Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Not condemning. If they all want to live together as consenting adults, have at it.
But when you want legal recognition as a spouse, that means something in terms of inheritance, next of kin, probate, etc. etc. Polygamy creates an impossible morass, legally, that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund.

Maybe if they file a prenup, sort of like articles of incorporation, prior to the marriage, that spells out all the typical legal problems and how they will be addressed. That could solve the challenge for the state.

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Anonymous wrote:Googling showed me that the court asked about this (extending to polygamy) during the gay marriage case, and to my surprise, the lawyer answered similarly to my feelings above. But, I'm sure that you are a legal genius and the lawyer is wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/28/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-same-sex-marriage-case-obergefell-v-hodges-today/

lito goes there, regarding polygamous relationships

10:20 a.m.: Alito asked what many others have wondered: If the justices alter the definition of marriage by allowing same-sex couples to wed, does this not open the door to demands that polygamous relationships be recognized in this way?

No, Bonauto said. Such relationships raise concerns about “coercion” and “consent” and a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage, may not be able to answer. For example, in a relationship with more than two people, “who makes the medical decisions in an emergency?”

Bonauto's argument is designed to win the case and not bring in other considerations...nothing more. Coercion and consent exists in two people unions, albeit in a small number, but it does happen. Arranged marriages still happen in the U.S. and as for coercion...that happens too. But that is minor compared to the real reason she argued what she did and it is as I stated at the beginning...she wanted to keep that out of the discussion.

As for who makes the decision in medical issues in plural marriages...a couple can have differing opinions...one could be Jehovah's Witness and want to deny a blood transfusion and the other wants it. Who wins in that case.

I find it funny that this case was about superseding states rights on marriage yet she invokes states rights "a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage"...

Googling showed me that the court asked about this (extending to polygamy) during the gay marriage case, and to my surprise, the lawyer answered similarly to my feelings above. But, I'm sure that you are a legal genius and the lawyer is wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/28/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-same-sex-marriage-case-obergefell-v-hodges-today/

lito goes there, regarding polygamous relationships

10:20 a.m.: Alito asked what many others have wondered: If the justices alter the definition of marriage by allowing same-sex couples to wed, does this not open the door to demands that polygamous relationships be recognized in this way?

No, Bonauto said. Such relationships raise concerns about “coercion” and “consent” and a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage, may not be able to answer. For example, in a relationship with more than two people, “who makes the medical decisions in an emergency?”

^^^fundamental right

Anonymous wrote:I'm super liberal but asking the state to recognize polygamy creates too many pitfalls for the state and taxpayers. When you have a polygamous marriage it becomes impossible to sort out next of kin, inheritance, medical decisions, etc. etc. The morass created for the courts is unacceptable.

To me, gay marriage is no different than historic marriage. The genitalia in the pants of the two participants is completely irrelevant.

Polygamy is an entirely different ball game.

None of the "problems" you raise address the equal right to marriage to which multiple individuals are entitled. You can't deprive people of their right just because you find it legally inconvenient.

I'm super liberal but asking the state to recognize polygamy creates too many pitfalls for the state and taxpayers. When you have a polygamous marriage it becomes impossible to sort out next of kin, inheritance, medical decisions, etc. etc. The morass created for the courts is unacceptable.

To me, gay marriage is no different than historic marriage. The genitalia in the pants of the two participants is completely irrelevant.

Polygamy is an entirely different ball game.

I just want to see polygamy legalized so those people can stop hiding and their kids stop being ashamed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You're old fashioned. And way way way out of touch.

I must be too. PP, I agree wholeheartedly. Not good for the kids. If you read this thread, you'll see there is not much concern for the kids.

The offspring are not involved in this decision. Rather, it is a decision or decisions between several consenting adults.

The state has no more say in such marriages than with differentiating between straight and gay couples. At least, the state should not be involved at all. It is discrimination.

For people who say they are all about the feelings, you'd think they'd think of the kids and how it would affect them. Nope.

The kids are fine. I'd really urge you to do some research instead of just making assumptions based on your own prejudices.

This book really lays out what poly life is like in the US. Spoiler: it's pretty normal and the kids are really OK.

http://www.amazon.com/Polyamorists-Next-Door-Multiple-Partner-Relationships/dp/1442222956

Please don't forget that not very long ago, all sorts of people assumed that kids brought up by same sex partners would be all kinds of fucked up. They're not, either. There are all kinds of ways for kids to be parented well and parented badly, regardless of their parents' demograpgics.

You cite from a book that is pro polyamorist? And written by someone who has a dog in the hunt "Dr. Elisabeth Sheff lives in Atlanta with her girlfriend, their children, dog, cats, and the small wild animals the cats bring in."

She's an academic who did a sociological study. But you're right, better to rely on gut instinct prejudice than research.

And what's wrong with having a girlfriend and a dog? Now you're anti-dog, too?

Exactly how far reaching was this research? Numbers of families and long term effects? From the synopsis it doesn't sound all that inclusive. And there is this from that same synopsis..."The landscape of American marriage and relationships is changing, and a variety of family systems are developing and becoming more common." Words in bold are cause enough to ask whether it is too early to conclude anything. Also..."This book introduces polyamorous families and explains how they come to be, manage the ins and outs of daily family life, and cope with the challenges they face both within their families and from society at large. Using polyamorists’ own stories, Elisabeth Sheff investigates the polyamorous household and reveals its advantages, its disadvantages, and the daily lives of those living in them."

It isn't a gut prejudice...it's using common sense when seeing who the researcher is, what is their position and whether the research is truly far reaching. By far reaching it would be both in numbers and over a long enough time to establish the results as conclusive. Didn't see anything referring to this and in most tomes giving conclusions based on research they will tout their research criteria to establish credibility.

Anonymous wrote:Just another view of children from same-sex couples. It isn’t all rainbows and roses for them.....

But four adult children of gay parents — acting as a “quartet of truth,” according to their lawyer David Boyle in Long Beach, Calif. — have submitted briefs to the 5th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals opposing same-sex marriages, with several saying that growing up under the rainbow was neither normal nor pleasant. The court, which is considering whether to uphold the man-woman marriage laws in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, will hear arguments in New Orleans on Friday.

Dawn Stefanowicz said her gay father was so preoccupied with sex that when she was in high school and brought home a male classmate, both her father and his lover propositioned him for sex.

B.N. Klein said her mother and lesbian partner disdained heterosexual families completely, and she didn’t have a clue about the daily interactions of a husband and wife until she went into foster care.

Robert Oscar Lopez said his two lesbian mothers were conscientious about his upbringing, but he became so emotionally confused that he turned to gay prostitution as a teen and gay and bisexual relationships as an adult.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/#ixzz3eSxY5dTD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I'm quite sure in every demographic there are kids being raised badly.

Just another view of children from same-sex couples. It isn’t all rainbows and roses for them.....

But four adult children of gay parents — acting as a “quartet of truth,” according to their lawyer David Boyle in Long Beach, Calif. — have submitted briefs to the 5th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals opposing same-sex marriages, with several saying that growing up under the rainbow was neither normal nor pleasant. The court, which is considering whether to uphold the man-woman marriage laws in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, will hear arguments in New Orleans on Friday.

Dawn Stefanowicz said her gay father was so preoccupied with sex that when she was in high school and brought home a male classmate, both her father and his lover propositioned him for sex.

B.N. Klein said her mother and lesbian partner disdained heterosexual families completely, and she didn’t have a clue about the daily interactions of a husband and wife until she went into foster care.

Robert Oscar Lopez said his two lesbian mothers were conscientious about his upbringing, but he became so emotionally confused that he turned to gay prostitution as a teen and gay and bisexual relationships as an adult.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/#ixzz3eSxY5dTD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Anonymous wrote:

Would love to see the adults be the ones to rotate. Would be hilarious to watch the 'what an inconvenience' bitching.

I actually know several couples who have kept the family home and retained one apartment. The kids stay put while the mom has them in the house for her week and the dad has them in the house the next week. The parent who does not have custody for the week decamps to the apartment. Seems to work just fine.

Glad to hear this. It's truly the best thing for the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You're old fashioned. And way way way out of touch.

I must be too. PP, I agree wholeheartedly. Not good for the kids. If you read this thread, you'll see there is not much concern for the kids.

The offspring are not involved in this decision. Rather, it is a decision or decisions between several consenting adults.

The state has no more say in such marriages than with differentiating between straight and gay couples. At least, the state should not be involved at all. It is discrimination.

For people who say they are all about the feelings, you'd think they'd think of the kids and how it would affect them. Nope.

The kids are fine. I'd really urge you to do some research instead of just making assumptions based on your own prejudices.

This book really lays out what poly life is like in the US. Spoiler: it's pretty normal and the kids are really OK.

http://www.amazon.com/Polyamorists-Next-Door-Multiple-Partner-Relationships/dp/1442222956

Please don't forget that not very long ago, all sorts of people assumed that kids brought up by same sex partners would be all kinds of fucked up. They're not, either. There are all kinds of ways for kids to be parented well and parented badly, regardless of their parents' demograpgics.

You cite from a book that is pro polyamorist? And written by someone who has a dog in the hunt "Dr. Elisabeth Sheff lives in Atlanta with her girlfriend, their children, dog, cats, and the small wild animals the cats bring in."

She's an academic who did a sociological study. But you're right, better to rely on gut instinct prejudice than research.

And what's wrong with having a girlfriend and a dog? Now you're anti-dog, too?