Non-Monogamy Growing in Acceptance and Popularity

I have no idea what your talking about and it appears that you do not either. People are most certainly free to define the parameters and set the rules for their individual marriage. If you really fee that monogamy is tyranny don't be monogamous. It has nothing to do with the government. See....simple.

 

I want State governments to license

and sanction "Group Marriage"

 

Petition the courts then, or lobby your state lawmakers. Make your case. The state will have to articulate a compelling government interest in banning group marriage. They may or may not be able to do that.

 

Non-monogamy is cool. It lets us be animals. Just sniff and f---.

 

It's just words, where are the links? Legitimate news links to the sources of their claims, when they don't the claims are in doubt.

 

So....no sooner do gays win marriage rights that they decide marriage sucks and want to alter it again with polyamory! Who could have foreseen that the cry of "my partner and I just want what you have" would turn into multiple expanding partners all connected like a game of telephone?

This guy, that's who!

I've seen several magazine profiles of polyamorous couples, threesomes, multiples or whatever they're called and they seem, almost without exception, to be hideously ugly. For the propaganda to work, you guys need to find some attractive polyamorous groups. Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court will find that they right of Polyamorous marriages were right there in the 14th amendment all along, but it will come quicker if you stop showcasing uggos as examples/

 

Without standards to hold yourself to, there can be nothing at all. Do you think every polyamory couple for example is taking the necessary measures that come with having more than one partner? Let's hope so.

 

What are you talking about? You are making NO sense! In the OP I posed the quest of whether or not the "slippery slope" fallacy promoted y those opposed to gay marriage was materializing, and YOU turn that into gays are pushing for polyamory. My what stretch of your warped imagination did you come up with that?

And if you think that poly people are not attractive, maybe you're looking for love in all the wrong places.

Lastly, if you think that poly marriage rights would be a slam dunk at SCOTUS if and when the issue gets there, it is just a further reflection of your low information affliction and ignorance of how the law works.

 

So, our rights and personal freedoms are available as long as we all look good to you? Seriously???

The main point with polygamy is that the arguments used to gain same sex marriage do not appear to apply.

Plus, marriage law is written to apply to two individuals. For example, it certainly does not cover situations where one party leaves a polygamous union.

And, yes, we've had experience with polygamy and have rejected it..

 

There's definitely a cause and effect, but it isn't the passage of gay marriage that is the cause, rather it is one of the effects of the underlying cause - which is a growing acceptance of previously abnormal sexual/intimate relationships. And yes, imo this is a part of the same thing. It's harder to discriminate against very visible minorities - such as Jews and homosexuals, who have been very prominent in American film and media.

 

Yes I do think poly marriage would be a slam dunk at SCOTUS when we get to the point where all the kool kids are for it. All the leg work has been done already in Obergefell. If the drafters of the 14th Amendment always intended it to be for gay marriage, why would it be unlikely that the drafters wouldn't have also snuck an invisible codicil for poly marriage too? Remember, the ball got rolling after the Massachusetts Supreme Court discovered that their state constitution, approved in 1780, also had the right to gay marriage tucked in there by those crafty Puritans!

I find your accusation that I'm the one who is stating that gays are the ones pushing poly marriage confusing. Didn't you read the OP you wrote? So yes, there will be a slippery slope to poly marriage. That doesn't mean it will happen next year, or even the next decade, but the process is in motion as evidenced by your OP. Don't worry, you'll get there!

 

That is an interesting misreading of what I wrote. I assume it was intentional however. I find that common on this forum, the lack of wit and the inability to handle conversations at the level they were written so the response has to written in a simpler, child like level, to enable the self righteous, but logic deficient, to respond to arguments that they oppose, but can't make a substantive argument against.

So yes, we meet again.

So to break it down in very simple terms, as a point of propaganda, and the ability to influence a larger public, it makes sense to market polyamory as filled with attractive, hip, young people. Instead, most magazine profiles have depended on the dregs they could actually pull out of the woodwork to make a story about. They're usually physically repulsive losers. Or at least they are in the magazine profiles I've read.

 

Yes. I knew exactly what you meant.

And, no, this IS a rights issue, and it has nothing at all to do with what people look like. In fact, the very idea is disgusting.

 

Must you persist in blathering mindlessly about that which you know nothing about? Do you actually think that the authors of the 14th or the Mass. constitution were thinking about gay marriage? That is quiet absurd indeed. The SCOTUS found the right to equal protection under the law- right that had been in plain site all along and that could not be ignored, except by the reactionary bigots. That right was stated in the majority opinion as the right of same sex couples to enjoy the same rights -nothing more and nothing less- than what opposite sex couples enjoy. Poly people would have a harder time claiming equal protection because there is no other group who is currently allowed to marry more than one person. Is it possible that you are incapable of understanding this? You are confused alright- and by your own admission.

 

its a good thread and it could be a good discussion except you and the author of the article could not help dragging SSM into it with I think four references throughout before the SSM opponents ever did.

I would love a thread on this topic untainted by the crap, because there is virtually no real connection legal, moral or social between homosexuality, SSM, and this topic. All we do when we conflate these topics is promote more ignorance about both subjects. It was an unfortunate invitation and this thread will stay infected henceforth. it was a good OP otherwise.

 

Are you sure you know what I meant? Based on your response, I would say not. Maybe your misreading wasn't intentional after all!

 

Ha! This was my favorite line, "Do you actually think that the authors of the 14th or the Mass. constitution were thinking about gay marriage? That is quiet absurd indeed. The SCOTUS found the right to equal protection under the law- right that had been in plain site all along and that could not be ignored..."

Of course it's not there, except it's always been there!

 

Thank you for your input. A point well taken. Perhaps I could have introduce it differently. However, I'm willing to bet, that even if I had not mentioned gay marriage or homosexuality in the OP , those who are pathologically obsessed with those subjects would have piled on anyway.

 

I guess women cannot complain they cannot find nice guys anymore.

 

the conservative Christians like the Kim Davis's of the word do not believe in just one marriage


.

 

It would be nice if women could Only get pregnant with Mr. Right; regardless of how much they practice with all of the other ones.

 

Not necessarily. I live a non-monogamous lifestyle. I don't keep a collection of women. Half of them have boyfriends or husbands that they go home to. The rest of them have places, lives of their own.

Do you know why gentlemen never tell? Jealous boyfriends, husbands, and aspirants to those positions.

 

The only difference is if they did it, we could remind them that SSM is off topic and not germane to this thread. Hard to do with the author of the OP, enlists it. A tactical error rather that substantive but it is a pet peeve of mine.

 

Typical liberal celebrating the decline of morals and ethics. Hopefully we can find out that more people are having sex with their domestic pets so we can really celebrate.

 

It is the Right commits "treason" to a God through the abomination of hypocrisy; the left is merely less ethical in any given situation.