Good morning, Pero. :2wave:
If polygamy is ever legalized, are we supposed to have a wish list ready? :lamo:
Has nothing to do with gay marriage.
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.
If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.
First in our town halls -- then in our sex ed classes!
What I don't understand is on what grounds same-sex marriage is in any way a legitimate part of this discussion, seeing as how the only legal precedent that mattered was the First Amendment.
From the article linked in the OP:
In other words, no, you couldn't "shack-up" with as many people you wanted in Utah under this law.
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.
If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.
Can we have wild heterosexual orgies too?
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
And now you can. The law that was struck down didn't even permit you to move in with one girlfriend.
Sorry, I don't know any other languages and I thought I described my position pretty clearly in English.
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.
If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.
OOOO!!! finally a law I could go for!!!
Re this case -
I'm not sure how the govt can dictate who lives in a house together, so the judge's decision makes sense. Glad he kept the part about the marriage license though - that more than one is bigamy.
It's a very tough issue. I have no problems with polyamory among consenting adults who are well aware of their legal rights - and also the lack of them (so that they draw up contracts, power of attorney, wills, etc to protect themselves). I have HUGE problems with traditional fundamentalist polygamists who marry young girls to old men, who chase out their young men so there are more girls for the old men, who don't educate their women and girls, and who have the extra wives live off of govt subsidies.
But maybe if they can be brought "into the light" their kids would learn there are other ways to live, and wouldn't live this life unless they freely chose it as adults. And maybe we could stop the underage marriages.
It really isn't my fault if you fail to communicate what SSM has to do with an issue that did not involve SSM in any way.
Read my post again, if you're interested - if you understand my position, there's no problem - if you don't understand my position, you never will. No need to belabour the issue.
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Right!?!?
I can understand a man pissing on an electric fence or sticking his tongue on a frozen lamp pole ONCE.
But twice, three times, more? That guy is just an idiot.
It is still illegal to claim more than one wife, right? One marriage certificate? One tax exemption? The loophole is, they can still all live together , united under their their own, (society/government unsanctioned/unrecognized,) version of "marriage,' (aka shack-up,)
People can "shack-up," with as many people as they want, anywhere in America, right?
From the article linked in the OP:
In other words, no, you couldn't "shack-up" with as many people you wanted in Utah under this law.
Sorry, I don't know any other languages and I thought I described my position pretty clearly in English.
What did college students do in Utah?
Beats the tar out of me, I've never lived in Utah so I don't know how the state enforced its own law.
Sorry, I don't know any other languages and I thought I described my position pretty clearly in English.
That your whole slippery slope is built on nothing. I understand not answering the questions, since that would ruin your slippery slope. Running away from them is cowardly, but prudent.
Even more baffling. You missed the part where the questions were answered before you even asked them.
Saying that someone is running away is not the same as them actually running away.
So you tell me -- if marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied on arbitrary grounds, and people have the freedom to decide whom to love and whom to make families with, and these are fundamental, constitutional rights, on what grounds to you deny polyamory, group marriages, or any other arrangement between consenting adults?
Be specific.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?