If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Right Wing Watch)   Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger   (rightwingwatch.org) divider line 222
    More: Interesting, Tea Party Nation, gay equality, court of public opinion, free market economy, same-sex marriages, dogs  
•       •       •

3794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Aug 2012 at 5:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-04 05:52:20 PM
www.religifake.com
 
2012-08-04 05:53:31 PM
I'm super-confused because I thought the Tea Party was totally a bi-partisan movement aimed only at cutting government spending, size, and taxes. Did the fark political pundits lie to me?
 
2012-08-04 05:53:40 PM
I object to the exploitation of Bengal tigers which, of course, are critically endangered and which employ violent biting during coitus to trigger a sort of orgasm in the female to facilitate fertilization. Otherwise, I have no problem with any of this.
 
2012-08-04 05:53:57 PM

namatad: Bloody William: I have that Blu-ray.

3D??


Just DD
 
2012-08-04 05:54:03 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Traditional marriage is already a freak show. Haven't these wingnuts ever seen Bridezillas?


What, you're telling me that these aren't real family values?

www.amnation.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

www.tensionnot.com

/Honestly, how can gays fark up the institution of marriage more than heterosexuals have?
 
2012-08-04 05:54:22 PM
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America.

50% failure rate is the most stable unit in America? America is unstable as f*ck then.
 
2012-08-04 05:56:34 PM
So "the Left" hates freedom. And as we all know, terrorists hate us for our freedom. Have they come out yet and explicitly made a Left = terrorists comparison yet?
 
2012-08-04 05:59:22 PM
Posted for relevance(NSFW language)
 
2012-08-04 05:59:55 PM

SkinnyHead: "The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)


When summarizing, Justice Brown declared, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." [Plessy vs. Ferguson]

Looks, I can find crappy court decisions also!!
 
2012-08-04 06:01:06 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.
 
2012-08-04 06:01:47 PM
Well, when it comes to freak shows, teabaggers know what they're talking about.
 
2012-08-04 06:04:32 PM
I smell a sitcom!
 
2012-08-04 06:04:40 PM
They already corrupted marriage and changes it total meaning hundreds of times. Maybe it best we go back to viewing it as a business contract between two males over property and get back to treating females as property to exchange for land and protection.

After all this marrying for love that became popular a 150 years ago seems to have a 50% failure rating between those who cry out the loudest of the need to protect its sanctity.
 
2012-08-04 06:05:32 PM

BitwiseShift: I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-04 06:05:36 PM
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America. The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

What is on of the most effective tools socialists have to do this? Attacking the family.


I know I shouldn't be, but I'm curious about the logic here. If you're trying to break up marriages and make more single parents who might have to be dependent on the government to get by, then I suppose in Twisted Logic World yes, that's promoting socialism.

But shouldn't allowing more folks to marry lead to a greater number of stable family units?
 
2012-08-04 06:06:20 PM

ultraholland: also TFA: Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.

uhhh, know the definition of words before using them.


That's never stopped them before, why start now?
 
2012-08-04 06:06:36 PM

Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.


It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?
 
2012-08-04 06:07:54 PM
And the Republicans will be the first ones in line at the porn sites to watch the video.
 
2012-08-04 06:08:56 PM

Bloody William: I don't see how anyone can own a TV and say that marriage isn't already a freak show.


I wonder if the freak show TV hosts will get behind gay marriage just because it would increase the variations of their shows, and their audience must overlap pretty heavily with the sort of people that are stalling it.
 
2012-08-04 06:09:54 PM
Pretty soon these libby libs will be deciding what is, and is not, official constitutionally-mandated Senate business in airport toilets.

HAVE THEY NO SHAME?
 
2012-08-04 06:11:49 PM
I read that whole tirade and I gotta say, it's breathtaking. It starts out with the premise that "The Left™" is all about taking away freedom and putting most things into the hands of the state. It winds up with the exact opposite premise, to wit that "The Left™" is trying to create "anarchy" (which, mind you, somehow "cannot coexist" with freedom). And this is all part of the nasty statist plot, you see.

So in order to subvert the overweening power of the State, dig this, what we have to do is bolster the power of the State to determine which individuals can marry which other individuals, and by doing so we can save America from totalitarian anarchy.

Truly, these Tea Party people are philosopher kings every last man-jack of them. I can only hope that in my lifetime I'll be able to attain the extraordinary wisdom and powers of perception needed to follow an argument like that.
 
2012-08-04 06:11:57 PM

YouWinAgainGravity: So "the Left" hates freedom. And as we all know, terrorists hate us for our freedom. Have they come out yet and explicitly made a Left = terrorists comparison yet?


Well, given that some of their brightest minds have concluded that Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all Left Wingers, it's only a matter of time.
 
2012-08-04 06:12:33 PM

YouWinAgainGravity: So "the Left" hates freedom. And as we all know, terrorists hate us for our freedom. Have they come out yet and explicitly made a Left = terrorists comparison yet?


Wasn't that the point of the birther movement? That Obama isn't "one of us"...if you catch my drift. That obviously meant he was an Al Qadea plant.
 
2012-08-04 06:12:57 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


Well, when it's not legally allowed and you aren't able to give legal rights in relation to your person to someone other than the single recognized spouse that would be pretty difficult. Almost as difficult as having a spouse and two parents that all want different things, but somehow we found a way around that particular issue. I would consider this to be a fair argument that before someone gets a second marriage certificate they be required to have a living will or other legal agreement established in writing, rather than an argument that it shouldn't be allowed at all.
 
2012-08-04 06:16:11 PM

Falcc: Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?

Well, when it's not legally allowed and you aren't able to give legal rights in relation to your person to someone other than the single recognized spouse that would be pretty difficult. Almost as difficult as having a spouse and two parents that all want different things, but somehow we found a way around that particular issue. I would consider this to be a fair argument that before someone gets a second marriage certificate they be required to have a living will or other legal agreement established in writing, rather than an argument that it shouldn't be allowed at all.


That's an interesting, but messy solution. How does the hospital know which spouse is the one with the rights in that situation? Normally, what the surviving spouse says goes, unless other family sues to stop it. Even then, unless the spouse is majorly int he wrong, they will win that fight.

The poly folks have never really provided a solid framework to how all that will work, and that's what keeps the state from okaying it. If they had such a framework, i'm fine with allowing it.
 
2012-08-04 06:17:34 PM
Tigers and dogs?


Yeah, no one's advocating that consent doesn't matter so not gonna happen.
 
2012-08-04 06:17:40 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


You're not familiar with living wills? or not talked about this type of thing with your significant other?
 
2012-08-04 06:17:47 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.
 
2012-08-04 06:19:06 PM
I suppose they'd rather those 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and the Bengal tiger all be living in sin? Family values indeed!

=Smidge=
 
2012-08-04 06:19:18 PM

Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.


That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.
 
2012-08-04 06:20:17 PM

sno man: Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?

You're not familiar with living wills? or not talked about this type of thing with your significant other?


Anenu: Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?

A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.


Not everyone has one, hell, I doubt most of us do. So when you have to go to the spouses, how do they decide? Do they vote? does it have to be unanimous?
 
2012-08-04 06:21:34 PM

Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.


So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?
 
2012-08-04 06:24:10 PM

Antimatter: [...]
Not everyone has one, hell, I doubt most of us do. So when you have to go to the spouses, how do they decide? Do they vote? does it have to be unanimous?


I think it's a great idea, and can't think of a good reason not to have one.
But to have not even had that discussion with your S.I. ...how ever many there are.
 
2012-08-04 06:24:23 PM
*tiger bites one of the magician queers in the throat*

"Consider it a divorce"
 
2012-08-04 06:24:33 PM
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America. The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

This is an absolute nonsequitur. Several claims are made, and assuming all are true, this is still not a coherent argument in the least. How does stability of a family unit influence the basis of an economy?

As to the claims themselves... what a mass of assumptions which are ridiculous. Traditional families are not traditional. Any hatred of the expression is due to the usage being a de facto but baseless argument against homosexual marriage. Not sure how you define "stable" or "unit" or what other "unit"s you are comparing to. America is not a free market economy. Socialist economies are not necessarily absent freedom. Further, Free market economies are not necessarily based on liberty.
 
2012-08-04 06:26:16 PM

Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.


One of the standard responses of conservatives when asked about gay marriage is that gays can get all the same benefits and privledges as married straights - they just have to see a lawyer and plan ahead some. Why don't we allow polygamy and say that they just need to plan ahead for circumstances where the spouses don't all agree on something; and if they don't then they'll just have to drag the dispute in front of Judge Judy and pay the court costs?

Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger
Assuming that everyone involved is an of age and legally able to consent and say "I do", I say knock yourselfs out. And besides, doesn't every man hope that his bride is a tiger in the sack?
 
2012-08-04 06:27:45 PM
3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger...

Every time I tell my wife the therapy worked someone comes up with something new.
 
2012-08-04 06:28:20 PM

Cheesus: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?


Time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Same as what would happen if our polygamous friend died intestate and his/her spouses disagreed over the disposition of his assets.

I don't think you'll see polygamy become legal any time soon because of the myriad of issues like intestate succession and medical POAs. The state has a compelling interest in limiting the marriage contract to two persons that does not exist in keeping two people of the same sex from marrying.
 
2012-08-04 06:30:18 PM
Antimatter

Let me address the larger criticism of legal structure arguments against Polyamory/Polygamy. Most arguments against it use the idea that the legal system isn't equipped to deal with the issues involved in multiple person relationship structures, but this doesn't really hold up. We only need to look into business law to see that multi-person unions are feasible. Who makes decisions between the multiple owners of a corporation? This structure can be translatable to marriage law.

As for the specific difficulty of the end of life scenario: If there is no living will and multiple interested parties what is done now? What if the person isn't married, how do two children or two parents with different ideas get power allotted to them to make this decision? This is no harder, and even though I can't propose a one-size-fits-all solution off the top of my head it might be easier to hammer out for people with an understanding of the more complex aspects of the law than myself. People should just have a living will when they get married to multiple people, it's something I would say most of us would do to maintain our full legal rights.
 
2012-08-04 06:30:58 PM
Mugato: "Consider it a divorce"

You wouldn't hurt me. After all, we're gay-tiger-married.
 
2012-08-04 06:33:42 PM
They forgot the turtle!
 
2012-08-04 06:34:16 PM
FTFA: The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

multimedia.billybrew.com

lib·er·ty/ˈlibərtē/Noun:

1.The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
2.An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

free·dom/ˈfrēdəm/Noun:

1.The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2.Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.



Who the fark is being subjected to oppressive restrictions here or being denied the power to act as they want, you farking clueless teatards?
 
2012-08-04 06:34:24 PM

Karac: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

One of the standard responses of conservatives when asked about gay marriage is that gays can get all the same benefits and privledges as married straights - they just have to see a lawyer and plan ahead some. Why don't we allow polygamy and say that they just need to plan ahead for circumstances where the spouses don't all agree on something; and if they don't then they'll just have to drag the dispute in front of Judge Judy and pay the court costs?

Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger
Assuming that everyone involved is an of age and legally able to consent and say "I do", I say knock yourselfs out. And besides, doesn't every man hope that his bride is a tiger in the sack?


I doubt it would go over well if the government proposed forcing you to estate plan as a requirement of marriage.

Maybe it wouldnt be a bad idea logically...but I don't think you'd ever get it into law with all the crying about government encroachment on our FREEDUMZ.
 
2012-08-04 06:35:56 PM
What, no box turtles??
 
2012-08-04 06:37:59 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-04 06:38:34 PM
Liberty and freedom depend on a stable nation, stable government and stable families. Those who claim they support "equality" do not support liberty. They support anarchy.

Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.

In the end only one can prevail and history is riddle with the graves of those who learned what happened when freedom lost.


So they really are going down the road of "slavery is freedom." Whenever I have had that thought before, I thought it was a strawman, and have struggled mightily to tame my worries with the thought that reality could never approach art, but...

/freedom for me but not for thee
//this is what some people actually believe
 
2012-08-04 06:38:43 PM
FTA The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America....

Im sure this has already been said. But, this statement is laughable. Marriage in this country is far from stable. The divorce rate
is well over half.

Case in point, a lady who attends our area garage sales was recently going on and on about "the attack on traditional marriage." She has also been married 4 times and one of her ex husband lives in an add-on in the back of her house. I kid you not. She is a Christian and so am I, so I think she felt that I would be interested in her barrage of hypocrisy. When I told her that she should really start to look inward (yes I told her this, but nicely) she told me...divorce "just happens."
 
2012-08-04 06:39:21 PM

js34603: Cheesus: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?

Time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Same as what would happen if our polygamous friend died intestate and his/her spouses disagreed over the disposition of his assets.

I don't think you'll see polygamy become legal any time soon because of the myriad of issues like intestate succession and medical POAs. The state has a compelling interest in limiting the marriage contract to two persons that does not exist in keeping two people of the same sex from marrying.


Oh please. The state is run by lawyers, name a lawyer against time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Arguing that the law as it stands isn't conducive to bestowing rights upon people isn't a reasonable argument. In the middle ages in Europe the law was designed entirely around the idea of women as property. This didn't mean women didn't deserve rights at this point, that they weren't sophisticated enough evolutionarily until a more recent period of time, or that they hadn't earned enough respect yet. They still deserved all the rights they have now, but were denied it by the structure of the system. In a society in which marriage exists and bestows legal rights on the participants which benefit a romantic grouping with fiscal and health returns I have as much right to be married in my relationship structure as a monogamous couple does. If laws beyond anti-bigamy laws are in the way of that arrangement ALL of those laws need to be changed into order to respect those rights.

Arguing for rights isn't a practical argument, it's a moral argument. If same sex marriage were more difficult to institute from a bureaucratic perspective that wouldn't somehow invalidate the need for it to be implemented in order to have equality.
 
2012-08-04 06:41:43 PM

Orange-Pippin: FTA The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America....

Im sure this has already been said. But, this statement is laughable. Marriage in this country is far from stable. The divorce rate is well over half.


But if you take away all the divorces, it is the most stable unit in America.
 
2012-08-04 06:42:00 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


I'm far more concerned with the far-Right making divorce illegal. Of course that will all but destroy marriage but that's not important to them now is it?
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report