Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages?

[Lincoln Republican]

Under no circumstances whatsoever.

One of the great abominations of our time.

[Lincoln Republican]

Under no circumstances whatsoever.

One of the great abominations of our time.

Racism, hunger, poverty, sex trafficking?

And you have identified some of the other tragedies and abominations as well.  Thank you.

[Lincoln Republican]

Alfred my friend, contrary to your statement, I have not ranked these situations in any order.

Now, let me be clear, I will not be dragged into a protracted discussion about marriage, which is clearly where you are headed.  Goodness knows I have had my fair share of that on this forum.

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.   

[Lincoln Republican]

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.

The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

[Lincoln Republican]

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.

The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

People can still enter into a group marriage without a prenuptial agreement. A prenup is only required if they want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.

But your above statement, bolded, does not say that, simply those wishing to enter into group marriages.  It does not specify any particular type of group marriage.  

But thank you for the clarification.

However, I assume you would not have other types of marriages who want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes, sign a prenup.  If this is the case, then this would still be a different set of standards for group marriages than for other marriages when it comes to those wanting their marriages to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.  

[Lincoln Republican]

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.

The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, what you are saying, is that group marriages have a different set of standards than other marriages, as it requires, in your words, a different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, by this logic, group marriages are not treated the same as other marriages, as they require a different set of rules and regulations, your words.   

[Lincoln Republican]

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.

[Lincoln Republican]

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.

No need to be a condescending little twat when your narrow views of marriage are put into question.  But then you wouldn't be being yourself, now would you?

Oh Mr. Scott, you are soooooooooo predictable.

Hurling personal insults, so unbecoming, and then followed up by throwing a hissy fit, so very immature.

But, whatever.

[Lincoln Republican]

Anyway, nobody has refuted my statements that the proposed group marriage policy sets a different requirement for group marriages than it does for other marriages, therefore setting a standard of inequality in group marriages as opposed to other marriages.

I can only assume, therefore, that my statements in this matter are accurate.