<quoted text> No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position No one is fooled
"Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid..."
<quoted text> No. I am not interested in a poly marriage. I am only interested in discussing it in relation to same marriage equality. As I've told you countless times. If it upsets you so much or you don't understand my points, it's not my problem, Just stop stalking me creep.
<quoted text> ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper. Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?
<quoted text> No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.
A gay-wedding crasher Editorial A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah. July 31, 2011 Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.
The Utah case involves Kody Brown, his legal wife, Meri Brown, and three other "sister wives." It's not actually about marriage, and it doesn't challenge the right of the state to refuse to issue wedding licenses to polygamous families. The Browns are in court because they fear they will be prosecuted.
The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well:
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
Kennedy emphasized in Lawrence that same-sex marriage wasn't before the court. Similarly, in an interview with the New York Times, Turley suggested that decriminalizing polygamy will not inevitably lead to a movement for polygamous marriage. But language addressed to one issue often surfaces in cases dealing with others. When Massachusetts' highest court decided to strike down the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, it cited the Lawrence opinion.
So is polygamy about to receive the same legal status that same-sex marriage now has in several states? Not in the near term. For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court has not recognized same-sex marriage, a prerequisite, some think, for acceptance of polygamous marriage. Meanwhile, the federal court in Utah, in parallel with Lawrence, may rule simply that the Browns and other polygamous families are immune to prosecution but can't have their multiple "spiritual marriages" blessed by the law.
But, like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it's rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples.
<quoted text> He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way. You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?
Oh no, it is your dishonesty that is so funny, I could care less about polygamy, I honestly think you could care less about polygamy too, other than how you can use it to attack supporters of Same Sex marriage.
One must ask, what harm comes from consenting adults choosing to form a union? Regardless of the situation, same sex, poly, incest even, as long as they’re happy and no innocent persons are harmed in the process, what right does the government, or anyone else for that matter, have to involve themselves in the business of others? Does it make sense that a man may legally live with one “official” wife, and yet can have “girlfriends” in the same home? How can it be argued by the government that this action is acceptable, but the minute they choose to try and “marry” another, it is now illegal? Where is the logic here?
<quoted text> so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?
Does there have to be a "major move" before they deserve equal protection? The burden is on you. Tell us why they don't deserve it, don't tell us there are not a lot of people interested.
So what how many people want it? Why does that matter so much to you? That should make you happy,that few people want it, you'll probably never have to be offended by the ugly sight of a happy poly family of say, three men and children.
<quoted text> so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?
It takes time Big D....you know that.. It has to over come the historical aversion to it, remember Utah, Mormon, Supreme Court. The legal SSM movement has opened the door to the possibility of some form of legalized polygamy.
Who would've thought there'd be a reality show about a polygamous family ten years ago...now there's two. The SSM movement has encouraged plural families to, come out of the closet, to borrow a phrase. In today's social world with nuclear families, blended families, marriage kids divorce remarriage and more kids, multiple baby's mamas and daddies, families headed by SSCs, is a plural family really that unusual?
Americans are serial monogamists. We are blasé about a man fathering several children out of wedlock with several different women, so what wrong with a Brown family arrangement?
<quoted text> It takes time Big D....you know that.. It has to over come the historical aversion to it, remember Utah, Mormon, Supreme Court. The legal SSM movement has opened the door to the possibility of some form of legalized polygamy. Who would've thought there'd be a reality show about a polygamous family ten years ago...now there's two. The SSM movement has encouraged plural families to, come out of the closet, to borrow a phrase. In today's social world with nuclear families, blended families, marriage kids divorce remarriage and more kids, multiple baby's mamas and daddies, families headed by SSCs, is a plural family really that unusual? Americans are serial monogamists. We are blasé about a man fathering several children out of wedlock with several different women, so what wrong with a Brown family arrangement?
Yes. And how many families are there today where the father has children from two serial wives? Are the half siblings better off with the father and only one of the children's mothers? Or better off with both with their father and both their mothers in the home as a loving family?
<quoted text> Find it yourself clown. The where and when it happened is in her essay. Read it. What's my vote count? Did you make any more derogatory threads against me since the last few?
You posted the crap, no find the real story. I would like to understand why the kids where taken away. If it what I think, you might want to look deeper.
More than 400 children, mostly girls in pioneer dresses, were swept into state custody from a polygamist sect in what authorities described Monday as the largest child-welfare operation in Texas history.
The dayslong raid on the sprawling compound built by now-jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs was sparked by a 16-year-old girl's call to authorities that she was being abused and that girls as young as 14 and 15 were being forced into marriages with much older men.
Dressed in home-sewn, ankle-length dresses with their hair pinned up in braids, some 133 women left the Yearning for Zion Ranch of their own volition along with the children.
<quoted text> You are so dumb, you can't understand a decent analogy. I'm not making an 'analogy to the definition of marriage', I'm mocking the claim that children are not a part of marriage. Everyone but you knows that... Smirk.
Well, stupid, you are the only person why has made that claim. LOL! Guess you might as well join everybody else who mocks you.
KiMare wrote: <quoted text> .... Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination. Smile. <quoted text> First, there is no procreation in gay relationships. Zero.
Well, since you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, that doesn't matter.
Second, gays are the ones attempting the 'removing' of procreation form marriage. I'm removing nothing. Remember the desolate walnut tree hanging apples on itself claiming to be an apple tree? I doubt if you ever met logic...
Well, that analogy avoids logic. And you are too stupid to understand why.
Nobody is trying to remove procreation from marriage.
Tell me when this thread is updated:(Registration is not required)