Polygamous family has sued Utah

[Scooter]

Why are you opposed to polygamy; it seems that you would be more tolerant than most?

Perhaps you can show me where I said I was opposed to polygamy. What I said was that legal recognition of polygamous marriages carries with it a host of complications that distinguish it from the recognition of a two-person marriage (of either sex).

It's a "complete debunking" because you wrote it?

I'm sure that hundreds of people who actually understand the constitutional issues and believe that it is a legitimate question would be quite surprised to know that the question is settled.

Asshole.

Perhaps you can point to the words where I said the issue was settled. Saying that there are arguments against it (completely different from any alleged "argument" against SSM) does not constitute a claim that it is "settled', only that there are arguments against it.

And it's a complete debunking of the notion that recogntion of SSM must lead to the recognition of plural marriage, because I have shown several ways in which the recognition of plural marriage bears no relationship to the recognition of same-sex marriages. Having now had three kicks at the cat, you haven't yet managed to refute a single word. So thanks for admitting I was right.

[Guinevere]

Standing-O for Sue in this thread

[Big RR]

Agreed.

[liberty]

Standing-O for Sue in this thread

Is that o or 0; there is a big difference? Is it some kind of code?

[Joe Guy]

It's liberal lawyer code for "You done smacked down that dummy!"

[liberty]

Why are you opposed to polygamy; it seems that you would be more tolerant than most?

Perhaps you can show me where I said I was opposed to polygamy. What I said was that legal recognition of polygamous marriages carries with it a host of complications that distinguish it from the recognition of a two-person marriage (of either sex).

If I miss interpreted I will admit it. I have never had a problem admitting mistake or asking questions. I am secure enough I can deal with it.

My Southern Baptist brethren don’t agree, but I myself have no opposition with SSM, how individuals manage to find happiness in the privacy of their home is not my business; it is between them and God. However, I see nothing in the US constitution that requires our states to accept it.

The more I think about polygamy the more I think it might be a good idea for society; let’s at least explore the idea.

[rubato]

When morons discover that they have no real arguments against something they claim it leads to something else which is generally disliked.

One of the weakest arguments of all time.



yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

If I miss interpreted I will admit it. I have never had a problem admitting mistake

Any time you want to make that admission, go ahead.

[Jarlaxle]

My only problem with polygamy is that in a legal sense, it will be extremely messy. Beyond that...do not care.

[Lord Jim]

My only problem with polygamy is that in a legal sense, it will be extremely messy.

My biggest problem would be figuring out how to be completely wrong when dealing with multiple women simultaneously....

Though I have to say my daughter is starting to give me good training in that regard....

[Gob]

[loCAtek]

I'll be in support of polygamy when I can marry as many husbands as I like; and send them out to work for me as my own private serfdom, too.



...otherwise, I'm not cool with how sexist, this concept sounds.



Although, the orgy potential is intriguing...