12/30/2013 1:03 PM
Bill:  "So you're saying I can't marry Jane because I'm married to Jim in MA.  Yet I can't give spousal benefits to Jim because I'm not legally married in the eyes of North Dakota?"

Yeah, no problem here. 
12/30/2013 6:21 PM
What would you suggest North Dakota do?
12/30/2013 6:44 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
Does this still hold true?
12/30/2013 6:45 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/30/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
What would you suggest North Dakota do?
Maybe North Dakota has it right.   Maybe some other states need to do something.
12/30/2013 7:11 PM
In my line of work, when a problem crops up, the first question usually asked is "what changed?" and the second question is often "should we back out the change?".  And sometimes, that's usually the most prudent thing to do until there's a better understanding of exactly what went wrong, and there's a definitive plan of action to address it.

Clearly, what changed here is the introduction of SSM.
12/30/2013 7:43 PM
I think that was my argument back on page 2.   Explore the ramifications BEFORE pushing the law through.    Evidently, "makes people happy" took precedent.
12/30/2013 8:32 PM
Yeah.  "Makes people happy" and "what's the harm?".
12/31/2013 10:55 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
Does this still hold true?
Yes. Polygamy is still illegal.
12/31/2013 10:55 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/30/2013 8:32:00 PM (view original):
Yeah.  "Makes people happy" and "what's the harm?".
There hasn't been any harm.
12/31/2013 10:57 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/30/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
What would you suggest North Dakota do?
Maybe North Dakota has it right.   Maybe some other states need to do something.
What do you mean, exactly? Plenty of states do not allow gay marriage and also don't have a loophole in their marriage license application process that would allow someone to marry a third person.
12/31/2013 12:38 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/31/2013 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
Does this still hold true?
Yes. Polygamy is still illegal.
If somebody can be legally married to a same-sex person in one state, and to an opposite-sex person in ND, how exactly is polygamy "illegal"?
12/31/2013 1:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
And you don't think acknowledging a legal SSM in another state isn't the next step for legalization?

We both know this is just a legal dance with an ultimate goal of forcing states to legalize SSM.    No need for us to dance around that dance.    Do you disagree?

Care to field this one while you're at it?

12/31/2013 1:47 PM
Here are some great points given by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on this subject -
http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm
1/1/2014 10:57 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2013 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/31/2013 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
Does this still hold true?
Yes. Polygamy is still illegal.
If somebody can be legally married to a same-sex person in one state, and to an opposite-sex person in ND, how exactly is polygamy "illegal"?
Is there a law on the books that says it's illegal?

1/1/2014 11:17 AM
You tell me.  You're the one who stated "Polygamy is still illegal".
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.