The Slippery Slope Is Real, Get Ready to See How Far it Plummets

[epicSocialism4tw]

SALT LAKE CITY (The Blaze/AP) — A polygamous family made famous by the reality TV show “Sister Wives” plans to challenge the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal, a Washington-based attorney said Tuesday.

Bigamy is defined as “the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sister-wives-polygamous-family-plans-to-challenge-utahs-bigamy-law/

[bowtown]

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This has nothing to do with marriage. Are you now also trying to keep gay people from sleeping together? Maybe you can get them banned from our country all together. Or placed on reservations. You are right... where does your slippery slope of hatred end?

[Br0nc0Buster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This has nothing to do with marriage. Are you now also trying to keep gay people from sleeping together? Maybe you can get them banned from our country all together. Or placed on reservations. You are right... where does your slippery slope of hatred end?

I believe there are camps for people like that, where their illnesses can simply be prayed away.

[bowtown]

I believe there are camps for people like that, where their illnesses can simply be prayed away.

Would those be owned solely by a husband, or could his wife also have some action on that?

[Br0nc0Buster]

Would those be owned solely by a husband, or could his wife also have some action on that?

the wife would co own it and participate in it, but legally would "have nothing to do with it"

and anyone who would suggest the wife had anything to do with it, including pointing out said ownership, would be called a liar

I remember discussing this in my partnership and sole proprietorship class

[bowtown]

the wife would co own it and participate in it, but legally would "have nothing to do with it"

and anyone who would suggest the wife had anything to do with it, including pointing out said ownership, would be called a liar

I remember discussing this in my partnership and sole proprietorship class

Makes sense.

[Popcorn Sutton]

But, but, the Constitution... Individual liberty.... ah never mind.

[TailgateNut]

DramaLlama- like a mouse in a field of mouse traps----Bawahahahaha

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This has nothing to do with marriage. Are you now also trying to keep gay people from sleeping together? Maybe you can get them banned from our country all together. Or placed on reservations. You are right... where does your slippery slope of hatred end?

The oceans of mindless youth in this country, those whose predictable paradigms are represented by the ideas that you have put forth here, are possibly the least-educated, least-unwise generation of people ever to be tossed out rudderless into this once great nation.

You haven't the simplest philosophical tools to analyze behavior and law with any sense of responsibility or pragmatism.

The truth of the matter is, I'm sure that the mindless masses will look at polygamy with disdain because it is practiced by a religion that you find repuslive. But what you do not realize is that once you redefine marriage, that it is only a matter of time, through logical extension, that polygamy will become legal. Polyandry too.

What you have advocated is for marriage to be defined as nothing but a public association for tax purposes and various legal purposes. The logical extension then is very easily made.

Polygamy will be legal soon. Within 10 years in states where gay marriage is legal. Why? Because you cannot form a legal defense against it that contains anything except for religious discrimination. These are willing adults who are simply practicing their long-held religious beliefs. They have just as much a right to be married as gay couples.

When are you people going to be able to think?

You want to deconstruct without any historical understanding or sense of reason. Why? Because you feel emotional about something.

Well, there will be consequences to those blind, historically ignorant actions.

[ghwk]

The oceans of mindless youth in this country, those whose predictable paradigms are represented by the ideas that you have put forth here, are possibly the least-educated, least-unwise generation of people ever to be tossed out rudderless into this once great nation.

You haven't the simplest philosophical tools to analyze behavior and law with any sense of responsibility or pragmatism.

The truth of the matter is, I'm sure that the mindless masses will look at polygamy with disdain because it is practiced by a religion that you find repuslive. But what you do not realize is that once you redefine marriage, that it is only a matter of time, through logical extension, that polygamy will become legal. Polyandry too.

What you have advocated is for marriage to be defined as nothing but a public association for tax purposes and various legal purposes. The logical extension then is very easily made.

Polygamy will be legal soon. Within 10 years in states where gay marriage is legal. Why? Because you cannot form a legal defense against it that contains anything except for religious discrimination. These are willing adults who are simply practicing their long-held religious beliefs. They have just as much a right to be married as gay couples.

When are you people going to be able to think?

You want to deconstruct without any historical understanding or sense of reason. Why? Because you feel emotional about something.

Well, there will be consequences to those blind, historically ignorant actions.

Hateful Person.

[Boomhauer]

This be the meat of the situation......................
... But what you do not realize is that once you redefine marriage, that it is only a matter of time, through logical extension, that polygamy will become legal. Polyandry too. What you have advocated is for marriage to be defined as nothing but a public association for tax purposes and various legal purposes. ... (Polygamist) have just as much a right to be married as gay couples. ...

What isn't addressed is the common use by Legislators to give tax rates and legal definition to specific individuals or groups to encourage actions deemed beneficial to society. ie: donating time and money to charity, installing solar panels or buying electric vehicles, serving in the Military or National Guard, having or adopting children, being born a minority, etc.

One group contributing to society is married heterosexuals and, moreover, married heterosexual parents. For their actions, special tax rates and legal benefits is appropriate and inappropriate for other forms of adult unions. Further, the only health family unit for raising children is one maternal figure and one paternal figure. For that reason, tax rates accounting for children should not apply to single parents or civil union adults.

[W*GS]

I wonder how many of the folks bellowing to "save marriage" realize that what we call "marriage" is a quite new phenomenon.

They just fear and loathe homosexuals and homosexuality (excepting lesbian porn), and that's all there is to it.

[bowtown]

The oceans of mindless youth in this country, those whose predictable paradigms are represented by the ideas that you have put forth here, are possibly the least-educated, least-unwise generation of people ever to be tossed out rudderless into this once great nation.

You haven't the simplest philosophical tools to analyze behavior and law with any sense of responsibility or pragmatism.

The truth of the matter is, I'm sure that the mindless masses will look at polygamy with disdain because it is practiced by a religion that you find repuslive. But what you do not realize is that once you redefine marriage, that it is only a matter of time, through logical extension, that polygamy will become legal. Polyandry too.

What you have advocated is for marriage to be defined as nothing but a public association for tax purposes and various legal purposes. The logical extension then is very easily made.

Polygamy will be legal soon. Within 10 years in states where gay marriage is legal. Why? Because you cannot form a legal defense against it that contains anything except for religious discrimination. These are willing adults who are simply practicing their long-held religious beliefs. They have just as much a right to be married as gay couples.

When are you people going to be able to think?

You want to deconstruct without any historical understanding or sense of reason. Why? Because you feel emotional about something.

Well, there will be consequences to those blind, historically ignorant actions.

No link? Which bigotblogger did you steal that one from? Would you like to make a bet with me that poligamy will not be legal within ten years in the states where gay marriage now is? I'd be happy to wager just about anything that not even one of them will allow it. Name your terms.

You should try turning off the computer and going outside a little more, you will start to realize that the world and the people in it aren't as scary as you think they all are. Maybe that can be your project for today.

[DenverBrit]

The oceans of mindless youth in this country, those whose predictable paradigms are represented by the ideas that you have put forth here, are possibly the least-educated, least-unwise generation of people ever to be tossed out rudderless into this once great nation.

You haven't the simplest philosophical tools to analyze behavior and law with any sense of responsibility or pragmatism.

The truth of the matter is, I'm sure that the mindless masses will look at polygamy with disdain because it is practiced by a religion that you find repuslive. But what you do not realize is that once you redefine marriage, that it is only a matter of time, through logical extension, that polygamy will become legal. Polyandry too.

What you have advocated is for marriage to be defined as nothing but a public association for tax purposes and various legal purposes. The logical extension then is very easily made.

Polygamy will be legal soon. Within 10 years in states where gay marriage is legal. Why? Because you cannot form a legal defense against it that contains anything except for religious discrimination. These are willing adults who are simply practicing their long-held religious beliefs. They have just as much a right to be married as gay couples.

When are you people going to be able to think?

You want to deconstruct without any historical understanding or sense of reason. Why? Because you feel emotional about something.

Well, there will be consequences to those blind, historically ignorant actions.

Polygamy is practiced by religious fundamentalists; should religious fundamentalism be banned too??

You may be on to something.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hateful Person.

Hilarious!

Saying that gay marriage law opens the door to polygamy is "hateful". Ha!

Silliness.

[DivineBronco]

Hilarious!

Saying that gay marriage law opens the door to polygamy is "hateful". Ha!

Silliness.

come check out the Bachmann thread it neeeeeds you

[Requiem]

You are just mad you will never reproduce.

[bowtown]

Hilarious!

Saying that gay marriage law opens the door to polygamy is "hateful". Ha!

Silliness.

Are we betting?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Are we betting?

Present a non-religious descrimination based case that defends your position as to why polygamy is not deserving of the same legal treatment as gay marriage.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Present a non-religious descrimination based case that defends your position as to why polygamy is not deserving of the same legal treatment as gay marriage.

Or.... how about a non-religious discrimination case that defends your position as to why gay's are not deserving the same legal treatment as straight people.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Or.... how about a non-religious discrimination case that defends your position as to why gay's are not deserving the same legal treatment as straight people.

Um...do you really need me to point out the obvious?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Um...do you really need me to point out the obvious?

Sorry, but knowing what's going on in your whacked out brain is not obvious to me...

I suppose you are going to tell me something about nature and how homosexuals cannot reproduce?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sorry, but knowing what's going on in your whacked out brain is not obvious to me...

I suppose you are going to tell me something about nature and how homosexuals cannot reproduce?

The obvious problems with advocating a naturalistic defense for gay marriage are beside the point.

You are not capable of delineating philosophical reasons that separate gay marriage from other forms of marriage when juxtaposed with traditional monogamous marriage.

You really should start thinking about this stuff instead of just jumping off of emotional cliffs into oceans of emotion.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The obvious problems with advocating a naturalistic defense for gay marriage are beside the point.

You are not capable of delineating philosophical reasons that separate gay marriage from other forms of marriage when juxtaposed with traditional monogamous marriage.

You really should start thinking about this stuff instead of just jumping off of emotional cliffs into oceans of emotion.

Hilarious!Hilarious!

Enlighten me... oh wise one!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hilarious!Hilarious!

Enlighten me... oh wise one!

I'm waiting for someone to present a reason why gay marriage should be federally supported and polygamy should not. And no, "them moormuns iz dum" is not a good defense.

[Spider]

let polygamy , gay marriage have the same rights as hetro marriage ....**** em all

[snowspot66]

I'm waiting for someone to present a reason why gay marriage should be federally supported and polygamy should not. And no, "them moormuns iz dum" is not a good defense.

First of all the two issues are entirely separate and deserve to be debated on their individual merits.

As for why one should be allowed and the other not in the case of gay marriage you have men and women who are being restricted from entering a legal contract with a willing and able minded second party. This restriction is based entirely on gender and the government cannot provide a legitimate reason or interest in barring two men or two women from entering this contract while simultaneously allowing one man and one woman to enter said contract.

In the case of polygamy there is no legal recognition of a person entering multiple marriage contracts. No individual is being denied access to a right/service/etc. Nobody is allowed to enter multiple marriage contracts therefore nobody can claim they are being denied a right. In addition to that fact the government can also argue that it has a legitimate reason/cause to deny all people the right to enter multiple marriage contracts. There is no legal precedent regarding multiple marriage contracts, the inevitable disputes and divorces, child custody claims, taxes, etc, etc, etc. In theory a significant portion of government and law would have to be reworked, if not built from scratch, to accommodate people legally entering multiple marriage contracts.

In the case of gay marriage you might have to change and reprint a few forms.

[Boomhauer]

First of all the two issues are entirely separate and deserve to be debated on their individual merits.
...
In the case of polygamy there is no legal recognition of a person entering multiple marriage contracts. ... Nobody is allowed to enter multiple marriage contracts therefore nobody can claim they are being denied a right. In addition to that fact the government can also argue that it has a legitimate reason/cause to deny all people the right to enter multiple marriage contracts. ...

The two issues are not separate and you've used arguments against civil unions, against polygamy.

[W*GS]

You are not capable of delineating philosophical reasons that separate gay marriage from other forms of marriage when juxtaposed with traditional monogamous marriage.

What is "traditional monogamous marriage"?

PS - No matter how you try to obscure it, you're simply homophobic. Let's drop the pretense.

[wolverine]

I'm waiting for someone to present a reason why gay marriage should be federally supported and polygamy should not. And no, "them moormuns iz dum" is not a good defense.

Snowspot provided a good answer to your request.

I'd also add the concept of equality. Marriage should be an equal union: what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine, etc. A polygamous "marriage" is not equal. At it's simplest level each husband has multiple wives, each wife has a fraction a husband.

Now please provide an answer to Brewcrew's request:

How about a non-religious discrimination case that defends your position as to why gay's are not deserving the same legal treatment as straight people?

[epicSocialism4tw]

What is "traditional monogamous marriage"?

PS - No matter how you try to obscure it, you're simply homophobic. Let's drop the pretense.

Saying that there is no legal argument that can support the ban of polygamy after homosexual unions are allowed is homophobic? Ha!

Right! Ha!

How do you know when people like Wags have no defense? When they use wild, irresponsible personal attacks.

He may as well have just waved a white flag.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Snowspot provided a good answer to your request.

I didnt see it. I'll go back and look.

I'd also add the concept of equality. Marriage should be an equal union: what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine, etc. A polygamous "marriage" is not equal. At it's simplest level each husband has multiple wives, each wife has a fraction a husband.

The "equality" you have mentioned is not quantifiable in any meaningful way.

Now please provide an answer to Brewcrew's request:

How about a non-religious discrimination case that defends your position as to why gay's are not deserving the same legal treatment as straight people

That's not what the thread is about.

[TonyR]

That's not what the thread is about.

Translation: you cannot defend your position.
Further translation: you've lost the argument.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Translation: you cannot defend your position.
Further translation: you've lost the argument.

There wasn't ever an argument because that's not the thread topic.

If you would like to discuss that topic, make your own thread.

[W*GS]

How do you know when people like epicFail have no defense? When they use wild, irresponsible personal attacks.

Fixed it for ya.

[bowtown]

I didnt see it. I'll go back and look.



The "equality" you have mentioned is not quantifiable in any meaningful way.



That's not what the thread is about.

This thread isn't about the laws of marriage either, at least the article you posted isn't. It doesn't have anything to do with allowing poligamist marriage.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This thread isn't about the laws of marriage either, at least the article you posted isn't. It doesn't have anything to do with allowing poligamist marriage.

Ha!

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/education/pics/how_to_read_270.jpg

[Requiem]

Shut up you fat inbred ****.

[bowtown]

Ha!

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/education/pics/how_to_read_270.jpg

Jesus you are an asshat:

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

[Requiem]

Comprehension of Anne Frank.