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
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
- 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
1381 Views
Legal rights.
- 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
784 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
383 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
371 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
- 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
712 Views
That's not what I'm saying
- 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
732 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
- 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
682 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
- 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
756 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
- 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
676 Views
The more fool you.
- 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
771 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
- 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
705 Views
*NM*
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
- 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
658 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
- 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
769 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
- 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
725 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
- 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
832 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
- 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
722 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
- 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
774 Views
*NM*
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
- 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
668 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
- 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
699 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
- 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
372 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
- 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
774 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
- 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
874 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
397 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
- 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
696 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
- 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
746 Views
Indeed
- 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
805 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
- 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
1078 Views
And so?
- 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
708 Views
Re: And so?
- 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
876 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
377 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
- 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
640 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
- 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
702 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
- 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
672 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
- 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
620 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
- 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
678 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
- 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
610 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
- 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
659 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
- 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
756 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
- 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
682 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
- 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
620 Views
Much less force, yes.
- 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
623 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
697 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
639 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
- 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
664 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
- 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
716 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
- 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
346 Views