Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

[Poly Marriage Equality]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you considered starting a polygamy topic?

At issue here, as stated by same sex marriage advocates, is 'marriage equality'. Therefore plural marriage is part of the discussion.

[Poly Marriage Equality]

Born Again Gay wrote:

<quoted text>
The Summer of Marriage Equality is going to be an exciting time :)

There cannot be full marriage equality until plural marriages are included.

[Quest]

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:

<quoted text>
At issue here, as stated by same sex marriage advocates, is 'marriage equality'. Therefore plural marriage is part of the discussion.

Not really, since gay folks only want to be able to marry one at a time, as straight ALREADY do. No changed to the system in place, other than a bit of ink on a few forms.

If you want to add more spouses into the mix, then you need to take your case to court and prove that it is not harmful in any way, in the same way that interracial couples did, and gay folks did, and are doing..

So, go to it.

But we know that you could really care less about poly marriages, because you are posting about it again and again on GAY/LESBIAN threads. ONLY those threads, right? Not polygamy boards. Not even generic "marriage" threads. You aren't taking it to the streets and to the courts.

Just another senseless strawman argument against same sex couples marrying ONE person.

Boring.

[Poly Marriage Equality]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Not really, since gay folks only want to be able to marry one at a time, as straight ALREADY do. No changed to the system in place, other than a bit of ink on a few forms.

Why then are the words, "marriage equality" used without a modifier?

If you want to add more spouses into the mix, then you need to take your case to court

What harm would there be in a consensual plural marriage?

and prove that it is not harmful in any way, in the same way that interracial couples did,

The argument against interracial couples marrying was not that could marry, but that legally they should be able to. The only harm opponents stated was that it would lead to 'miscegenation' of the races, white race in particular.

and gay folks did, and are doing..
So, go to it.

Plural marriage advocates are greatful for the legal work marriage equality proponents have done on behalf of everyone interested in true marriage equality.

But we know that you could really care less about poly marriages, because you are posting about it again and again on GAY/LESBIAN threads. ONLY those threads, right? Not polygamy boards. Not even generic "marriage" threads. You aren't taking it to the streets and to the courts.

Why do some marriage equality proponents dismiss, and denigrate plural marriage, and claims for it to be included in the debate?

Just another senseless strawman argument against same sex couples marrying ONE person.
Boring.

Its is only a 'straw man' to you, not to the thousands of plural marriage families.

[RubyTheDyke]

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:

<quoted text>
Why then are the words, "marriage equality" used without a modifier?
<quoted text>
What harm would there be in a consensual plural marriage?
<quoted text>
The argument against interracial couples marrying was not that could marry, but that legally they should be able to. The only harm opponents stated was that it would lead to 'miscegenation' of the races, white race in particular.
<quoted text>
Plural marriage advocates are greatful for the legal work marriage equality proponents have done on behalf of everyone interested in true marriage equality.
<quoted text>
Why do some marriage equality proponents dismiss, and denigrate plural marriage, and claims for it to be included in the debate?
<quoted text>
Its is only a 'straw man' to you, not to the thousands of plural marriage families.

Quest is is correct in the fact that poly would fundamentally change the legal structure and current definition of marriage-no big deal in my eyes. It's also true that polygamy has been a social structure for much of human history.My question to you is of the fundamental dynamics of polygamy and its use throughout history, and the one thing is true: polygamous structures seem to depend on a rigid gender patriarchal hierarchy.While this is all fine and dandy on a personal level, how would you maintain gender equity and spousal equity in a legal realm? Since you're proposing it you have an obligation to provide a working structure for it.

[snyper]

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:

<quoted text>
Why then are the words, "marriage equality" used without a modifier?
<quoted text>
What harm would there be in a consensual plural marriage?
<quoted text>
The argument against interracial couples marrying was not that could marry, but that legally they should be able to. The only harm opponents stated was that it would lead to 'miscegenation' of the races, white race in particular.
<quoted text>
Plural marriage advocates are greatful for the legal work marriage equality proponents have done on behalf of everyone interested in true marriage equality.
<quoted text>
Why do some marriage equality proponents dismiss, and denigrate plural marriage, and claims for it to be included in the debate?
<quoted text>
Its is only a 'straw man' to you, not to the thousands of plural marriage families.

That's nice, dear, but you are off-topic and in the wrong Forum.

You need to take these issues of yours to the Polygamy/Polyandry Forum, find an article in the news about your concerns, and start a thread.

As far as your issues are concerned, get them OUT of the Gay/Lesbian Forum threads.

[AzAdam]

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:

<quoted text>
No I do not, however I was referring to plural marriages, not the various other poly arrangements.
<quoted text>
The are plural marriages of one husband several wives in which the wives are intimate with each other.

Yes and several husbands to one wife where the men are intimate.

[sickofit]

The church should mind there own business. The bible says greed and glutony are vile evils and sin....I SEE ALOT AND I MEAN ALOT OF FAT SLOBS AND VERY RICH PEOPLE WALKING OUT OF CHURCHES.....Clean your own sinfull porches christians.

[Poly Marriage Equality]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
That's nice, dear, but you are off-topic and in the wrong Forum.

As long as the issue is "marriage equality", plural marriage is part of that discussion. Either you are unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge that plural marriage, and same sex marriage are part of the same discussion as to who may legally marry who.

You need to take these issues of yours to the Polygamy/Polyandry Forum, find an article in the news about your concerns, and start a thread.

There have been numerous articles in various news outlets showing the similarities in the arguments for both same sex marriage, and you plural marriage. One only need Google it to confirm this.

As far as your issues are concerned, get them OUT of the Gay/Lesbian Forum threads.

As long as the issue is marriage equality, plural marriage is included as part of that.

[Rainbow Kid]

Poly Marriage Equality wrote:

<quoted text>
As long as the issue is "marriage equality", plural marriage is part of that discussion. Either you are unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge that plural marriage, and same sex marriage are part of the same discussion as to who may legally marry who.
<quoted text>
There have been numerous articles in various news outlets showing the similarities in the arguments for both same sex marriage, and you plural marriage. One only need Google it to confirm this.
<quoted text>
As long as the issue is marriage equality, plural marriage is included as part of that.

Well; sugar
.
If your plan isn't working; then obviously the gay chat room is the wrong place to advertise
.
eh?

[Poly Marriage Equality]

RubyTheDyke wrote:

<quoted text>
Quest is is correct in the fact that poly would fundamentally change the legal structure

It would represent a significant change in the legal structure.

and current definition of marriage-no big deal in my eyes.

Same sex marriage also represents a change in the definition of marriage.

It's also true that polygamy has been a social structure for much of human history.My question to you is of the fundamental dynamics of polygamy and its use throughout history, and the one thing is true: polygamous structures seem to depend on a rigid gender patriarchal hierarchy.
[QUOTE]

That is true. However today's plural marriages, at least some of those, are consentual and far, far less patriarchal.

[QUOTE]
While this is all fine and dandy on a personal level, how would you maintain gender equity and spousal equity in a legal realm?

Gender equity? Please clarify.

Spousal equity could be arranged in a variety of ways. Designating different spouses for different functions. Sharing marital resources equally, etc.

Since you're proposing it you have an obligation to provide a working structure for it.

Although recommendations from plural marriage families would assist lawmakers, ultimately they would be the ones deciding, and logically the courts.

[Brian_G]

Tony C wrote:

good job quoting the people who lost LOL

Thank you, I often provide quotes to back up my opinions.

Same sex marriage is bad because there is no gender equality right in the Constitution, government isn't allowed to bring gender segregation to marriage. Marriage was gender diverse and integrated before the Constitution was written; interference with marriage is ex post facto law.

[sickofit]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you, I often provide quotes to back up my opinions.
Same sex marriage is bad because there is no gender equality right in the Constitution, government isn't allowed to bring gender segregation to marriage. Marriage was gender diverse and integrated before the Constitution was written; interference with marriage is ex post facto law.

Dont twist facts to fit your bigotry nazi boy.

[Not Yet Equal]

2 equals 2

3 or more does not equal 2

Marriage equality requires treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect. It does not require changing the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples, nor is there any retroactive change to their marriages.

Poly arrangements require changing the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples.

It therefore is not equality, but something very different;

[straight shooter]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

2 equals 2
3 or more does not equal 2

a man does not equal a woman.

two women or two men therefore do not equal a man and woman.

you should go back to dodging the issue of polygamy and what it says about your claims as to gay marriage...

[disaster in the making]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you, I often provide quotes to back up my opinions.
Same sex marriage is bad because there is no gender equality right in the Constitution, government isn't allowed to bring gender segregation to marriage. Marriage was gender diverse and integrated before the Constitution was written; interference with marriage is ex post facto law.

Brian were you born stupid or did it develop over the years

[nhjeff]

disaster in the making wrote:

<quoted text>
Brian were you born stupid or did it develop over the years

Are you asking whether it's nature or nurture? Personally, I think Brian had to nurture it.

[Poly Marriage Equality]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

2 equals 2
3 or more does not equal 2
Marriage equality requires treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect. It does not require changing the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples, nor is there any retroactive change to their marriages.

Is it "marriage equality", or "couples equality"?

Poly arrangements require changing the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples.

How so? A plural marriage arrangement such as the Brown family retains the opposite sex marital element, the union of husband and wife. The difference is the husband is married to more than one wife. He still interacts with each wife as a husband would, and has fathered, and is the father, to their children.

It therefore is not equality, but something very different;

Each marriage is equal.

[sickofit]

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
TooManyLaws, you're one sick puppy.

How isa patriotic constitution loving tax paying citizen a sick puppy..???????? Now you nazi fascist constitution hating hitler lovers ARE SICK AS HECK..

[Poly Marriage Equality]

AzAdam wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes and several husbands to one wife where the men are intimate.

Such an arrangement would be part of the discussion, however it begs the question, "if the men are intimate with each other, what role does the wife play?". Unless you are implying a gender stereo type role that she would cook, clean, and bear children. That would seem to contradict the notion of equality.