove they are sterile.

You realize that, since this is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you can't make ANYBODY jump though hoops to excersize that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Ever hear of the poll tax? How'd that work out?

Now take a breath and realize YOUR SIDE created the arguments, if successful once, there is zero reason it won't be successful again!

 

[Pop23]

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

 

[Syriusly]

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

 

[Lilah]

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.
So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

According to whom, you?

 

[Pop23]

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

There can't be one

You then can't exclude any siblings from THE RIGHT.

You can then claim that the requirement be that the straight siblings must prove they are sterile.

You realize that, since this is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you can't make ANYBODY jump though hoops to excersize that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Ever hear of the poll tax? How'd that work out?

Now take a breath and realize YOUR SIDE created the arguments, if successful once, there is zero reason it won't be successful again!

If I failed to thank your side for opening the door to plural and incesturous marriage...........



It's cuz I dont.

 

[Pop23]

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

According to whom, you?

Is it recognized by the State?

 

[Lilah]

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

According to whom, you?

Is it recognized by the State?

Who is keeping track of Colorado City, Arizona?

 

[Syriusly]

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

There can't be one

You then can't exclude any siblings from THE RIGHT.

You can then claim that the requirement be that the straight siblings must prove they are sterile.

You realize that, since this is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you can't make ANYBODY jump though hoops to excersize that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Ever hear of the poll tax? How'd that work out?

Now take a breath and realize YOUR SIDE created the arguments, if successful once, there is zero reason it won't be successful again!

If I failed to thank your side for opening the door to plural and incesturous marriage...........



It's cuz I dont.

Pop is still trying to figure out some argument about why he is against plural or sibling marriage that is beyond "Because its icky"

 

[Pop23]

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

According to whom, you?

Is it recognized by the State?

Who is keeping track of Colorado City, Arizona?

Is it recognized by the state?

 

[Pop23]

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

There can't be one

You then can't exclude any siblings from THE RIGHT.

You can then claim that the requirement be that the straight siblings must prove they are sterile.

You realize that, since this is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you can't make ANYBODY jump though hoops to excersize that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Ever hear of the poll tax? How'd that work out?

Now take a breath and realize YOUR SIDE created the arguments, if successful once, there is zero reason it won't be successful again!

If I failed to thank your side for opening the door to plural and incesturous marriage...........



It's cuz I dont.

Pop is still trying to figure out some argument about why he is against plural or sibling marriage that is beyond "Because its icky"

Geez, how many times have I brought up inbreeding?

Maybe you don't get it cuz you're inbred?

 

[Syriusly]

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

LOL- you do dance well.

You have said that because of 'same gender' marriage that there is no longer any argument against 'sibling marriage'- because of procreation.

Yet when I eliminated 'procreation' you are still against 'sibling marriage', because you argue that if we allow non-procreative siblings to marry then 'equal protection' means that we have to allow fertile siblings to marry.

Which comes back around to you saying that procreation is not a valid argument to prevent siblings from marrying.

IF the procreation element is valid - then there is no argument against non-procreative couples from wedding.

And by the way- fertile first cousins cannot marry in Wisconsin- infertile first cousins can.

No conflict with "Equal Protection" laws.

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

 

[Syriusly]

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

HUH?

You do realize (maybe I'm making a huge assumption), that inbreeding is not a good thing right?

So allowing sterile siblings to marry, because of equal protection laws would allow fertile siblings to marry.

Look, if two fertile same sex siblings are allowed to marry, what is the compelling state interest to deny?

There can't be one

You then can't exclude any siblings from THE RIGHT.

You can then claim that the requirement be that the straight siblings must prove they are sterile.

You realize that, since this is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you can't make ANYBODY jump though hoops to excersize that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Ever hear of the poll tax? How'd that work out?

Now take a breath and realize YOUR SIDE created the arguments, if successful once, there is zero reason it won't be successful again!

If I failed to thank your side for opening the door to plural and incesturous marriage...........



It's cuz I dont.

Pop is still trying to figure out some argument about why he is against plural or sibling marriage that is beyond "Because its icky"

Geez, how many times have I brought up inbreeding?

Maybe you don't get it cuz you're inbred?

You bring up inbreeding every time you don't want to explain why you think non-fertile siblings shouldn't marry.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.
So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

They are not civilly married.

Why, was there a fight at the wedding?