Supreme Court to decide whether same-sex marriage is a right

[This_person]

Polygamy. Perhaps you need to look up the word so you can understand what you are trying to argue so unsuccessfully.

Stop conflating polygamy and cohabitation.



Nothing. But you were talking polygamy, not living together. Make up your mind.

Most states base their polygamy laws on the Model Penal Code section 230.1, which provides that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage.

Thus, if one does not register their marriage, they cannot be guilty of polygamy.

 

[MMDad]

Thus, if one does not register their marriage, they cannot be guilty of polygamy.

Where does that state "register?" Or are you trying to bend the definition to fit your misconception?

 

[digitallest]

To whom are you speaking? Who brought up bestiality before you did?

How is same-sex marriage inherently different from poly-amorous relationships?

Should, in your opinion, incest be illegal? Why? How is adult and consensual incest inherently different from same-sex relationships?

Read the quote from you just above my comment.

where you insist when a person is making their point to show proof of social benefit, as if that is the one reason to treat lawful behavior as equal under the law, and remember one also must make the case for incest, polygamy, and bestiality too.

You are the one who does not seem to grasp that your moral equivalency argument is invalid. Why should these people be denied use of the word "marriage"? Because in the US being in a gay relationship used to not be considered acceptable by the majority? It is now, social conditions have changed. I'm not here for the incest argument, talk to yourself about that. I'm here to find out how bad straight people will have it when gays are allowed to use our words, and social institutions. Like marriage.

And cake

 

[This_person]

Wow, arrogant much? He essentially said "lets agree to disagree" so you conflate that into him claiming to win?

I can see why you get so confused. You don't understand words.

Perhaps you are correct that he/she did not claim victory, as I suggested. But, I am not wrong in suggesting the person chose to not respond to valid questions, and it is reasonable to conclude that by not answering he/she had no answer. It is equally reasonable to assume, since the statement of "The disconnect is not going to be bridged, our perspectives are very different." implies strongly that their perspective is unchanged. In the light of honest debate which it is reasonable to assume they could not support their end of, they simply quit without changing their opinion.

Better?

 

[This_person]

Where does that state "register?" Or are you trying to bend the definition to fit your misconception?

States couldn't possibly be less passionate of whether people are married or not. People choose to register their relationships with the state, through applying for marriage licenses/certificates.

Again, show me the law that states Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, or just Bob and Ted, or just Carol and Alice, can't live together in every way as a committed union without any marriage license/certificate.

 

[MMDad]

Perhaps you are correct that he/she did not claim victory, as I suggested. But, I am not wrong in suggesting the person chose to not respond to valid questions, and it is reasonable to conclude that by not answering he/she had no answer. It is equally reasonable to assume, since the statement of "The disconnect is not going to be bridged, our perspectives are very different." implies strongly that their perspective is unchanged. In the light of honest debate which it is reasonable to assume they could not support their end of, they simply quit without changing their opinion.

Better?

So what do you think "agree to disagree" means? If they realize that you are unwilling to use logic and reason, so they stop arguing, you think they are wrong for not bending their opinion to fit what you think is right?

You think that the only reasonable outcome is for people to change their opinion to match yours, yet you are steadfast in your refusal to even consider that your arguments may be flawed.

 

[MMDad]

States couldn't possibly be less passionate of whether people are married or not. People choose to register their relationships with the state, through applying for marriage licenses/certificates.

Again, show me the law that states Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, or just Bob and Ted, or just Carol and Alice, can't live together in every way as a committed union without any marriage license/certificate.

That's cohabitation. Let's stick to polygamy, okay?

You read the definition. Try to comprehend the words without adding your own bias.

 

[Midnightrider]

Enjoy your dirt.

You too. So i guess you are saying you agree that we wont know until we die, and maybe not even then?

Enlighten me. Tell me what, besides trying to register as married to more than one person, is illegal. If multiple people would like to live together as a single family unit, what LAW stops them from doing so?

States couldn't possibly be less passionate of whether people are married or not. People choose to register their relationships with the state, through applying for marriage licenses/certificates.

Again, show me the law that states Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, or just Bob and Ted, or just Carol and Alice, can't live together in every way as a committed union without any marriage license/certificate.

Marriage and living together are two different things. Have you never been married? Anyone who has knows the difference

 

[This_person]

Read the quote from you just above my comment.

I did. I made no claim similar to what you suggest I did.

where you insist when a person is making their point to show proof of social benefit, as if that is the one reason to treat lawful behavior as equal under the law, and remember one also must make the case for incest, polygamy, and bestiality too.

I never once equated bestiality with the rest. I was quite explicit in saying it is different.

You're suggesting two different things are equal. Provide me with a reason why two different things are not different. Recall, if they are different then they are inherently, um, not the same.

You are the one who does not seem to grasp that your moral equivalency argument is invalid.

What moral equivalency argument did I make? You are routinely arguing against points I never made!

I'm not here for the incest argument, talk to yourself about that. I'm here to find out how bad straight people will have it when gays are allowed to use our words, and social institutions. Like marriage.

And cake

If you can't differentiate between same-sex relationships and adult consensual incest, that's fine. No one else can, either, so you're in good company (everyone).

But, when it comes to changing laws and definitions of what gets certain protections and disadvantages, the reasons are important. Explain to me why same-sex is different from poly-amorous relationships, and therefore why they shouldn't both get "different but equal" protection you are suggesting for only same-sex relationships. You couldn't do it with incest, can you do it with poly-amorous relationships?

If we call ALL institutions charitable, would that be appropriate? Then they can all get the same tax benefits, whether it is a Good Will store or WalMart. Those things are essentially the same, like same-sex relationships with opposite-sex relationships, so shouldn't they be treated the same? Should a pastor, a rabbi, a cleric, a psychologist, and a motivational speaker all be treated equally under tax and other federal protections? They do essentially the same thing!

 

[This_person]

So what do you think "agree to disagree" means? If they realize that you are unwilling to use logic and reason, so they stop arguing, you think they are wrong for not bending their opinion to fit what you think is right?

You think that the only reasonable outcome is for people to change their opinion to match yours, yet you are steadfast in your refusal to even consider that your arguments may be flawed.

YOU said agree to disagree, not digitallest.

I'm perfectly willing to see my arguments are flawed when they are. Show me where they are. That's all I ask.

 

[This_person]

That's cohabitation. Let's stick to polygamy, okay?

You read the definition. Try to comprehend the words without adding your own bias.

You are correct in that polygamy is unlawful. I was meaning poly-amorous, and I said polygamy. My statement was flawed.

Conceptually, though, I am accurate. If you do not register your relationship with the government, you cannot be polygamous. You are poly-amorous, which is not illegal. My wording was inaccurate, my concept is valid.

 

[This_person]

Marriage and living together are two different things.

I fully agree. All of the history of the United States, from ratification of the Constitution until 5/6/2015 demonstrates the truth in that. Thus, those who are married receive insignificant perqs and must endure some responsibilities that simply living together does not include.

Making my point for me, MR. Thank you!

 

[PsyOps]

Conceptually, though, I am accurate. If you do not register your relationship with the government, you cannot be polygamous. You are poly-amorous, which is not illegal. My wording was inaccurate, my concept is valid.

That doesn't even logically make sense... If it is illegal then how can the government register a polygamous relationship? Therefore, how could you ever engage in the illegal behavior of polygamy if it's defined as polyamorous, for lack of official government recognition?

 

[MMDad]

You are correct in that polygamy is unlawful. I was meaning poly-amorous, and I said polygamy. My statement was flawed.

Conceptually, though, I am accurate. If you do not register your relationship with the government, you cannot be polygamous. You are poly-amorous, which is not illegal. My wording was inaccurate, my concept is valid.

No, you are pretending to admit you were wrong but you are doubling down. Try reading the definition you quoted again and this time just read what it says. Leave out trying to bend it to mean what you want it to.

There is no requirement for it to be registered in order for it to be illegal. If it was not already illegal, there would not be a requirement to take an oath that you are not already married. There could be no falsification of the marriage license in the absence of the illegality of polygamy.

The way you are arguing it is like saying that it is only illegal for a blind person to drive if they lie on their application. No, it is illegal even without the application. That would just add the related offense of falsifying a document.

 

[This_person]

That doesn't even logically make sense... If it is illegal then how can the government register a polygamous relationship? Therefore, how could you ever engage in the illegal behavior of polygamy if it's defined as polyamorous, for lack of official government recognition?

See, if you ask the government to acknowledge one relationship, and then another, you are a polygamist. If you never ever ask the government to acknowledge any relationship, you are not a polygamist.

If you ask the government to acknowledge one relationship, and then treat both that one and another as "equal", you are a polygamist.

It all requires one to register a relationship with the government. Don't do that, you're not a polygamist.

You keep saying the government registers a relationship. Government doesn't go seeking to see who you're sleeping with. You must request that recognition from the government. Don't involve the government, and they won't be involved.


If you're just the type of person who is with multiple partners, or you're with someone who is with multiple partners, but you do not request the government get involved, you are poly-amorous.

 

[This_person]

No, you are pretending to admit you were wrong but you are doubling down. Try reading the definition you quoted again and this time just read what it says. Leave out trying to bend it to mean what you want it to.

There is no requirement for it to be registered in order for it to be illegal. If it was not already illegal, there would not be a requirement to take an oath that you are not already married. There could be no falsification of the marriage license in the absence of the illegality of polygamy.

The way you are arguing it is like saying that it is only illegal for a blind person to drive if they lie on their application. No, it is illegal even without the application. That would just add the related offense of falsifying a document.

So, you're saying it is illegal for a man to have two girlfriends at the same time, sleeping with them both, maybe even cohabitating with them both? Is that your contention? And, that the legal definition I quoted says that?

 

[MMDad]

I fully agree. All of the history of the United States, from ratification of the Constitution until 5/6/2015 demonstrates the truth in that. Thus, those who are married receive insignificant perqs and must endure some responsibilities that simply living together does not include.

Making my point for me, MR. Thank you!

"Insignificant perqs." Really? As someone who is allowed to marry, you dismiss that ability as insignificant.

Is it insignificant to be able to file married tax status? Or to be able to inherit property from your spouse? Or to make life and death decisions for them?

Would you give up those rights since they are "insignificant?"

 

[MMDad]

So, you're saying it is illegal for a man to have two girlfriends at the same time, sleeping with them both, maybe even cohabitating with them both? Is that your contention? And, that the legal definition I quoted says that?

I didn't say that. My words are clear. The definition is clear. You choose to ignore what does not fit your opinions. You are unwilling to even consider that your logic is flawed.

 

[MMDad]

Don't involve the government, and they won't be involved.

That's like saying it's not illegal to drink and drive as long as you don't get caught.

Polygamy is illegal. Period. You know this.

 

[This_person]

"Insignificant perqs." Really? As someone who is allowed to marry, you dismiss that ability as insignificant.

I do (no funny intended ). That's not a perq. Or, if you believe it is, why is it?

Is it insignificant to be able to file married tax status?

Sometimes that's an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage. Ask the 83 year olds if they'd rather have single Social Security payments or married Soc Sec payments.

Or to be able to inherit property from your spouse? Or to make life and death decisions for them?

All of this is available without a marriage certificate.