- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New York allows polyamorous marriages with same legal protections as monogamous
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:07 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:07 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Remember when we said redefining marriage from being between a man & a woman would open Pandora’s Box? Remember how leftists scoffed at and dismissed the idea. Remember how we called it a slippery slope and leftists mocked the very idea. Remember how they said homos just wanted to “love who they want to love”?
I remember.
Are we really pretending that fundamentalist Mormons haven't been actively practicing polygamy for years?
1
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:07 pm to OMLandshark
My biggest question is how do you prove a polyamorous marriage? I still don’t think it’s legal to be married to more than 1 person, so who’s to say they’re not just telling the story to get the lease renewed? I would imagine if it went to court, there’s a good reason like some sweet rent control.
If they’re all married, are they also entitled to his estate (assuming there’s no will)?
If they’re all married, are they also entitled to his estate (assuming there’s no will)?
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:08 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Remember when we said redefining marriage from being between a man & a woman would open Pandora’s Box? Remember how leftists scoffed at and dismissed the idea. Remember how we called it a slippery slope and leftists mocked the very idea. Remember how they said homos just wanted to “love who they want to love”? I remember.
If you define opening Pandora’s box as “recognizing a form of family unit that is as old as civilization”, then sure.
Pretty sure you all guaranteed people would be marrying dogs and toasters by now, though.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:08 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Are we really pretending that fundamentalist Mormons haven't been actively practicing polygamy for years?
Only if you’re pretending those who still do it don’t have to hide it from both the law and the Mormon church.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:14 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
If you define opening Pandora’s box as “recognizing a form of family unit that is as old as civilization”, then sure.
Holy shite
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:18 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Holy shite
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that plural marriages are a modern development?
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:23 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
If you define opening Pandora’s box as “recognizing a form of family unit that is as old as civilization”, then sure.
Naturalist Fallacy [ON] OFF
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:25 pm to molsusports
quote:
Naturalist Fallacy [ON] OFF
I’m not saying that plural marriage is good because it exists in history; I’m saying plural marriage can’t be an example of the opening of Pandora’s box with gay marriage when it predates gay marriage by thousands of years. Try to keep up.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:30 pm to OMLandshark
That pic is called an Oreo FYI.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:40 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that plural marriages are a modern development?
I was talking about the move to redefine marriage to allow gay marriage. Go reread my post or have someone with a reading comprehension level above that of a special needs 2nd grader read it for you. Gay marriage opened Pandora’s box, dumbass. Without gay marriage, we would not even be discussing plural marriage.
Plural marriage, which while ancient in other civilizations, has never been accepted in the United States. It was the redefinition of marriage to allow gay marriage that made the possibly of plural marriage a reality in the US.
This post was edited on 10/8/22 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:Where do you think this slope is slipping to? As far as government should be concerned, marriage is a contract between adults. Why should government care about sex/gender, race, or quantity?
Remember when we said redefining marriage from being between a man & a woman would open Pandora’s Box? Remember how leftists scoffed at and dismissed the idea. Remember how we called it a slippery slope and leftists mocked the very idea. Remember how they said homos just wanted to “love who they want to love”?
I remember.
Have you considered that the slippery slope actually slopes the other way? Why is it your default that marriage contracts should be as restrictive as possible, and that it's bad if government allows more freedom to contract? Shouldn't the conservative view be that contractual freedom should be restricted as little as possible?
"You are free to contract"
"Wait there's three of you? Let's limit that to two"
"Hang on two dudes? Nah it has to be one man and one woman"
"Whoa whoa, you are different races? No way, you have to be the same color"
That was the slippery slope, and we started at the bottom of it.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:What are your thoughts on interracial marriage?
Darth_Vader
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:57 pm to Korkstand
quote:
What are your thoughts on interracial marriage?
What are your thoughts on straw-man arguments?
Posted on 10/8/22 at 11:10 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:My thoughts are this is absolutely not one.
What are your thoughts on straw-man arguments?
Should I ask again?
Posted on 10/8/22 at 11:20 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
With so few real men out there, those of us still kicking arse, earning cash and swinging dong are going to be more and more in demand. Women will share if it will move them up in status and get them their Tesla's and Louis's. I'll take 3-4.
Until you get rape-divorced times 3-4 by your newly court-defined “common law marriages” and become even more undesirable than some unemployed single shlub who owes no alimony.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 11:27 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Shouldn't the conservative view be that contractual freedom should be restricted as little as possible?
I would guess a more libertarian person would ask why the government should have any role at all? It seems like an often unnecessary legality
Posted on 10/8/22 at 11:30 pm to shutterspeed
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period. If dealing with taxes, which are theft anyway, each person should get the std exemption, including any children (assuming our current tax structure).
Posted on 10/8/22 at 11:33 pm to OMLandshark
The folly of libertarianism.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 11:42 pm to OMLandshark
So Pologamy is outlawed in every state in the US ,but Polyamory is allowed to stand? Yeah that is not right and this is clearly an activist judge.
Posted on 10/9/22 at 12:10 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Remember when we said redefining marriage from being between a man & a woman would open Pandora’s Box? Remember how leftists scoffed at and dismissed the idea. Remember how we called it a slippery slope and leftists mocked the very idea. Remember how they said homos just wanted to “love who they want to love”? I remember.
Yep. Just like with drag story time they'll first say you're crazy and it's no happening. Then when it's too far gone and they can't ignore it they move the goal posts and say "it doesn't effect you" and that you're hateful if you're against it. It's all connected and coordinated effort to destroy the family unit/religion/USA.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News