First gay marriage, now polygamy; what next?
 

For those who denied the presence of a slippery slope, I give you:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/25/pro...inority-group/

Prosecutor’s Policy: We Won’t Enforce Polygamy Ban, Because of a Concern About Religious Minority Group

So says a County Attorney’s declaration filed on May 22, 2012 in a federal case challenging the polygamy ban on constitutional grounds...

I'm not against either. Why have such laws?




.

Yep. +1

Sounds good to me. There is a clear line at "consenting adults" that we can slide all the way down to as far as I'm concerned. Or just remove the slope altogether by removing government from the marriage business.

It's not like those who practice polygamy are suddenly going to stop living as a family just because they can't legally marry. It's just another useless, ineffective law meant to make a certain group feel important by imposing their morality on others.

Wasn't polygamy part of the Mormon faith at one point? They've got as much of an argument on religious grounds as the guys that smoke peyote as part of their religion. I'd say they've got a stronger case on those grounds than the gay marriage folks.

The gay marriage folks just have "none of your damn business" going for them. Its really the opposite, the main opposition is based on the majority's religious edicts forbidding it and seeking to enforce that on them. The polygamists at least are on constitutionally equal footing if they can really convince the courts to cut them slack on religious grounds.

There's that same thing going against the Mormon polygamists too, about the majority religion trying to enforce its rules on others, but at least they've got some First Amendment juice on their side.

Randy

Who cares about polygamy? Seriously? How can you make yourself care what other people want their family to be?

I care about polygamy waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy less than I care about gay marriage. And I care absolutely zero about gay marriage.

A billion people are married and cheat on their spouse....it's a jerk move but no one wants it to be illegal. Why is it illegal for a group of people to be fine with what's already legal?

It's only legal for people to be polyamorous if most of the people involved are pissed and hurt about it? But if they're all A-OK then it's a crime? Sounds logical. :faint:

Any dude that can deal with more than one woman deserves what he gets!

The truth is strong with this one!

I think this is the first time I've ever opened a GT thread and saw so many rational posts. I approve.

Get the government out of marriage. It's none of their business.

What is next?

Cross-polygamy...."This is my husband Bob, and this is my wife Jane, the three of us are married."


.

None of the government's business.

So if polygamy is having one wife too many, what's the difference between that and regular marriage??? :rofl:

Randy

There will be no end to it as long as they get to "re-define" marriage. It sure looks like government shouldn't be involved AT ALL!

My opposition to homosexual "marriage" is largely because a homosexual couple will raise children with a warped sense of relationships between the sexes. Now.... if children weren't involved then who really cares?

That's impossible. Custody disputes; medical disputes; inheritance; tax filings; regulation of adoption agencies; civil suits against "discriminatory" churches, banquet halls, misc businesses; divorce proceedings.

I don't care what they do, just don't call it marriage.

How is it different then a marriage?



.

But outlawing gay marriage does absolutely nothing to prevent gays from having and raising children.

Quite trying to rationalize it and just come clean with yourself, you oppose gay marriage because you don't approve of homosexuality and you want the government to support your beliefs.

Next:

Meet my wife Bowser, the Terrier.

Yeah, them gays raise screwed up kids like this guy.

A simple contract between a couple (or group) covers most of the normal legal issues that arise in creating or dissolving a marriage. As for suits against churches, it's a non-issue; churches currently discriminate with regards to who can be married in their buildings with no problem, legalizing polygamy or gay marriage would do nothing to change that.

Animals can't consent. Of course, I'm fairly sure you know that. :upeyes:

"Polygamy": A Crime that is also it's own punishment.

Because it is not a man and a woman. Pretending that the word marriage has not retained a historical meaning in Western civilization is dishonest.

Do you own the term or its definition?