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.

(Think Progress)   Top conservative says that marriage equality will lead to *shakes magic 8-ball* immigrant polygamists   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 276
    More: Amusing, same-sex marriages, Luke Russert, Family Research Council, Southern Poverty Law Center, same-sex couples, Defense of Marriage Act, magic, immigration  
•       •       •

2041 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Mar 2013 at 4:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 03:29:44 PM
Well, maybe just polygamists. If they are all consenting adults it's no problem right?
 
2013-03-27 03:33:41 PM
How many woman can one man really stand?  Jebus... 3 or 4 wives? fffffffffffark that!
 
2013-03-27 03:38:15 PM
So... Mormons?
 
2013-03-27 03:50:36 PM
"I'm just worried about a slippery slope"

A hot, lubed-up, throbbing slope of love.

// Reverend Horton Heat's next single
 
2013-03-27 04:04:32 PM
Appearing on MSNBC, Perkins - whose organization is labeled as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center

the liberalest liberal media channel ever gives equal time to hate groups.

Liberal media.
 
2013-03-27 04:04:54 PM
Does this mean I can have a husband AND a wife? Because I've got a huge girl crush on one of my neighbors...
 
2013-03-27 04:12:21 PM

Via Infinito: Does this mean I can have a husband AND a wife? Because I've got a huge girl crush on one of my neighbors...



Yes, but if I recall the GOP's argument correctly, I'm pretty sure that one of you has to be a turtle.
 
2013-03-27 04:14:15 PM
1) "If love becomes a definition of what the boundaries of marriage are" That's not what's happening.

2)   I really don't give a shiat about polygamy. Should I? If they want to set up some sort of legal network amongst a group, who are we to say no? What exactly is the problem here? It's like with gay marriage: if two dudes want to make their relationship recognized under the law, it doesn't affect you; if 4 people in a group want to make their relationship recognized by the law, it doesn't affect you. Only an asshole lets that affect their marriage in any way.
 
2013-03-27 04:14:57 PM
Going out on a limb, it's not an unreasonable question to ask:  How tolerant must the US be to immigrant marriage situations?  Personally, if its between consenting adults, then I don't really see a problem with polyamory either.  The problem is that historical polygamy is a long way from consensual.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that his question should impact this debate, because the same argument could be made for marriage of any type.  And people already immigrate to the US for that purpose- the polygamist spouse swapping between Colorado Springs and Bountiful, BC is well documented.   It may not be legalized, but there is certainly a tolerance for it in certain jurisdictions.
 
2013-03-27 04:16:48 PM
Just remember the slope slides both ways.

 If we don't make gay marriage legal, all marriage will soon be illegal.
 
2013-03-27 04:26:09 PM
Immigrant polygamists... what, like the Romneys?
 
2013-03-27 04:26:38 PM
George Romney unavailable for comment
 
2013-03-27 04:27:13 PM

neongoats: Immigrant polygamists... what, like the Romneys?


*shakes fist*
 
2013-03-27 04:27:56 PM
thinkprogress.org
Looks more like a bottom to me.
 
2013-03-27 04:28:28 PM

what_now: Appearing on MSNBC, Perkins - whose organization is labeled as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center

the liberalest liberal media channel ever gives equal time to hate groups.

Liberal media.


To be fair, SPLC means that label in the most literal sense, and applies it to any group that expresses hatred towards any other group. They do not mean it in the more general "these people are evil and should be shunned" sense, though there is obvious overlap.
 
2013-03-27 04:29:36 PM

Car_Ramrod: I really don't give a shiat about polygamy. Should I?


Well you should give a shiat about age of consent and exploitation of minors.  Throughout history polygamist groups tend to end up operating as some creepy operation where young men are run out of the community so the creepy old dudes can score virgin teenage wives, so odds are indirectly you will end up giving a shiat about polygamy.
 
2013-03-27 04:29:49 PM

unyon: Going out on a limb, it's not an unreasonable question to ask:  How tolerant must the US be to immigrant marriage situations?  Personally, if its between consenting adults, then I don't really see a problem with polyamory either.  The problem is that historical polygamy is a long way from consensual.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that his question should impact this debate, because the same argument could be made for marriage of any type.  And people already immigrate to the US for that purpose- the polygamist spouse swapping between Colorado Springs and Bountiful, BC is well documented.   It may not be legalized, but there is certainly a tolerance for it in certain jurisdictions.


Child custody and property law would be unnecessarily messy
 
2013-03-27 04:30:56 PM
Why would anyone care about that either?
 
2013-03-27 04:30:58 PM
I'm certain there are tons of other things up Perkins's ass right next to where he got this statement.

or is he just asking questions?
 
2013-03-27 04:31:24 PM

CaptSacto: So... Mormons?





i.imgur.com

R.I.P. 19TH CENTURY POLITICAL CARICATURES OF MORMONS

 
2013-03-27 04:31:59 PM
Nice to know that bigotry is still alive and well in the 21st century.
 
2013-03-27 04:32:16 PM
And man on dog marriage.  Don't forget about the man on dog marriage.
 
2013-03-27 04:32:37 PM
I'm okay with Poly, so long as a set in stone legal framework for all the matters of child custody, inheritance, power of attorney, medical PoA, divorce, number of spouses, age of consent, immigration concerns, etc and so forth have codified by the state in question.

After that, have at it.  Not sure what this has to do with gay marriage though, seeing as folks have been poly far longer then gays been trying to get hitched.
 
2013-03-27 04:32:45 PM
So they are going back to the Biblical definition of marriage then.
 
2013-03-27 04:33:51 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: unyon: Going out on a limb, it's not an unreasonable question to ask:  How tolerant must the US be to immigrant marriage situations?  Personally, if its between consenting adults, then I don't really see a problem with polyamory either.  The problem is that historical polygamy is a long way from consensual.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that his question should impact this debate, because the same argument could be made for marriage of any type.  And people already immigrate to the US for that purpose- the polygamist spouse swapping between Colorado Springs and Bountiful, BC is well documented.   It may not be legalized, but there is certainly a tolerance for it in certain jurisdictions.

Child custody and property law would be unnecessarily messy


Bingo, and that is why polygamy is not like same-sex marriage.
 
2013-03-27 04:34:07 PM
Maybe they're afraid of gay polygamist divorces ruining marriage.  Imagine the support and alimony you have to pay for 3 ex-wives and 4 current ones.
 
2013-03-27 04:35:07 PM
So: marriage as the Bible has it.
 
2013-03-27 04:35:13 PM
www2.macleans.ca
GIS for 'immigrant polygamists'.

WTF is this guy's secret? (AKA why can women be so dumb around fat men?)
 
2013-03-27 04:35:15 PM
i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-27 04:36:29 PM

ha-ha-guy: Car_Ramrod: I really don't give a shiat about polygamy. Should I?

Well you should give a shiat about age of consent and exploitation of minors.  Throughout history polygamist groups tend to end up operating as some creepy operation where young men are run out of the community so the creepy old dudes can score virgin teenage wives, so odds are indirectly you will end up giving a shiat about polygamy.


I can be ok with polygamy without being ok about all that other crap. Strict legal guidelines, like how it is with everything. I thought the disclaimer "legally consenting adults" was a given for my statement. I didn't realize I had to specifically point out I'm against child exploitation.
 
2013-03-27 04:36:33 PM
I mean, on the surface of things I don't personally give a shiat about polygamy, bigamy, etc. Hey, if you want to take on that kind of relationship, that's your business.

As long as all parties involved are consenting and adult. Not arm twisted into it. etc.
 
2013-03-27 04:36:44 PM

Somacandra: CaptSacto: So... Mormons?

[i.imgur.com image 491x347]

R.I.P. 19TH CENTURY POLITICAL CARICATURES OF MORMONS


Ummm, one of those babies is not like the others . . .
 
2013-03-27 04:37:06 PM
You mean like Mitt Romney's relatives?
 
2013-03-27 04:37:34 PM
So he's against traditional marriage as depicted in the Bible?
 
2013-03-27 04:37:52 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Child custody and property law would be unnecessarily messy


Plus a quick glance at wikipedia shows a 1:1 ratio between men and women in the 15 to 64 range.  .97 males to females overall.  If you accept that lack of potential mating partner is a major cause of social unrest, it leads to the conclusion that wide scale polygamy couldn't be tolerated due to the fact we don't have an excessive number of people from one gender to marry off.  Given the need for equal rights, you can't let just some people have it, so it is out, period.

Also you can engage in behavior with multiple partners via not getting married and sleeping around or finding a partner who tolerates an open marriage.  You also get parent rights over any kid you have with any partner (and child support, pay up), so the state doesn't deny you rights there.

Long story short, there is nothing that really lets you go from "You may have communal property and spousal privilege with one other consenting adult" to "polygamy is a civil right".
 
2013-03-27 04:38:03 PM
Actually, there is ample biblical support for marriage between one man and lots of women.
 
2013-03-27 04:38:47 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Child custody and property law would be unnecessarily messy


Antimatter: I'm okay with Poly, so long as a set in stone legal framework for all the matters of child custody, inheritance, power of attorney, medical PoA, divorce, number of spouses, age of consent, immigration concerns, etc and so forth have codified by the state in question.


That's why we have lawyers. To make messy things unmessy. We already have contracts that deal with multiple parties (wills), so why would this be much different?
 
2013-03-27 04:39:44 PM

T-Servo: [www2.macleans.ca image 642x277]
GIS for 'immigrant polygamists'.

WTF is this guy's secret? (AKA why can women be so dumb around fat men?)


So he bought himself a harem of hot chicks. Jelly much?
 
2013-03-27 04:40:23 PM

Car_Ramrod: That's why we have lawyers. To make messy things unmessy. We already have contracts that deal with multiple parties (wills), so why would this be much different?


Child A is born to Wife 1, Child B is born to Wife 2. The head of household divorces Wife 2.

Who gets custody of Child B?
 
2013-03-27 04:40:42 PM
They'll come from the land of the ice and snow, from the midnight sun where the hot springs flow.
 
2013-03-27 04:40:52 PM

ha-ha-guy: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Child custody and property law would be unnecessarily messy

Plus a quick glance at wikipedia shows a 1:1 ratio between men and women in the 15 to 64 range.  .97 males to females overall.  If you accept that lack of potential mating partner is a major cause of social unrest, it leads to the conclusion that wide scale polygamy couldn't be tolerated due to the fact we don't have an excessive number of people from one gender to marry off.  Given the need for equal rights, you can't let just some people have it, so it is out, period.

Also you can engage in behavior with multiple partners via not getting married and sleeping around or finding a partner who tolerates an open marriage.  You also get parent rights over any kid you have with any partner (and child support, pay up), so the state doesn't deny you rights there.

Long story short, there is nothing that really lets you go from "You may have communal property and spousal privilege with one other consenting adult" to "polygamy is a civil right".


Don't several countries allow polygamy? How do they handle these issues?
 
2013-03-27 04:42:48 PM

Car_Ramrod: ha-ha-guy: Car_Ramrod: I really don't give a shiat about polygamy. Should I?

Well you should give a shiat about age of consent and exploitation of minors.  Throughout history polygamist groups tend to end up operating as some creepy operation where young men are run out of the community so the creepy old dudes can score virgin teenage wives, so odds are indirectly you will end up giving a shiat about polygamy.

I can be ok with polygamy without being ok about all that other crap. Strict legal guidelines, like how it is with everything. I thought the disclaimer "legally consenting adults" was a given for my statement. I didn't realize I had to specifically point out I'm against child exploitation.


No the point is, no polygamist group has even proven they have a working model that doesn't involve child exploitation.  For something to be legal it has to have a substantive way in which it can work within the laws of society.  You don't just pass a law that says "weed is legal", you pass a law legalizing weed within a framework, no right is absolute (fire in a crowded movie theater).  History tells us polygamists can't deliver a legal framework for polygamy due to near equal male and female birth rates and what they leads to, disposal of competition for mates.  Basically you can't make those strict legal guidelines.

 
2013-03-27 04:43:15 PM

CaptSacto: So... Mormons?


There we go; done in three.
 
2013-03-27 04:43:17 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Car_Ramrod: That's why we have lawyers. To make messy things unmessy. We already have contracts that deal with multiple parties (wills), so why would this be much different?

Child A is born to Wife 1, Child B is born to Wife 2. The head of household divorces Wife 2.

Who gets custody of Child B?


Assuming they don't have a pre-determined contract, why wouldn't this be handled like any other child custody hearing?
 
2013-03-27 04:43:32 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Car_Ramrod: That's why we have lawyers. To make messy things unmessy. We already have contracts that deal with multiple parties (wills), so why would this be much different?

Child A is born to Wife 1, Child B is born to Wife 2. The head of household divorces Wife 2.

Who gets custody of Child B?


Is she hot?
 
2013-03-27 04:43:47 PM

Dixon Cider: How many woman can one man really stand?  Jebus... 3 or 4 wives? fffffffffffark that!


It's like children or puppies.  You have one and it's all over you all the time.  You have several and they fight with each other, leaving you in peace.
 
2013-03-27 04:43:48 PM
Be thankful Perkins didn't start talking about turtles.
 
2013-03-27 04:44:10 PM
What we're dealing with here, Mr. Perkins, is an excess of heterosexuality.

See what heterosexuality led to? Mutliple heterosexuality.

Slippery slope, dude.
 
2013-03-27 04:44:20 PM

Car_Ramrod: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Child custody and property law would be unnecessarily messy

Antimatter: I'm okay with Poly, so long as a set in stone legal framework for all the matters of child custody, inheritance, power of attorney, medical PoA, divorce, number of spouses, age of consent, immigration concerns, etc and so forth have codified by the state in question.

That's why we have lawyers. To make messy things unmessy. We already have contracts that deal with multiple parties (wills), so why would this be much different?


The advantage to two-party marriages is that it's very, very simple.  If one party dies, the other party gets everything.  But in a multi-party marriage, that's much less clear.  While lawyers would sort everything out eventually, it would be anything but unmessy.  Divorce in particular could be ridiculously confusing.  I'm not saying we shouldn't allow it because 'it'd be hard', but I recognize the state's interest in keeping those things as simple as can be.
 
2013-03-27 04:44:34 PM

Rwa2play: CaptSacto: So... Mormons?

There we go; done in three.


But why immigrants? Many Amerindian communities were polygynous already when Europeans got here.
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report