Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Kondor3]

I am not trying to offend homosexuals. However I am not a gay too. Please, avoid rude comments. I can't realize why someone would oppose gay marriage and such kind of issues, so I figured this was the best way to go about it. Why are gays hated in America? What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

A great many people believe that homosexuals are sexual deviants and perverts, practicing filthy, unclean behaviors and lifestyle affectations, and, as such, they do not want their children and grandchildren - nay, their society at-large - exposed to such filth.

Many more resent the judicial rulings of the past several years that overturned popular referenda designed to defend communities against such filth.

There is a difference between Egalitarianism in the context of normal, decent folk, and Egalitarianism-at-gunpoint, to mainstream sexuality perversity (homosexuality).

Discrimination on account of skin color is wrong-headed.

Discrimination between normal folks and sexual perverts (homosexuals) is sensible and comes naturally, reinforced, as it is, by thousands of years of cultural and legal and spiritual teachings, spanning most mainstream cultures and societies across the generations - one of the few forms of discrimination that are righteous and healthy.

With 3% of the population identifying as homosexuals (in all their sick and twisted variations), and 97% of the population identifying as normal...

It seems unlikely that recent gains by this tiny population demographic - much of it under a forcefully-activist Federal administration, and much of it attributable to an overly-activist element in the judiciary - will stand the test of time; 3% cannot hold 97% in thrall forever.

But that is something yet to be proven or set aside by future events.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup.. just a matter of time.. As long as the folks are consenting adults... I don't see why it is illegal today. The attack on polygamy seems like just another religious crusade.

We have too many values that are still important for the society, actually it's traditional marriage, and it would become widely unpopular if legalize polygamy today. Conservative's nightmare

Meh.. if the only way to make something popular is to make the options illegal.. how popular was it in the first place?

I'm conservative and it's not a nightmare for me to consider that people might marry more than person at a time. Meh.. For the life of me I don't see what the problem is with it. If that's what 3 or more consenting adults want to do... why not..

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

I'm conservative and it's not a nightmare for me to consider that people might marry more than person at a time. Meh.. For the life of me I don't see what the problem is with it. If that's what 3 or more consenting adults want to do... why not..

But you must agree that most Conservatives won't support legalization of plural marriage, people will get a new bone of contention like the same-sex marriages, pot legalization and others.

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect.. plural contracts already exist. You can enter them now. Marriage is not required for a plural contract.

But marriage is required for plural marriage. And as pointed out earlier, marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

Adding the label "marriage" to a plural contract does not have to change contract law.

It does for the way our law treats marriage, as pointed earlier. You are demonstrating my point by highlighting the fact that plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws and would have to be treated differently than marriage in our laws.

As marriage is not treated as a contract exclusively defined by the participants. But your conception of plural marriage would be.

Demonstrating yet another incompatibility with our system of law.

It will just add another type of marriage.

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

Stating that there is no precedent for plural contracts because plural marriage is against the law.. is an incorrect statement.

That is incorrect. I've stated that there is no precedent for plural marriage because it involves factors that never occur in 2 person marriage. Such as participants entering and exiting the union at different times.

This is an impossibility in 2 person marriage. One person can't get divorced while the other stays married. And we have no precedent in marriage law for events that can't occur in marriage.

We could make precedent, surely. But the fundamental incompatibility with our law would be more than ample justification for denying plural marriage. Or not, if we ignored this justification.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm conservative and it's not a nightmare for me to consider that people might marry more than person at a time. Meh.. For the life of me I don't see what the problem is with it. If that's what 3 or more consenting adults want to do... why not..

But you must agree that most Conservatives won't support legalization of plural marriage, people will get a new bone of contention like the same-sex marriages, pot legalization and others.

You're conflating conservatives with religious right people who call themselves conservatives who think their religious one man one woman marriages are better than everyone else's ideas for how people might want to live. This is not a conservative view point. This is an authoritarian and/or religious view point.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect.. plural contracts already exist. You can enter them now. Marriage is not required for a plural contract.

But marriage is required for plural marriage. And as pointed out earlier, marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

Adding the label "marriage" to a plural contract does not have to change contract law.

It does for the way our law treats marriage, as pointed earlier. You are demonstrating my point by highlighting the fact that plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws and would have to be treated differently than marriage in our laws.

As marriage is not treated as a contract exclusively defined by the participants. But your conception of plural marriage would be.

Demonstrating yet another incompatibility with our system of law.

It will just add another type of marriage.

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

Stating that there is no precedent for plural contracts because plural marriage is against the law.. is an incorrect statement.

That is incorrect. I've stated that there is no precedent for plural marriage because it involves factors that never occur in 2 person marriage. Such as participants entering and exiting the union at different times.

This is an impossibility in 2 person marriage. One person can't get divorced while the other stays married. And we have no precedent in marriage law for events that can't occur in marriage.

We could make precedent, surely. But the fundamental incompatibility with our law would be more than ample justification for denying plural marriage. Or not, if we ignored this justification.

You're still confused. You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal. Yet, clearly if it is made legal it will work just fine as it did for THOUSANDS OF YEARS before it was made illegal.

For parallels in how it would work one need only look to contract law as it exists today. Plural contracts are not new. And yes, obviously, plural marriages are currently illegal in the states. FYI it's really easy to use fractions. There's not much difference between how 1/2 works and 1/3 works. Try it.

 

[Skylar]

You're still confused. You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

Incorrect. You're again equating a lack of precedent with criminalization. They aren't the same thing. I've stated that there is no precedent for plural marriage because it involves factors that never occur in 2 person marriage. Such as participants entering and exiting the union at different times.

This is an impossibility in 2 person marriage. One person can't get divorced while the other stays married. And we have no precedent in marriage law for events that can't occur in marriage.

Yet, clearly if it is made legal it will work just fine as it did for THOUSANDS OF YEARS before it was made illegal.

It has never been part of our legal system. Thus, we have no precedent for the unique issues that arise under plural marriage that are impossible in 2 person marriage. And its the fundamental incompatibility with our system of marriage law that would establish a valid basis of rejecting plural marriage.

For parallels in how it would work one need only look to contract law as it exists today.

Again, for perhaps the 3rd time...... marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights defines many of the terms. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're still confused. You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

Incorrect. You're again equating a lack of precedent with criminalization. They aren't the same thing. I've stated that there is no precedent for plural marriage because it involves factors that never occur in 2 person marriage. Such as participants entering and exiting the union at different times.

This is an impossibility in 2 person marriage. One person can't get divorced while the other stays married. And we have no precedent in marriage law for events that can't occur in marriage.

Yet, clearly if it is made legal it will work just fine as it did for THOUSANDS OF YEARS before it was made illegal.

It has never been part of our legal system. Thus, we have no precedent for the unique issues that arise under plural marriage that are impossible in 2 person marriage. And its the fundamental incompatibility with our system of marriage law that would establish a valid basis of rejecting plural marriage.

For parallels in how it would work one need only look to contract law as it exists today.

Again, for perhaps the 3rd time...... marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights defines many of the terms. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

Incorrect, I did not equate a lack of precedent with criminalization. Your ability to read and write is ... wanting.

The only reason it does not occur in marriage is because it's criminal to be in a plural marriage. Whereas plural contracts are common. Thus one only has to look to how plural contract work, to know that plural marriages would be no big deal. Marriage most certainly is an ordinary contract. That you think you are special, just points out to the fact that most people think to highly of themselves.

I'll make it even simpler for you. If bob, mary, and sue have 3 apples, and sue leaves taking one of the apples with her. How many apples do bob and mary have left?

 

[deltex1]

Liberals are. They play them for fools to further their own political careers.

"I voted for gay marriage before I voted against it when I was pro gay marriage because I didn't want fags to know I was pro traditional marriage. Now upon seeing recent polls I have "evolved""

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

With all due respect...methinks that gays get more than their share of the shitty end of the stick....so to speak, yo....

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect, I did not equate a lack of precedent with criminalization. Your ability to read and write is ... wanting.

Then explain how you came up with this:

You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

From this:

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

Without equating a lack of precedent with something being illegal.

Good luck.

The only reason it does not occur in marriage is because it's criminal to be in a plural marriage.

So the argument you've claimed I've been making....is actually your own argument. Which you've bizarrely projected upon me. Yet can never actually quote me making.

How about that.

A mere lack of recognition would produce the same result. And its the lack of precedent that results in the incompatibility. As plural marriage would require a pretty extensive body of law that we simply don't have now. You're arguing why we don't have it. While tacitly acknowledging that legal precedent for plural marriage doesn't exist.

And its the lack of existence of relevant precedent that is my argument. The 'why' is yours. And its gloriously irrelevant to the question of whether or not the precedent actually exists.

Whereas plural contracts are common.

For the 4th time...marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

You can keep ignoring these points. But its not like they vanish just because you pretend they don't exist.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, I did not equate a lack of precedent with criminalization. Your ability to read and write is ... wanting.

Then explain how you came up with this:

You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

From this:

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

Without equating a lack of precedent with something being illegal.

Good luck.

The only reason it does not occur in marriage is because it's criminal to be in a plural marriage.

So the argument you've claimed I've been making....is actually your own argument. Which you've bizarrely projected upon me. Yet can never actually quote me making.

How about that.

A mere lack of recognition would produce the same result. And its the lack of precedent that results in the incompatibility. As plural marriage would require a pretty extensive body of law that we simply don't have now. You're arguing why we don't have it. While tacitly acknowledging that legal precedent for plural marriage doesn't exist.

And its the lack of existence of relevant precedent that is my argument. The 'why' is yours. And its gloriously irrelevant to the question of whether or not the precedent actually exists.

Whereas plural contracts are common.

For the 4th time...marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

You can keep ignoring these points. But its not like they vanish just because you pretend they don't exist.

Clearly you don't know what the word equate means.

Full Definition of EQUATE
transitive verb
1a : to make equal : equalize
b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2: to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive verb
: to correspond as equal
See equate defined for English-language learners
See equate defined for kids

Examples of EQUATE

1. You shouldn't equate those two things.
2. <a value system that equates money with success>

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect, I did not equate a lack of precedent with criminalization. Your ability to read and write is ... wanting.

Then explain how you came up with this:

You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

From this:

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

Without equating a lack of precedent with something being illegal.

Good luck.

The only reason it does not occur in marriage is because it's criminal to be in a plural marriage.

So the argument you've claimed I've been making....is actually your own argument. Which you've bizarrely projected upon me. Yet can never actually quote me making.

How about that.

A mere lack of recognition would produce the same result. And its the lack of precedent that results in the incompatibility. As plural marriage would require a pretty extensive body of law that we simply don't have now. You're arguing why we don't have it. While tacitly acknowledging that legal precedent for plural marriage doesn't exist.

And its the lack of existence of relevant precedent that is my argument. The 'why' is yours. And its gloriously irrelevant to the question of whether or not the precedent actually exists.

Whereas plural contracts are common.

For the 4th time...marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

You can keep ignoring these points. But its not like they vanish just because you pretend they don't exist.

Clearly you don't know what the word equate means.

Full Definition of EQUATE
transitive verb
1a : to make equal : equalize
b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2: to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive verb
: to correspond as equal
See equate defined for English-language learners
See equate defined for kids

Examples of EQUATE

1. You shouldn't equate those two things.
2. <a value system that equates money with success>

Try again.

You're using them interchangably. I say this:

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

And you somehow read this:

You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

And even you can't explain how or why. I certainly have no clue how you got there, as there's no rational way you can take 'We have no rules nor precedent' and translate it into 'you appear to believe that something won't work because its illegal'.

I never even mentioned illegal. I spoke of the lack of answers to legal questions regarding plural marriage in our current marriage laws. Marriage laws have nothing regarding folks entering and exiting a marriage at different times. There's no way under current marriage law that one person could divorce while the other would remain married. It can't happen. So we have no law for it.

Would you care to address the point I've actually made.....rather than your bizarro strawman? Or have you just completely abandoned your defense of plural marriage?

And remember: marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, I did not equate a lack of precedent with criminalization. Your ability to read and write is ... wanting.

Then explain how you came up with this:

You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

From this:

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

Without equating a lack of precedent with something being illegal.

Good luck.

The only reason it does not occur in marriage is because it's criminal to be in a plural marriage.

So the argument you've claimed I've been making....is actually your own argument. Which you've bizarrely projected upon me. Yet can never actually quote me making.

How about that.

A mere lack of recognition would produce the same result. And its the lack of precedent that results in the incompatibility. As plural marriage would require a pretty extensive body of law that we simply don't have now. You're arguing why we don't have it. While tacitly acknowledging that legal precedent for plural marriage doesn't exist.

And its the lack of existence of relevant precedent that is my argument. The 'why' is yours. And its gloriously irrelevant to the question of whether or not the precedent actually exists.

Whereas plural contracts are common.

For the 4th time...marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

You can keep ignoring these points. But its not like they vanish just because you pretend they don't exist.

Clearly you don't know what the word equate means.

Full Definition of EQUATE
transitive verb
1a : to make equal : equalize
b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2: to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive verb
: to correspond as equal
See equate defined for English-language learners
See equate defined for kids

Examples of EQUATE

1. You shouldn't equate those two things.
2. <a value system that equates money with success>

Try again.

You're using them interchangably. I say this:

We have no rules nor precedent for this 'another type'. As pointed out earlier. And there are many, many ways in which plural marriage would be incompatible with our current marriage laws. Specifically, the fact that different participants would enter and exit the union at different times.

Where under 2 person marriage, all participants enter and exit at the exact same time.

We have no law to handle this and many other differences, as they can't exist in 2 person marriage. And this fundamental incompatibility law is adequate rationale to deny plural marriage. Or we could take decades and establish precedent for it. Either works. Though the former is far simpler.

And you somehow read this:

You appear to believe that something won't work because it's illegal.

And even you can't explain how or why. I certainly have no clue how you got there, as there's no rational way you can take 'We have no rules nor precedent' and translate it into 'you appear to believe that something won't work because its illegal'.

I never even mentioned illegal. I spoke of the lack of answers to legal questions regarding plural marriage in our current marriage laws. Marriage laws have nothing regarding folks entering and exiting a marriage at different times. There's no way under current marriage law that one person could divorce while the other would remain married. It can't happen. So we have no law for it.

Would you care to address the point I've actually made.....rather than your bizarro strawman? Or have you just completely abandoned your defense of plural marriage?

And remember: marriage is not an ordinary contract. The participants alone don't define the terms of it. But society within the bounds of individual rights. You're presenting plural marriage as an ordinary contract which is defined exclusively defined by participants.

That's not how our law treats marriage for anyone.

And there are no plural marriages, nor any law for them on our books.So no precedent for how to handle the situation unique to plural marriage that don't exist in 2 person marriage.

You are not LISTENING.

THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE NO PRECEDENT FOR PLURAL MARRIAGES IS BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO HAVE PLURAL MARRIAGES.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE PRECEDENT FOR A THING THAT IS ILLEGAL.

DO I NEED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT?

AS I STATED WE HAVE PRECEDENT FOR PLURAL CONTRACTS... WHY? BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL TO HAVE PLURAL CONTRACTS.

Marriage is a contract. Note, I'm equating marriage with contracts.

 

[Skylar]

THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE NO PRECEDENT FOR PLURAL MARRIAGES IS BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO HAVE PLURAL MARRIAGES.

Then you concede my entire argument, acknowledging that there is no legal precedent for plural marriage. There are a litany of legal questions unique to plural marriage that our law has no answer for under marriage law. As there are situations that occur in plural marriage that cannot occur in 2 person marriage. Thus, we have no law for it.

You've retreated to WHY there is no legal precedent. My argument stands on the fact that there is no legal precedent. As the lack of legal answers to a broad array of questions establishes the legal incompatibility that would justify refusing plural marriage.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE PRECEDENT FOR A THING THAT IS ILLEGAL.

Which is relevant if precedent for current marriage works doesn't work with the new version. Take...interracial marriage. It was illegal. Yet all the same marriage laws worked for it as worked for same race marriage. Take....gay marriage. It was illegal. Yet all the same marriage laws worked for it as worked for hetero marriage.

There is no fundamental legal incompatibility as the marriage laws can answer all relevant questions. Get it?

But plural marriage? Our laws have no answer to a myriad of questions. As there are situations in plural marriage that simply cannot occur in 2 person marriage. So our law has no answers for them. There is a fundamental incompatibility. That's where your argument breaks.

DO I NEED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT?

If it makes you feel better. It won't matter. You've already conceded my argument.

AS I STATED WE HAVE PRECEDENT FOR PLURAL CONTRACTS... WHY? BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL TO HAVE PLURAL CONTRACTS.

And as I have stated (7 times now), plural contracts are defined exclusively by the participants. Marriage is not. Marriage is defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. The legal basis you're using (exclusively participant defined contracts) isn't used under our marriage laws.

All you're doing is describing how plural marriage is fundamentally incompatible without current marriage laws. As you're insisting we treat it in a manner we don't treat any other marriage, allowing the participants to define every portion of it and

Marriage is a contract. Note, I'm equating marriage with contracts.

[/quote]

Its a contract defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not one defined exclusively by the participants. You have yet to concede this point.

But you will.

 

[RKMBrown]

If it makes you feel better. It won't matter. You've already conceded my argument.

And as I have stated (7 times now), plural contracts are defined exclusively by the participants. Marriage is not. Marriage is defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. The legal basis you're using (exclusively participant defined contracts) isn't used under our marriage laws.

All you're doing is describing how plural marriage is fundamentally incompatible without current marriage laws. As you're insisting we treat it in a manner we don't treat any other marriage, allowing the participants to define every portion of it and

Its a contract defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not one defined exclusively by the participants. You have yet to concede this point.

But you will.

I never said plural marriage was legal. EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S ILLEGAL. I never argued that it was legal. I clearly stated it was not. You appear to be arguing about nothing for no reason whatsoever. But I'm glad you finally agree that the only reason we don't have plural marriage is because it's illegal.

Now why don't you name one aspect of current marriage law that can't work under plural marriage. Just one.

 

[Skylar]

If it makes you feel better. It won't matter. You've already conceded my argument.

And as I have stated (7 times now), plural contracts are defined exclusively by the participants. Marriage is not. Marriage is defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. The legal basis you're using (exclusively participant defined contracts) isn't used under our marriage laws.

All you're doing is describing how plural marriage is fundamentally incompatible without current marriage laws. As you're insisting we treat it in a manner we don't treat any other marriage, allowing the participants to define every portion of it and

Its a contract defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not one defined exclusively by the participants. You have yet to concede this point.

But you will.

I never said plural marriage was legal. EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S ILLEGAL.

Show me anywhere in that post I said that you claimed plural marriage was legal.

Quote me.

You can't. You're done. Next strawman:

You appear to be arguing about nothing for no reason whatsoever. But I'm glad you finally agree that the only reason we don't have plural marriage is because it's illegal.

You've conceded that there is no precedent for plural marriage, admitting I was right. You've been reduced to arguing WHY you think I'm right. There's no longer any disagreement that I am.

That was easy.

Now why don't you name one aspect of current marriage law that can't work under plural marriage. Just one.

For the 9th time: folks getting into or out of the union at different times. Something that's impossible in 2 person marriage. One partner in a 2 person marriage can't get divorced while the other is still married. Thus we have no answers in our marriage laws for something that can't happen in marriage.

It can definitely happen in plural marriage. And in practice, almost always does.

If you have a three person marriage and one person wants a divorce.....does that mean that all people are divorced? Or just the one leaving the union.

Show me an answer in MARRIAGE law. You can't. As there no precedent for something that can't happen in 2 person marriage. Which is exactly my point.

 

[freshie23]

I am not trying to offend homosexuals. However I am not a gay too. Please, avoid rude comments. I can't realize why someone would oppose gay marriage and such kind of issues, so I figured this was the best way to go about it. Why are gays hated in America? What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

Out of everyone I know or am acquainted with, I don't know a single person who hates gays.

 

[RKMBrown]

If it makes you feel better. It won't matter. You've already conceded my argument.

And as I have stated (7 times now), plural contracts are defined exclusively by the participants. Marriage is not. Marriage is defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. The legal basis you're using (exclusively participant defined contracts) isn't used under our marriage laws.

All you're doing is describing how plural marriage is fundamentally incompatible without current marriage laws. As you're insisting we treat it in a manner we don't treat any other marriage, allowing the participants to define every portion of it and

Its a contract defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not one defined exclusively by the participants. You have yet to concede this point.

But you will.

I never said plural marriage was legal. EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S ILLEGAL.

Show me anywhere in that post I said that you claimed plural marriage was legal.

Quote me.

You can't. You're done. Next strawman:

You appear to be arguing about nothing for no reason whatsoever. But I'm glad you finally agree that the only reason we don't have plural marriage is because it's illegal.

You've conceded that there is no precedent for plural marriage, admitting I was right. You've been reduced to arguing WHY you think I'm right. There's no longer any disagreement that I am.

That was easy.

Now why don't you name one aspect of current marriage law that can't work under plural marriage. Just one.

For the 9th time: folks getting into or out of the union at different times. Something that's impossible in 2 person marriage. One partner in a 2 person marriage can't get divorced while the other is still married. Thus we have no answers in our marriage laws for something that can't happen in marriage.

It can definitely happen in plural marriage. And in practice, almost always does.

If you have a three person marriage and one person wants a divorce.....does that mean that all people are divorced? Or just the one leaving the union.

Show me an answer in MARRIAGE law. You can't. As there no precedent for something that can't happen in 2 person marriage. Which is exactly my point.

So basically you're a complete moron.

Please show us the law that states that it is illegal for "folks getting into or out of the union at different times." Cite the statute.

And again IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL TO BE IN PLURAL MARRIAGES, SO YOUR DUMB FUCKING SCENARIOS ABOUT PLURAL MARRIAGES NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK *** DO NOT APPLY. THE ONLY REASON THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR YOUR DUMB FUCKING SCENARIOS *** IS BECAUSE PLURAL MARRIAGES ARE ILLEGAL. Ya dumb fuck.

 

[quorthon]

So basically you're a complete moron.

Please show us the law that states that it is illegal for "folks getting into or out of the union at different times." Cite the statute.

And again IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL TO BE IN PLURAL MARRIAGES, SO YOUR DUMB FUCKING SCENARIOS ABOUT PLURAL MARRIAGES NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK *** DO NOT APPLY. THE ONLY REASON THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR YOUR DUMB FUCKING SCENARIOS *** IS BECAUSE PLURAL MARRIAGES ARE ILLEGAL. Ya dumb fuck.

You started this conversation for everyone to know you dream of plural marriage?
Well, I'm sure when polygamy would be legalized the fronts of opposition would be different too, and who's now the hater of gays would be a supporter of polygamy, everyone will get his candy.

 

[RKMBrown]

So basically you're a complete moron.

Please show us the law that states that it is illegal for "folks getting into or out of the union at different times." Cite the statute.

And again IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL TO BE IN PLURAL MARRIAGES, SO YOUR DUMB FUCKING SCENARIOS ABOUT PLURAL MARRIAGES NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK *** DO NOT APPLY. THE ONLY REASON THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR YOUR DUMB FUCKING SCENARIOS *** IS BECAUSE PLURAL MARRIAGES ARE ILLEGAL. Ya dumb fuck.

You started this conversation for everyone to know you dream of plural marriage?
Well, I'm sure when polygamy would be legalized the fronts of opposition would be different too, and who's now the hater of gays would be a supporter of polygamy, everyone will get his candy.

Nah I'm not interested in polygamy. I'm interested in liberty.