sundevil777 102
Recommended Posts
riddler 0
Quotebut then I don't see how laws against polygamy can be justified, or laws restricting marriage to blood relatives. The same arguments apply - how does it affect another person's marriage, what goes on in private...
I don't support polygamy, but I don't think it should be outlawed either. Two consenting adults, IMO, applies to three or more consenting adults. OTOH, I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the polygamy laws, other than (again) religious values that underscore our laws. Either that, or they really just hated the original Mormons (not the current ones).
I can see restricitng blood-marriage because it affects children.
Gay marriage allows freedom and equality between two consenting adults, and there is no social drawback, other than offending some religions that started thousands of years ago. And it grosses out many heterosexuals, which is probably the main reason it's controversial.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
riddler 0
QuoteThem darn gays are out to convert you!
You can't stuff a marshmallow in a piggy-bank
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
LyraM45 0
QuoteIt won't be long now until the folks that speak out against gay marriage will be treated the same way that people who speak out against inter-racial marriage are now. The times are changing, like it or not.
All of the same tired arguments were used by conservatives when inter-racial marriage was an issue. Before that, it was segragation. You know, the bullshit about "it's in the bible", and "it has traditionally been wrong" and "We have always done it that way", etc, etc. Same shit, different issue. Wrong then, and wrong now. Try reading some history, actual hiostory as written by those that lived it.
+1 .... These people just don't see it, but down the road they will be looked at just as people who are against interracial marriage and equal rights among all races are today. They spew the same exact jargon that people tried to throw out back in the day when blacks wanted the same freedoms that whites wanted. It is such a simple concept-- Equal rights for ALL. Thats what our law states. Leave the bible and religion out of law and basic rights and freedoms. Sometimes I still can't believe that we are living in 2009 and injustices like this one still occur.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)
sundevil777 102
QuoteI don't fully understand the reasoning behind the polygamy laws
I think that polygamy has such a bad reputation is that so many of them victimize young girls. The age of consent and how that is used by polygamists is a separate issue from polygamy, in my opinion, and should be dealt with separately, perhaps polygamist marriages should require the girl to be over 18 without exception.
QuoteI can see restricitng blood-marriage because it affects children.
Of course it is more likely that children will have problems, but we allow people that will most definitely be passing on genetic problems to get married and have children, and just because blood relatives aren't married doesn't prevent them from making kids together. Some blood relative couples can't make kids, shouldn't there be an exception for them? If yes, then we should all admit that we'd face the fact of having to be accepting of those relationships, for if 2 brothers (or any other now - taboo combination you could think of) want to get married, then nobody should think it is wrong, isn't that correct?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteQuoteI don't fully understand the reasoning behind the polygamy laws
I think that polygamy has such a bad reputation is that so many of them victimize young girls. The age of consent and how that is used by polygamists is a separate issue from polygamy, in my opinion, and should be dealt with separately, perhaps polygamist marriages should require the girl to be over 18 without exception.
I think the reasons in the 19th were simply religious intolerance and morality turned law. Aside from the problem you mention, the problem now would be regulatory. We certainly do reward marriage on many financial levels (aside from the taxation of dual income professionals), but it's all based on binary pairs. How would those be rewritten for 3? for 10? It would become quite the tax shelter, I'd think.
Quote
QuoteI can see restricitng blood-marriage because it affects children.
Of course it is more likely that children will have problems, but we allow people that will most definitely be passing on genetic problems to get married and have children, and just because blood relatives aren't married doesn't prevent them from making kids together. Some blood relative couples can't make kids, shouldn't there be an exception for them? If yes, then we should all admit that we'd face the fact of having to be accepting of those relationships, for if 2 brothers (or any other now - taboo combination you could think of) want to get married, then nobody should think it is wrong, isn't that correct?
Since we're leaving the notion that marriage is about having children, and since siblings can breed freaks without being married, there's something to this. But permitting such marriage may convey support for such badly advised offspring.
DanG 1
The simple answer to all of this is to get government out of the marriage business and let consenting adults do whatever the hell they want.
- Dan G
- Dan G
I don't think the government should have any more say over who gets married than it does over who gets baptized. However it *should* make laws that protect children (and animals) from predatory adults. Realistically though, I realize the government is not going to get themselves out of marriage (or anything else they get themselves into), so I'd be ok with a federal law that better defined marriage in terms of contract law, such that those parties who cannot legally enter into a contract (e.g. minors and animals) cannot legally enter into a marriage. Barring that, do we really need to assume that marriage includes sex? The problem with allowing blood relatives or minors to marry mostly relates to them having sex more than it does exchanging rings, right?
Blues,
Dave
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
QuoteThe simple answer to all of this is to get government out of the marriage business and let consenting adults do whatever the hell they want.
What he said.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
sundevil777 102
QuoteWe certainly do reward marriage on many financial levels (aside from the taxation of dual income professionals), but it's all based on binary pairs. How would those be rewritten for 3? for 10?
That slight difficulty shouldn't stop the drive to remove the bigotry. It is just a matter of figuring a reasonable set of laws to control the benefits while being married, and what should happen with divorce.
QuoteSince we're leaving the notion that marriage is about having children, and since siblings can breed freaks without being married, there's something to this. But permitting such marriage may convey support for such badly advised offspring.
If the desire to prevent bad genetic conditions is all that is making blood-relative marriage illegal, then there should be a LOT of other people that should face similar restrictions.
If a friend of yours came up to you and admitted they were gay, you're supposed to be accepting and supportive. If that same friend admitted that their gay lover is their brother/sister, then you should also be accepting and supportive, correct?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteWe certainly do reward marriage on many financial levels (aside from the taxation of dual income professionals), but it's all based on binary pairs. How would those be rewritten for 3? for 10? It would become quite the tax shelter, I'd think.
The tax code could be simplified by just removing all those marriage references. The government shouldn't care whether you participate in a religous institution.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
DanG 1
You and I seem to see eye to eye on this issue.
Does that mean we have to get gay-married?
My wife will not be happy.
- Dan G
Does that mean we have to get gay-married?
My wife will not be happy.
- Dan G
Obama said during the campaign that marriage should stay between a man and a woman. Doesn't that make him a homophobe?
Of course he also said that he supports civil unions that would have all of the same legal implications as a marriage, just a different name. Why would he do that (didn't disagree at all with McCain on this issue)? Because he is just an ordinary politician!
I don't care if gays want to marry, but then I don't see how laws against polygamy can be justified, or laws restricting marriage to blood relatives. The same arguments apply - how does it affect another person's marriage, what goes on in private...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites