Active Users:520 Time:25/02/2025 05:59:28 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle Isaac Send a noteboard - 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
Nobody should be bound to define their mutually consensual relationships with other adults of sound mind unless the state has a undeniably clear reason to butt their noses in, like a legal contract for custody or cohabitation or shared assets, etc. Now religion or personal? Different story, plural marriage is immoral in my opinion and nobody has a right to make me personally recognize it as valid.

That is kind of the problem: The law confers, via marriage, privileges (and obligations) in those areas, and the Equal Protection Clause constitutionally prohibits doing so for some but not others.


We're seeing a generational shift toward the idea that the government shouldn't be dictating personal relationships, and from my perspective people need to be viewing this not as good/bad or better/ok but my business vs not my business and gov't business vs not something state should be involved in.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy? Narg - 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM 1398 Views
Legal rights. snoopcester - 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM 801 Views
It almost sounds like you are saying... Narg - 20/10/2012 12:31:40 AM 779 Views
That is what I'm saying it. snoopcester - 20/10/2012 01:07:50 AM 754 Views
Technically, privileges, not rights. Tom - 20/10/2012 04:16:45 AM 761 Views
Sure A Deathwatch Guard - 20/10/2012 12:35:53 AM 691 Views
All for it... For adults over the age of 18. *NM* globug0822 - 20/10/2012 01:18:04 AM 402 Views
What about it? Ghavrel - 20/10/2012 01:21:17 AM 764 Views
+1 *NM* globug0822 - 20/10/2012 01:51:25 AM 439 Views
+2 *NM* ironclad - 20/10/2012 11:18:39 AM 389 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM* temeraire - 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM 392 Views
poly people? Yunalesca - 20/10/2012 12:44:01 PM 725 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM* Dark Knight - 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM 378 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does. Palatine - 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM 731 Views
That's not what I'm saying Dark Knight - 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM 749 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard! Cannoli - 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM 704 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence.. Amyrlin - 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM 772 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid. Narg - 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM 694 Views
The more fool you. Cannoli - 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM 790 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue. Joel - 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM 724 Views
Ha! Point. *NM* globug0822 - 20/10/2012 05:40:34 AM 578 Views
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not. Cannoli - 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM 679 Views
Marriage is always a choice, whatever the motive(s.) Joel - 22/10/2012 04:00:40 PM 724 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two. Tom - 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM 792 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption Cannoli - 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM 750 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant Tom - 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM 856 Views
How would you argue for putting it in the same category as race? Burr - 21/10/2012 04:28:12 PM 779 Views
I wouldn't put it in exactly the same category. Tom - 21/10/2012 08:43:51 PM 798 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating... Legolas - 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM 746 Views
That limitation is still prejudicial and somewhat arbitrary. Joel - 22/10/2012 04:25:25 PM 942 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society. Aeryn - 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM 797 Views
On the other hand, marriage also comes from that place. Ghavrel - 20/10/2012 06:11:01 AM 769 Views
There's a pun to be made from your comment *NM* Larry - 20/10/2012 06:12:53 AM 630 Views
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it. Joel - 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM 692 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships Larry - 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM 718 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM* Tim - 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM 378 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition. Tim - 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM 791 Views
I got no opinion on it. LordPerrin - 20/10/2012 12:51:43 PM 820 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say. Legolas - 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM 894 Views
The idea of a group marriage makes me uncomfortable kHz1000 - 20/10/2012 04:19:48 PM 700 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM* beetnemesis - 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM 406 Views
As long as it is equitable imlad - 20/10/2012 05:55:57 PM 693 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM 714 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway Isaac - 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM 769 Views
Indeed Cannoli - 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM 830 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business. Burr - 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM 1101 Views
And so? Cannoli - 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM 725 Views
Re: And so? Burr - 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM 899 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM* Narg - 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM 383 Views
That would be fine with me, if that's really what came about. Burr - 22/10/2012 04:35:24 AM 736 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges... Narg - 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM 661 Views
Yes! We just don't trust you guys to actually do that. Burr - 22/10/2012 04:36:43 AM 766 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Joel - 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM 729 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail. Burr - 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM 690 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k. Joel - 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM 637 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change. Joel - 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM 692 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle Isaac - 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM 632 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM 676 Views
None of which need hinge on marriage Isaac - 23/10/2012 05:54:07 AM 641 Views
In the legal sense of marriage, yeah, they kinda do. Joel - 23/10/2012 07:20:38 AM 660 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none. Joel - 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM 781 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM 699 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government. Joel - 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM 637 Views
Much less force, yes. Burr - 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM 644 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." Joel - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM 719 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." Burr - 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM 659 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.") Joel - 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM 687 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences. Burr - 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM 734 Views
Depends on where you look, and for how long. Joel - 26/10/2012 01:19:00 AM 715 Views
+1 *NM* HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:36:46 PM 324 Views
No the analogy is not exact, nor legally the same... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:33:25 PM 609 Views
Analogy is not equality, only similarity. Joel - 24/10/2012 04:37:29 PM 811 Views
We aren't asking for something better or different. Burr - 23/10/2012 04:27:04 PM 706 Views
yeah, it is very circular. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:44:33 PM 732 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM* Jojjo - 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM 355 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes