Now you may want to deny this but that is fact. All people could get married before this court decision it just had to be to someone of the opposite sex. The only way to find this to not be equitable is to define Homosexuals as a protected class. This is what the court did.

So with this in mind the sexuality of the the bisexual would also put them in a protected class that also could not be discriminated against. Because it is not of their own free will that they require the love of both a man and a woman to be fulfilled, just as it is not a choice for a homosexual to have a partner of the same sex for fulfillment. Therefore the number must be edged out to include 3 willing adults and now we would be equitable.

But of course it probably wouldn’t stop there either.

And yes I think you are a one issue troll who has nothing better to do that fight this singular battle for some odd reason.

By the way what are your thoughts on the living Constitution…and what is more important the Constitution as written or Case Law?

You are like a blind man arguing with me that the sky is, in fact, red. You can call me all the names that you want, but it does nothing to advance your position and only exaggerates reality: You are wrong.

Why don’t you skip the bull and give me an intellectually honest answer. If you know so much more about the court’s constitutional interpretation than I, tell me why it is that what you are hypothesizing is correct. For someone who is so sure in his righteousness on the issue, this shouldn’t be a hard answer to articulate. Simply explian to me why polygamy will be deemed unconstitutional because it violates a bi-sexuals right to marry. I just want you to explain to me why. This shouldn’t be hard, I mean, you know all about how the court has applied the Equal Protection Clause. And surely, you can explain why the state would lack the compelling reason to discriminate against polygamy, due to the fact that, although everyone is discriminated against equally by banning polygamy, it violates the rights of bisexuals to marry. Have you read the Iowa decision? The case is called Varnum v. Brien. Maybe you will understand the way in which the court goes through the steps of deciding Equal Protection (even though, i know, because you are so educated on the subject, I’m sure you’ve read it already).

You want to debate about the law, learn the law. Quit your child-like attacks and actually debate the substance. Anything less is a pathetic attempt to prove out a straw man argument.

You haven’t proved anything in you argument…at all.

By the way…why haven’t you posted on any other diaries here…are you not a Republican?

Oh and do you believe in a living Constitution?

Your argument only makes sense if bi-sexuals can only have a “whole” marriage by marrying both sexes, because their preferences are split 50/50 between male and female. Therefore, being limited to only marrying 1 sex would not satisfy their marriage rights, because they still prefer the sex they didn’t marry.

But that isn’t logically sound. Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual preference in a state that has gender neutral marriage laws. The right to marry in said state would allow anyone of any sexual orientation to marry who they prefer to marry. Simply being attracted to both sexes, but having to pick one or the other doesn’t violate your right to marry anymore than I having to choose 1 of 2 women to marry.

So this keeps going back and forth. The polygamist-bi-sexual question was a good one, but when you look at the law, and the way it has been interpreted, you find it far more likely than not (more like 99.99%) that any bi-sexual who made your argument in a court would fail. I’ve explained why over and over again (just look above – police power, liberty right to marry, etc.), but if I’m wrong what is your evidence that you are right?

You can’t have an argument with someone and posit no evidence for your position. I understand why you think polygamy would become legal because of gay marriage, but, because of the way the law works, I think you are wrong. I want you to point to a credible legal theory that makes you correct. Simply repeating your conclusion without evidence and calling me a “tool” without refuting my conclusions with anything tenable is not the way you walk away from an argument thinking you are right. This isn’t middle school; you can’t just call the kid you disagree with a name and hope everyone laughs and forgets the point of the discussion.

Furthermore, this argument isn’t some political philosophical discussion where 2 parties can be correct. This is a legal argument, and in order to be correct you need to present sound legal reasoning based on facts (i.e., juris prudence, constitutional interpretation, etc.). Your argument, however, lacks any legal backing. You are simply just clamoring you are right without any evidence. That’s not how the legal system works.

But, if you are so gung-ho about it, then I implore you to do the following:
1. Go to Iowa.
2. Find a bi-sexual who is an Iowa resident.
3. Try to get him or her to get a marriage license marrying two people of the opposite sex.
4. When refused this license, find an attorney.
5. File a complaint with the local district court based on your theory that a bi-sexual’s right to marry is violated unless they can marry both sexes at the same time (i.e., polygamy is unconstitutional as applied to bi-sexuals).
6. Enjoy losing Iowa’s motion for Summary Judgment.
7. Appeal, and repeat until you get to the Supreme Court of Iowa.

When you finish that last step, and they write their decision, get back to me so that I can tell you, “I told you so,” because it doesn’t seem that any amount of evidence that proves you wrong will get you to admit that you are.

Not really, I always love a good ego stroking

man, you are on my page tonight, I am starting to see as the only option out of this. Let us burn it all to the ground because I do not want the divorce courts to now be tied up with the nightmares that are sure to come with the current course of action.

You are right here, and that is why people like myself do not see an end to this argument, so sometimes I say WTFO it is just a matter of time before it will be accepted unless the systemic problem is addressed.

I disagree with you here…
“I have no problem with granting them the same governmental benefits as married couples.”
we do not need to get in why, all I can tell you is my company removed health and life benefits for spouses because of this.

Agree with you here,

“(I do, however, think that gay marriage, when coupled with “equal protection” laws, presents problems with pastors and the like who don’t wish to endorse such unions, and as such believe in civil unions as a practical alternative, but that’s another story.”

Civil Unions are a quick way to establish a contract, so arguing against them is futile; however, again I do not see why these contracts can not be applied to polygamy again. Anyway, other than that one disagrement I think you made a great point and I wanted to call it out.

If I understand correctly, social conservatives argue that homosexuality, and its acceptance, is dangerous because it promotes a destructive lifestyle, encourages even more extreme illicit behavior, and weakens the foundations of the nuclear family that has helped make western society. I generally agree with this.

However, most “solutions” are little more than symbolic sops or other “fixes” that do little to address the actual problem. A good example is with politicians who oppose civil unions, whose general line of argumentation goes along the lines of explaining all of the above, and then concluding with, “and that’s why I oppose granting them rights to visitation”, or whatever the main point of contention is.

IMO, if you really want to address the problem head on, it’s a much better idea to get rid of the triple threat of “self esteem boosting”/diversity/sex ed programs that so permeate schools. Gay marriage is not the problem; it is indicative of the problem, and personally, I have no problem with granting them the same governmental benefits as married couples. (I do, however, think that gay marriage, when coupled with “equal protection” laws, presents problems with pastors and the like who don’t wish to endorse such unions, and as such believe in civil unions as a practical alternative, but that’s another story.)

Besides practicality, I tend to take the libertarian approach to social issues (barring abortion), and think that any attempt at social engineering (which is what a tax break to married couples is) is illegitimate, so I’d probably disagree with you even if you did end up agreeing with my pragmatic argument.