Very good point, although, their positions and wacky quotes are already out there and well-known given that we're in the Internet era.

Yes, and you'll hear the very same liberals argue that IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT and UNFAIR to bring up allowing polygamy.

So Fox is right? What are you saying?

It is totally different. It isn't unfair, it's a complete non sequitur.

Yeah its a weird one. Non coercive polygamy should obviously be allowed. The bar for "coercive" should just bet set very low due to historical precident but 3 4 5 or 15 loving people should absolutely be allowed to make their love official.

I made an anti-polygamy argument a couple months back. Basically it's that there is somewhere close to zero sympathetic requests for it. In the contemporary western world, polygamy is sought almost exclusively by religious extremists who use it as a tool to subjugate women. There is no real polygamy movement outside that arena, so imo those who want it can go pound sand.

Yeah see these minorities aren't sympathetic, and zikzak likes gays. Since government is all about allowing things you like to people you like, that's not allowed!

I think the issue mainly is with how things such as end of life and marriage benefits are determined between multiple people. Which of the wives or husbands gets the assets in the event that the multiple marrier dies without a will? How are tax breaks figured for a man who marries a woman who then marries a man who is already married to another woman? Does guy 1 and guy 2 have the same marriage rights in this case, even though their only connection is being married to the same woman, or guy 1 and woman 2 who essentially have no connection at all, but are bound by the polygamy through each others spouse?

It isn't yucky ikes, it's just legally confusing, and that's why I don't see it ever happening.

Maybe they're scared to come out because of the oppression and bigotry they'll face. No one in the 70s had ever met a gay person either.

I guess that's a good point. My prediction still is going to be that most moderate Republicans would prefer to just lie low for a while on gay rights. I don't think the mainstream of the party is going to be actively trying to attack gay rights, it's just got too much public support.

That just seems results oriented.

Sounds right. Nothing wrong with polygamy in principle but we don't have to give it some legal status when there's little if any legitimate demand for it compared to the subjugation demand and no problem that needs to be resolved.

Anyway good game USA.

Yeah or what if a dying rich guy wants to marry some of his golf club buddies right... wait, legally messy sounds kind of familiar...

Pray the Polygamy Away™

Do you actually have a point?

Same request I made to several people last time around: Show me the compelling cases that will make me reconsider.

The relationship of married people to government is one of a bestowal of rights, benefits, and obligations. There are literally hundreds of these rights, benefits, and obligations that extend to married people that do not extend to unmarried people.

In the case of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, these were denied solely on the basis of race or sex.

In the case of polygamy, the rights are not denied at all between the first two to marry. They are universally denied to subsequent marriages without a termination of the first by death or judicial decree.

The state can rationally defend not extending marriage rights, benefits and obligations to more than a couple on a good number of grounds. There is no constitutional defect no matter what contorted logic people who hate gays and brown people try to use to compare polygamy to interracial marriage and homosexual marriage.

Yeah, zikzak and other liberals who use the same arguments against polygamy that they deride when used against same sex marriages are hypocrites.

It ain't hard bro, why do you need your hand held?

The state can rationally defend not extending marriage to gays too. Sorry bro.

So no actual point yourself then.

Only if animus is rational. It isn't.

always everyone else's fault, never yours

It's worth noting the context of this polygamy derail. Like, in the middle of a historic advance in equality, our super-Libertarian, freedom-loving ikes is here not to give high-fives or post goofy Scalia photoshops, but to bitch and moan and try to wring out a few internet points with a pointless, irrelevant deflection. It's a rather ugly look.

You're severely over-estimating the bar you set with a rational basis test. That actually means something bro, and it's a test the government could easily pass, even if you disagree with the policy.

Yah because I didn't celebrate in two threads immediately, and I brought this topic up!

facts matter bro.

Romer v Evans says hi.