Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Judge sees polygamy next

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 11:17:48 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Just how liberals want it. No rules, no boundries, no laws...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 11:34:15 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 11:17:48 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Just how liberals want it. No rules, no boundries, no laws...

Which liberals are calling for legalized polygamy?
The only groups I know of advocating it are mormons and muslims. Neither of which are exactly liberal.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:33:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 11:34:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:17:48 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Just how liberals want it. No rules, no boundries, no laws...

Which liberals are calling for legalized polygamy?
The only groups I know of advocating it are mormons and muslims. Neither of which are exactly liberal.

Muslims. You need to tolerate them.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.

What do you think on a man having say 12 wives. Does he have that right or no?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:48:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.

I don't think it needs to be done away with, but it can only apply as one marriage. That being if some one is in a polyamorus marriage with many husbands or wives, the marriage incentive still only pays out once, as it is all one big (happy?) marriage.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:02:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:48:38 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.

What do you think on a man having say 12 wives. Does he have that right or no?

By the logic used to legalize same gender, from a court ruling overriding all the states that said no, yep. And a woman can have a dozen husbands. Judges created the mess, now apply it consistently and watch it get all effed up.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:05:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:48:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.

I don't think it needs to be done away with, but it can only apply as one marriage. That being if some one is in a polyamorus marriage with many husbands or wives, the marriage incentive still only pays out once, as it is all one big (happy?) marriage.

I see your point and that's fine, I just want the marriage deduction gone across the board (but that's another thread on tax simplification).
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Wtf kind of cockamamie logic is that? It's called legal precedent based on a loosely worded majority utilizing equal protection as its source. Equal protection is supposed to mean... Equal protection. I'm sure you, like many others, took a pro/con stance on same gender (it's not gay marriage, that's offensive) marriage utilizing all sorts of pathos logic: love air biblical or traditional or what not. Here we are speaking specifically legal precedent. Open the floodgates, such as same gender did, by redefining the word marriage, and 14th amendment must now, if people were consistent, be applied across the board. Doesn't matter if it's cultural, religious, or the cool thing to do. Precedent is set: those who oppose this, but were adamantly pro same gender, are hypocrites.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Has nothing to do with religion. Who is the authority that can dictate how many people any individual can love? If they are all consenting adults, who are they harming? TV show "Sister Wives" you are making them doing it in hiding! But seriously I find it funny where people will draw the line. Of all the marriage and sex that is accepted, hetero polygamy is where the line is drawn, border line hypocritical imo. Now why anyone would want multiple spouses is beyond me, talk about a potential messy divorce! Since no one can stop them from living together what's the point? Other than the courts couldn't handle these situation, I guess they better get busy and start writing laws to accommodate them too.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:32:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Monogamy exists because of religion as well. People used to marry multiple wives and nothing was thought of it. So where is the boundry and why?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:34:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:29:58 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Has nothing to do with religion. Who is the authority that can dictate how many people any individual can love? If they are all consenting adults, who are they harming? TV show "Sister Wives" you are making them doing it in hiding! But seriously I find it funny where people will draw the line. Of all the marriage and sex that is accepted, hetero polygamy is where the line is drawn, border line hypocritical imo. Now why anyone would want multiple spouses is beyond me, talk about a potential messy divorce! Since no one can stop them from living together what's the point? Other than the courts couldn't handle these situation, I guess they better get busy and start writing laws to accommodate them too.

Exactly. Someone else sees the hypocrisy.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.

um, there's actually a marriage penalty in many cases fyi, it's more beneficial NOT to get married, so not sure why polygamist would want to. First married couples can't claim head of house hold, anything that is income based like college financial aid is calculated with both incomes, stupidly I married for love even though we can't combine our house holds yet, and believe me it's a pretty expensive price we've had to pay, if only I knew then.....
kevin24018
Posts: 1,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:37:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:34:51 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:29:58 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Has nothing to do with religion. Who is the authority that can dictate how many people any individual can love? If they are all consenting adults, who are they harming? TV show "Sister Wives" you are making them doing it in hiding! But seriously I find it funny where people will draw the line. Of all the marriage and sex that is accepted, hetero polygamy is where the line is drawn, border line hypocritical imo. Now why anyone would want multiple spouses is beyond me, talk about a potential messy divorce! Since no one can stop them from living together what's the point? Other than the courts couldn't handle these situation, I guess they better get busy and start writing laws to accommodate them too.

Exactly. Someone else sees the hypocrisy.

only those who actually have their eyes open :)
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:41:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:05:59 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:48:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:43:37 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:14:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:11:32 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:50:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

Polygamy can already exist, its a matter of what will be recognized and incentivized by the state. Absolutely nothing prevents a guy and 6 chicks from shacking up, calling themselves married, and going about their life. When government benefits for marriage or any other legal requirements regarding next of kin come down the pick is when it gets dicey.

That's the whole point. Same could have been stated about same gender marriage before the court ruling which used the equal protection of the 14th amendment.

Indeed, and, not surprisingly, homosexuals wanted their marriage validated through the state because they were (by themselves) functionally behaving as a married couple.

I'm not advocating for or against... But, per that lady court ruling, polygamists have a valid legal case for the legal benefits of marriage. Any argument against that, legally, is akin to what many described as homophobia for those against same gender marriage prior to the ruling.

I have no problem identifying polygamy under the law, however, as it is all still one marriage, the benefits that are incentivized will need to be divided amongst those participating.

People want equality and consistency, then be consistent... Or stfu and show the type of hypocrite most truly are.

In short, let same gender and polygamists have all the rights, and headaches, of legal validation including divorce, child support, etc.., and while we are at it, do away with the marriage deduction on taxes.

I don't think it needs to be done away with, but it can only apply as one marriage. That being if some one is in a polyamorus marriage with many husbands or wives, the marriage incentive still only pays out once, as it is all one big (happy?) marriage.

I see your point and that's fine, I just want the marriage deduction gone across the board (but that's another thread on tax simplification).

-thumbs up-
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:47:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:37:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:34:51 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:29:58 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Has nothing to do with religion. Who is the authority that can dictate how many people any individual can love? If they are all consenting adults, who are they harming? TV show "Sister Wives" you are making them doing it in hiding! But seriously I find it funny where people will draw the line. Of all the marriage and sex that is accepted, hetero polygamy is where the line is drawn, border line hypocritical imo. Now why anyone would want multiple spouses is beyond me, talk about a potential messy divorce! Since no one can stop them from living together what's the point? Other than the courts couldn't handle these situation, I guess they better get busy and start writing laws to accommodate them too.

Exactly. Someone else sees the hypocrisy.

only those who actually have their eyes open :)

The irony to this story, and post, is the judge who made the statement is in my state, Kentucky. You know, us backward, toofwess inbred good for nothing opiate addicts. Surprisingly the family defense council tried to find some discrepancy in his rulings but they admitted not only is he been fair, his rulings are beyond reproach. That's the same group that, rightfully so, started the fight against county clerk Kim Davis (she was wrong but still does not issue the license. Her assistants do). Wonderful Kentucky... My city Louisville just got named to the federal heroin DEA 360 strategy.... I guess 300+ od deaths thru July on the heroin/fentanyl blend will do it! Lol
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:10:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
In the case against gay marriage polygamy is a precedent. Back in the 1800s the Mormons did polygamy. Thay believed that according to their religion this was something they should be doing.
The Christians believed this was adultery and sinful and criminal, and the Mormons were shunned by decent people.
Eventually the Mormon church was forced to ban polygamy. The law does not allow you to re-define marriage.
Well now you are only allowed to re-define marriage if you are gay.
If there is ever a relationship with polygamy and they are a male judge and 2 or more female judges, they could do something they call a multi-wife marriage. And they will all get married and their state will have to issue a 3 person marriage license. They will tell us that the constitution requires that we believe they are married, because marriage is a basic human right. Now, shut up or I will find you in contempt of court.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:10:11 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
In the case against gay marriage polygamy is a precedent. Back in the 1800s the Mormons did polygamy. Thay believed that according to their religion this was something they should be doing.
The Christians believed this was adultery and sinful and criminal, and the Mormons were shunned by decent people.
Eventually the Mormon church was forced to ban polygamy. The law does not allow you to re-define marriage.
Well now you are only allowed to re-define marriage if you are gay.
If there is ever a relationship with polygamy and they are a male judge and 2 or more female judges, they could do something they call a multi-wife marriage. And they will all get married and their state will have to issue a 3 person marriage license. They will tell us that the constitution requires that we believe they are married, because marriage is a basic human right. Now, shut up or I will find you in contempt of court.

Tongue in cheek?
Davery79
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 4:42:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:17:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:10:11 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
In the case against gay marriage polygamy is a precedent. Back in the 1800s the Mormons did polygamy. Thay believed that according to their religion this was something they should be doing.
The Christians believed this was adultery and sinful and criminal, and the Mormons were shunned by decent people.
Eventually the Mormon church was forced to ban polygamy. The law does not allow you to re-define marriage.
Well now you are only allowed to re-define marriage if you are gay.
If there is ever a relationship with polygamy and they are a male judge and 2 or more female judges, they could do something they call a multi-wife marriage. And they will all get married and their state will have to issue a 3 person marriage license. They will tell us that the constitution requires that we believe they are married, because marriage is a basic human right. Now, shut up or I will find you in contempt of court.

Tongue in cheek?

Why do people care so much about being recognized by the state, or the judge, or any form of government that they are officially married, this is just a piece of paper? If you feel you are different from most societal norms, be different, and understand that it might be an uphill battle to be accepted. It's more and more about feelings these days. I am not married, so if there is a real monetary (tax) reason, or if it were harder to adopt if you wanted to, something that you are denied because you are not married, than I understand, but if all anyone is looking for is recognition, move on to more important issues. Just live together as if you were married, no one is going to come knocking on your door and kick you out of your own home, but there will be people who disagree.... live with it. Have a fake marriage, is that not possible?

If there are benefits that I am missing for most of the people getting denied marriage licenses, please fill me in, because I am unaware. I think there are pros and cons, which for the most part, cancel each out.
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 5:59:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:21:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Wtf kind of cockamamie logic is that? It's called legal precedent based on a loosely worded majority utilizing equal protection as its source. Equal protection is supposed to mean... Equal protection. I'm sure you, like many others, took a pro/con stance on same gender (it's not gay marriage, that's offensive) marriage utilizing all sorts of pathos logic: love air biblical or traditional or what not. Here we are speaking specifically legal precedent. Open the floodgates, such as same gender did, by redefining the word marriage, and 14th amendment must now, if people were consistent, be applied across the board. Doesn't matter if it's cultural, religious, or the cool thing to do. Precedent is set: those who oppose this, but were adamantly pro same gender, are hypocrites.

It is not as loose as you portray.

Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate
that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is
true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
A second principle in this Court"s jurisprudence is that the right to
marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike
any other in its importance to the committed individuals.


Might say that the below excerpt is loose in what the 14th amendment protects, but the entire Majority Opinion is extremely clear that the ruling is in terms of sexual orientation. It might be cited in a legal challenge to polygamy, but that battle is very different than same sex marriage.

Numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federal
courts and state supreme courts have added to the dialogue. Pp. 6"
10.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10"27.
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment"s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices
defining personal identity and beliefs.


https://www.supremecourt.gov...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 6:15:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:10:11 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
In the case against gay marriage polygamy is a precedent. Back in the 1800s the Mormons did polygamy. Thay believed that according to their religion this was something they should be doing.
The Christians believed this was adultery and sinful and criminal, and the Mormons were shunned by decent people.
Eventually the Mormon church was forced to ban polygamy. The law does not allow you to re-define marriage.
Well now you are only allowed to re-define marriage if you are gay.
If there is ever a relationship with polygamy and they are a male judge and 2 or more female judges, they could do something they call a multi-wife marriage. And they will all get married and their state will have to issue a 3 person marriage license. They will tell us that the constitution requires that we believe they are married, because marriage is a basic human right. Now, shut up or I will find you in contempt of court.

Sir, that was awesome I applaud you.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 6:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 4:42:25 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:17:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:10:11 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
In the case against gay marriage polygamy is a precedent. Back in the 1800s the Mormons did polygamy. Thay believed that according to their religion this was something they should be doing.
The Christians believed this was adultery and sinful and criminal, and the Mormons were shunned by decent people.
Eventually the Mormon church was forced to ban polygamy. The law does not allow you to re-define marriage.
Well now you are only allowed to re-define marriage if you are gay.
If there is ever a relationship with polygamy and they are a male judge and 2 or more female judges, they could do something they call a multi-wife marriage. And they will all get married and their state will have to issue a 3 person marriage license. They will tell us that the constitution requires that we believe they are married, because marriage is a basic human right. Now, shut up or I will find you in contempt of court.

Tongue in cheek?

Why do people care so much about being recognized by the state, or the judge, or any form of government that they are officially married, this is just a piece of paper? If you feel you are different from most societal norms, be different, and understand that it might be an uphill battle to be accepted. It's more and more about feelings these days. I am not married, so if there is a real monetary (tax) reason, or if it were harder to adopt if you wanted to, something that you are denied because you are not married, than I understand, but if all anyone is looking for is recognition, move on to more important issues. Just live together as if you were married, no one is going to come knocking on your door and kick you out of your own home, but there will be people who disagree.... live with it. Have a fake marriage, is that not possible?

If there are benefits that I am missing for most of the people getting denied marriage licenses, please fill me in, because I am unaware. I think there are pros and cons, which for the most part, cancel each out.

I wonder the same thing and if you look at it, there's nothing beneficial legally marriage offers that a contract can't. It's a very silly and needless fight, it does not grant you any additional rights that I can think of. Marriage is a group of contracts which binds you, so it is easier to accomplish having them by getting married, but you don't need it, it's the lazy way I guess lol
kevin24018
Posts: 1,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 6:19:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:32:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Monogamy exists because of religion as well. People used to marry multiple wives and nothing was thought of it. So where is the boundry and why?

separation of church and state, unless we don't want to
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 6:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:29:58 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:07:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:12:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
A family court judge who routinely presides over gay adoptions and gay marriage says lasts years decision legalizing gay marriage is 'pretty close to insane' and that there is no question polygamy is on the way.

Judge philpot has not had any complaints or issues from activist groups on the results or fairness of his rulings.

I've had this contention since this first became an issue. I'm not against gay marriage, I just wanted all the resultant questions that are bound to arise answered, legally, while the whole emotional argument was going on. Will divorce be treated equally? If it's just about love, why not polygamy? Seems fair enough questions.

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no biological class in humans that is discriminated against by not allowing polygamy. There is only a religious class that may fight for polygamy. If it comes around it will be because of religious freedom laws and will have no relation to same sex marriage.

Has nothing to do with religion. Who is the authority that can dictate how many people any individual can love? If they are all consenting adults, who are they harming? TV show "Sister Wives" you are making them doing it in hiding! But seriously I find it funny where people will draw the line. Of all the marriage and sex that is accepted, hetero polygamy is where the line is drawn, border line hypocritical imo. Now why anyone would want multiple spouses is beyond me, talk about a potential messy divorce! Since no one can stop them from living together what's the point? Other than the courts couldn't handle these situation, I guess they better get busy and start writing laws to accommodate them too.

I think you missed the point. Let me rephrase by quoting myself:

If polygamy become the next push it will be because of religious freedom laws, not gay marriage. Gay marriage has and always will be about treating all classifications of sexual orientation equitably under the law.

There is no legal precidence to adjust the number of allowable parties in a marriage other than more than two are not allowed. The only angle that would have a fighting chance would be under religious freedom laws.

I'm sorry, but, "Those gays get to marry, so why can't I change any feature of civil marriage in any way or shape I feel fit", doesn't work in this case.