Slippery Slope? There is no Slippery Slope!

[dutch508]

In other news the Domino Theory was bullshit too.

DonViejo (15,182 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141133901

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

It's not like anyone with a lick of brains didn't see this coming.

geek tragedy (47,859 posts)
1. OFFS. Anyone who can't comprehend why same-sex marriage is a right but polygyny isn't is either a wingnut bigot or too stupid to breathe.

Next comes marriage to animals and marriage to children.

jtuck004 (11,724 posts)
8. "our legal system is oriented around 1-1 marriages" < Well, it was oriented to men and women not too long ago. About a week, actually.

But that got fixed.

Dinosaurs die, things change.

geek tragedy (47,859 posts)
12. Sophistry. Same-sex marriage doesn't change the

underlying institution or legal system.

Change a few forms and presto done.

Legalizing multiple marriages would require blowing up family, property, inheritance law and rebuilding them from scratch.

We're not going to do that to indulge people who can't make up their mind.

Also, multiple marriage is inherently anti-equality. There's a reason it's illegal in Sweden but legal in Saudi Arabia.

That is islamophobic!

jtuck004 (11,724 posts)
17. This would be the diverse Sweden with that long history of people of color as rulers?

Wait, they all look white? And not a woman in the past couple hundred years? Northern Idaho, home of many violent skinheads, is more diverse than that. A little reading looks like they don't much care for several groups over there. Doesn't sound like a model of equality to follow?

Two smart women can't figure out what they want to do without your approval? 

Or is there just not enough hate in your world?

Take it somewhere else.

Wait! You mean all the Swiss are white?

MicaelS (5,809 posts)
18. No, you're just as resistant as Conservatives.

I don't care what your argument is. Government should not be in the business of legislating or regulating marriage except when it concerns sub-legal-adults. If two or more adults want to marry, they should be allowed to do so.

Legalizing multiple marriages would require blowing up family, property, inheritance law and rebuilding them from scratch.


Good, blow them up. Start from scratch. If more than two people want to form a Family Corporation because the Tax Laws favor it, I say, good, do it. Change the Tax Laws as needed. Three or more people can take better care of any offspring, better than two, much better than one.

The camel's nose is not under the tent. The front half of the entire camel is in the tent, might as well let the whole thing in.

It may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. And your arguments will seem just as antiquated as the opponents of LGBT Marriage were antiquated.

reorg (3,036 posts)
46. You mean the racist claim that Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East are 'less civilised' and 'primitive'?

yeoman6987 (7,281 posts)
15. It should be legal

I say I hope it goes to Supreme Court. I don't think we should be against adults wanting to marry however or how many they want. This is good for equality.

Yupster (12,873 posts)
131. Same argument that was used against same sex marriage for 50 years.

Anyone who can't see why same sex marriage is wrong is just plain ignorant. Most everyone agreed with that vacuous argument.

Beauregard (256 posts)
59. Here is one morally significant difference.

Gay marriage does not interfere with the heterosexual marriage market. Polygamy does. If some men have several wives, other men will have to be single. That's why there are bachelor herds among horses. A few stallions take all the mares. Mutatis mutandis for polyandry.

 

romanic (767 posts)
104. Hell no!

Gay marriage and polygamy are two different things. To allow this bullshit Montana throuple (who are probably Republican plants trying to make a point) to marry because they were "inspired" by the SCOTUS decision is a straight up ploy to undermind gay marriage. Shame on ya''ll for thinking this is okay. :mad

Yeah--- it's obviously a Republican plant to make the gays look bad. 

[thundley4]

But, what about #LoveWins?

When the supreme liberal court legalized marriage between fags and dykes, we saw #LoveWins everywhere.  Just because it's between 3 instead of 2 people shouldn't diminish the feeling.

[Carl]

geek tragedy (47,859 posts)
12. Sophistry. Same-sex marriage doesn't change the

underlying institution or legal system.

Change a few forms and presto done.

Legalizing multiple marriages would require blowing up family, property, inheritance law and rebuilding them from scratch.

We're not going to do that to indulge people who can't make up their mind.

Also, multiple marriage is inherently anti-equality. There's a reason it's illegal in Sweden but legal in Saudi Arabia.

How did queer marriage not do all of those things?

Stupid idiots.

[Delmar]

Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #70)Thu Jul 2, 2015, 02:07 AM
Star Member geek tragedy (47,871 posts)
83. Polygamy is something that was tried and has been outlawed in every

country that takes gender equity seriously.

Society already gave it a shot and found it to be per se toxic and harmful.

Response to geek tragedy (Reply #83)Thu Jul 2, 2015, 07:06 AM
Star Member Hepburn (19,317 posts)
102. But what if the spouses are all of the same sex?

How is that anything but equal?

[Carl]

I just read through that mess,what a bunch of freaks.

[Big Dog]

Response to geek tragedy (Reply #83)Thu Jul 2, 2015, 07:06 AM
Star Member Hepburn (19,317 posts)
102. But what if the spouses are all of the same sex?

How is that anything but equal?

Game, set, and match.

[landofconfusion80]

pepperbear (4,888 posts)
23. I would think there would also be a huge potential for fraud.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)
if it's legal to marry multiple partners, what's the legal precedent for demanding they live in the same city, state, or in the same home? there would be 1st amendment issues in demanding that the spouses even be made aware of each other. And you're right, there's no guarantee the marriage would be free of exploitation.

[miskie]

Humm - lesbian polygyny and gay polyandry... Fight that, DUmmies...

[txradioguy]

geek tragedy (47,859 posts)
1. OFFS. Anyone who can't comprehend why same-sex marriage is a right but polygyny isn't is either a wingnut bigot or too stupid to breathe.

And anyone who can't figure out why neitehr should have the "right" to marriage is a DUmmie or too stupid to breathe...but that's being repetitive.

Can any of the Lurkers...or our resident DUmmie Buzz explain to me why gays now have a right that straight people don't have?

How is that inclusive or equal?

[SVPete]

DU-folk (and I'm sure they're far from alone in this) don't/won't comprehend what they've accomplished. The statutes and state constitution amendments the USSC overturned did not forbid, in so many words, same-sex marriage. What the USSC overturned was those states' definition of marriage. No definition, no standards really means no definition or standards! IOW, anything goes, up to and including whatever the judicial tyrants are willing to stomach!

Polyamorous? Poly-species? Marrying oneself? Marrying one's chair (was it Sesame Street that had the "Love of Chair" bit back in the mid 70s or so?)? Two words: Judge Shopping!

[Big Dog]

Polyamorous? Poly-species? Marrying oneself? Marrying one's chair (was it Sesame Street that had the "Love of Chair" bit back in the mid 70s or so?)? Two words: Judge Shopping!

Pee Wee Herman and Chairy can finally have their love affirmed by the state.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMzduCJG6OU[/youtube]

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Humm - lesbian polygyny...

Sorority pillow fights?!?! 

[Big Dog]

Sorority pillow fights?!?! 

As Steve Martin said in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjwavGuTQSM[/youtube]

"Those aren't pillows! AAAAAH!"

[freedumb2003b]

Sorority pillow fights?!?!  :yahoo:

Lesbians

The fantasy:


The reality:

[Big Dog]

Lesbians

The fantasy:


The reality:

I'm afraid to ask how that one gal got whiplash.

[67 Rover]

I'm afraid to ask how that one gal got whiplash.

Rubber Catsuit was a little too tight around the neck area. 

[Big Dog]

Rubber Catsuit was a little too tight around the neck area. 

 

[diesel driver]

Rubber Catsuit was a little too tight around the neck area. 

                           

[RayRaytheSBS]

These oxygen-thieving DUches can't seem to understand that we were right when we said that this would happen. Now the polygamists are speaking up, next it will be the pedophiles. Underground Panther will finally be able to marry itself. Where does it end now that there is NO legal definition of the word 'marriage'? Us pissing off daesh to the point where they start doing more than just tossing gays off rooftops in Iraq to show their disgust of homosexuality? (Which by the way, happened this week)

Nope, the next step will be a pride parade being bombed.  Gays being beheaded in THIS country. And all because you had to be 'equal'. I hope the blood on your hands is worth it, but sadly, you still won't be able to see you caused it.

[HawkHogan]

Cracked.com has an article normalizing beastiality. 

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1790-5-ways-life-different-when-you-want-to-f2A23k-animals.html

[cclanofirish]

DU-folk (and I'm sure they're far from alone in this) don't/won't comprehend what they've accomplished. The statutes and state constitution amendments the USSC overturned did not forbid, in so many words, same-sex marriage. What the USSC overturned was those states' definition of marriage. No definition, no standards really means no definition or standards! IOW, anything goes, up to and including whatever the judicial tyrants are willing to stomach!

Polyamorous? Poly-species? Marrying oneself? Marrying one's chair (was it Sesame Street that had the "Love of Chair" bit back in the mid 70s or so?)? Two words: Judge Shopping!

I have a hypothetical question for everyone, why is marriage limited to two people, why can't a single person marry him or herself? The next phase of this fight needs to be single people filing to marry themselves. The legal and tax implications would be incredible, and there can be no legal argument against it since the concept of a traditional marriage has been destroyed by the courts. Our innate genetic predisposition is to be single which the Supreme Court stated as a reason homosexual marriage is a "right".

[ChuckJ]

geek tragedy (47,859 posts)
12. Sophistry. Same-sex marriage doesn't change the

underlying institution or legal system.

Change a few forms and presto done.

Legalizing multiple marriages would require blowing up family, property, inheritance law and rebuilding them from scratch.

We're not going to do that to indulge people who can't make up their mind.

Also, multiple marriage is inherently anti-equality. There's a reason it's illegal in Sweden but legal in Saudi Arabia.

Why? They just indulged people who are abnormal. Are abnormal people more special than people who can't make up their mind?

[DumbAss Tanker]

geek tragedy (47,859 posts)
12. Sophistry. Same-sex marriage doesn't change the

underlying institution or legal system.

Change a few forms and presto done.

Legalizing multiple marriages would require blowing up family, property, inheritance law and rebuilding them from scratch.

We're not going to do that to indulge people who can't make up their mind.

Also, multiple marriage is inherently anti-equality. There's a reason it's illegal in Sweden but legal in Saudi Arabia.

Speaking of sophistry, you clearly don't know Jack about law.  Once the 'Fundamental right' carries the day on one abnormal non-Western-tradition form of marriage, the same rationale would compel all those other lesser laws, regulations, and customs to change to accommodate that 'Fundamental right.'  A fundamental right would trump every obstacle you throw up.

I must say, this particular DUmmtard has certainly been on its high horse lately, talking down to all the more thoughtful and rational DUmmies in the most condescending and snotty way, while usually (As here) spouting complete balderdash.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And now they're advocating for incest.

[JohnnyReb]

"Are the good times really over for good" Merle Haggard

Are we headed down hill like a snowball headed for hell?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IfW9ROOR-E