time for true marriage equality (1 Viewer)

[zed2283]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

 

[Godsbrother]

No man in his right mind would want two or more wives.

 

[zed2283]

No man in his right mind would want two or more wives.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. Just standing up for his rights to have them if he chooses.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

 

[zed2283]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

What issues would those be? If you're talking about taxes or insurance, I really don't see it as anything other than similar to adding dependents.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

What issues would those be? If you're talking about taxes or insurance, I really don't see it as anything other than similar to adding dependents.

I'm talking about pretty much everything that goes along with marriage. Inheritance, custody, taxes, benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc. When I got married, I entered into a whole host of default legal agreements governing how all of those things work. If I die without a will, by wife gets my money and custody of the kids, etc. If I'm a federal employee my wife gets my benefits. If I'm in the hospital and a vegetable, my wife can decide whether to pull the plug, etc. What would a legal polygamous marriage arrangement look like? Do all polygamists generally agree on what the default rules should even be?

 

[zed2283]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

What issues would those be? If you're talking about taxes or insurance, I really don't see it as anything other than similar to adding dependents.

I'm talking about pretty much everything that goes along with marriage. Inheritance, custody, taxes, benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc. When I got married, I entered into a whole host of default legal agreements governing how all of those things work. If I die without a will, by wife gets my money and custody of the kids, etc. If I'm a federal employee my wife gets my benefits. If I'm in the hospital and a vegetable, my wife can decide whether to pull the plug, etc. What would a legal polygamous marriage arrangement look like? Do all polygamists generally agree on what the default rules should even be?

I don't see any issues with any of those things, other than the end-of-life decisions. And you could take care of that ahead of time.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

What issues would those be? If you're talking about taxes or insurance, I really don't see it as anything other than similar to adding dependents.

I'm talking about pretty much everything that goes along with marriage. Inheritance, custody, taxes, benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc. When I got married, I entered into a whole host of default legal agreements governing how all of those things work. If I die without a will, by wife gets my money and custody of the kids, etc. If I'm a federal employee my wife gets my benefits. If I'm in the hospital and a vegetable, my wife can decide whether to pull the plug, etc. What would a legal polygamous marriage arrangement look like? Do all polygamists generally agree on what the default rules should even be?

I don't see any issues with any of those things, other than the end-of-life decisions. And you could take care of that ahead of time.

And if you don't? What happens, do they vote on it? What if it's a tie?

 

[Koya]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

 

[jonessed]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

What issues would those be? If you're talking about taxes or insurance, I really don't see it as anything other than similar to adding dependents.

I'm talking about pretty much everything that goes along with marriage. Inheritance, custody, taxes, benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc. When I got married, I entered into a whole host of default legal agreements governing how all of those things work. If I die without a will, by wife gets my money and custody of the kids, etc. If I'm a federal employee my wife gets my benefits. If I'm in the hospital and a vegetable, my wife can decide whether to pull the plug, etc. What would a legal polygamous marriage arrangement look like? Do all polygamists generally agree on what the default rules should even be?

I don't see any issues with any of those things, other than the end-of-life decisions. And you could take care of that ahead of time.

And if you don't? What happens, do they vote on it? What if it's a tie?

What does it matter? If we deem marriage equality a constitutional right then these issues need to be sorted out. They certainly aren't large enough to hold up equal rights.

 

[Sabertooth]

The problem being that marriage is tied to taxes, benefits, and many other financial things. A guy could have a veritable harem if he was simply able to hold down a job at UPS.

 

[zed2283]

The problem being that marriage is tied to taxes, benefits, and many other financial things. A guy could have a veritable harem if he was simply able to hold down a job at UPS.

And...?

 

[zed2283]

I read this article when it came out and it doesn't really address any of the logistical issues that make it more difficult to fit polygamous marriages into the existing legal structure. Instead it attacks straw men.

What issues would those be? If you're talking about taxes or insurance, I really don't see it as anything other than similar to adding dependents.

I'm talking about pretty much everything that goes along with marriage. Inheritance, custody, taxes, benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc. When I got married, I entered into a whole host of default legal agreements governing how all of those things work. If I die without a will, by wife gets my money and custody of the kids, etc. If I'm a federal employee my wife gets my benefits. If I'm in the hospital and a vegetable, my wife can decide whether to pull the plug, etc. What would a legal polygamous marriage arrangement look like? Do all polygamists generally agree on what the default rules should even be?

I don't see any issues with any of those things, other than the end-of-life decisions. And you could take care of that ahead of time.

And if you don't? What happens, do they vote on it? What if it's a tie?

Same as two parents making the same decisions about their child I guess.

 

[tom22406]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

 

[NCCommish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

I can go along with that.

 

[Zegras11]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

 

[Dentist]

No man in his right mind would want two or more wives.

If it wasn't for society pressuring people into monogamous marital relationships, I don't think wives would exist at all.

 

[timschochet]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement:

The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now.

The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

Because it is an idea that creates no solutions to any real problems and creates countless new problems.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement:

The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now.

The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

 

[DaVinci]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

Because it is an idea that creates no solutions to any real problems and creates countless new problems.

Sometimes freedom is inconvenient. That doesn't make tyranny acceptable.

 

[zed2283]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement:

The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now.

The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

Way more than a few hundred. Has to be at least in the thousands. Pretty sure there aren't millions of gay people who want to be legally married.

 

[FUBAR]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement:

The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now.

The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

I'm led to believe there are biological, reproductive issues with incest. Could be wrong, I'm no doctor or biologist. But if there are, the children would be harmed by allowing their Mom and Dad to be siblings. Take kids out of the equation and I could care less if bro and bro / bro and sis / sis and sis want to get it on.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

Because it is an idea that creates no solutions to any real problems and creates countless new problems.

Sometimes freedom is inconvenient. That doesn't make tyranny acceptable.

Oh I missed that we were just throwing out meaningless slogans. My bad.

 

[NCCommish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement:

The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now.

The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

I'm led to believe there are biological, reproductive issues with incest. Could be wrong, I'm no doctor or biologist. But if there are, the children would be harmed by allowing their Mom and Dad to be siblings. Take kids out of the equation and I could care less if bro and bro / bro and sis / sis and sis want to get it on.

For the most part the whole marrying your cousin will cause three eyed kids has been debunked. What can happen is you can double up on certain regressive genes that are harmful but that can also happen within racial groups without close kinship in paternity. Lastly we are all married to our cousins it's just a matter of degree.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Polygamy?Knock yourself out.

 

[timschochet]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

Except, you know, to the people who want it... To them its just as (if not more) important as gay marriage or anything else.

 

[NCCommish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

Except, you know, to the people who want it... To them its just as (if not more) important as gay marriage or anything else.

So? If they are consenting adults who cares? I don't. If you want more than one wife or husband more power to you. One wife is more than enough for me thanks. And as pointed out by bringing these things out of the shadows, where they exist currently, you get a better chance to stop the abuses. Now certainly there are some legal entanglements to deal with but with a bit of thought and effort I am pretty sure those can be worked out.

 

[BassNBrew]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

I can go along with that.

Usually when we have this discussion, that position is considered anti-gay.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

I can go along with that.

Usually when we have this discussion, that position is considered anti-gay.

How so?

 

[The Commish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

GL with this guys. I'll let you guys carry this torch for a while. It's not a very popular position here in the FFA.

 

[NCCommish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

I can go along with that.

Usually when we have this discussion, that position is considered anti-gay.

Yeah but when I say it I mean stop using the government to keep consenting adults from marrying other consenting adults. Just to be clear.

 

[Henry Ford]

If I had more money, I would totally get a second wife.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

GL with this guys. I'll let you guys carry this torch for a while. It's not a very popular position here in the FFA.

I'm just big on everyone having equality under the law. If you want to give the same benefits to everyone or give none of the benefits to anyone, it makes no difference to me.

Won't someone think about the single people?

 

[Jayrok]

No man in his right mind would want two or more wives.

The punishment for polygamy is two mother in laws.

 

[The Commish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

GL with this guys. I'll let you guys carry this torch for a while. It's not a very popular position here in the FFA.

I'm just big on everyone having equality under the law. If you want to give the same benefits to everyone or give none of the benefits to anyone, it makes no difference to me.

Won't someone think about the single people?

I'm on your side here....

 

[Todd Andrews]

Man on dog?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

GL with this guys. I'll let you guys carry this torch for a while. It's not a very popular position here in the FFA.

I'm just big on everyone having equality under the law. If you want to give the same benefits to everyone or give none of the benefits to anyone, it makes no difference to me.

Won't someone think about the single people?

I'm on your side here....

I know.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Man on dog?

I count one consenting adult in that equation.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Nothing I can really add here.........

 

[larry_boy_44]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

Except, you know, to the people who want it... To them its just as (if not more) important as gay marriage or anything else.

So? If they are consenting adults who cares? I don't. If you want more than one wife or husband more power to you. One wife is more than enough for me thanks. And as pointed out by bringing these things out of the shadows, where they exist currently, you get a better chance to stop the abuses. Now certainly there are some legal entanglements to deal with but with a bit of thought and effort I am pretty sure those can be worked out.

I wasn't saying anything against any of these practices.

I was merely pointing out that what Tim is calling a non-sequitur is actually a big deal to a portion of the population. No judgement was coming from my post at all.

 

[BassNBrew]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

I can go along with that.

Usually when we have this discussion, that position is considered anti-gay.

How so?

Seem Tim's reply above.

 

[BassNBrew]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

GL with this guys. I'll let you guys carry this torch for a while. It's not a very popular position here in the FFA.

I'm just big on everyone having equality under the law. If you want to give the same benefits to everyone or give none of the benefits to anyone, it makes no difference to me.

Won't someone think about the single people?

This is why I've been torn on the gay marriage issue. It's not fair that gays are being discriminated against, but moving them into the married column increases the burden on the single people.

 

[kface]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

Except, you know, to the people who want it... To them its just as (if not more) important as gay marriage or anything else.

So? If they are consenting adults who cares? I don't. If you want more than one wife or husband more power to you. One wife is more than enough for me thanks. And as pointed out by bringing these things out of the shadows, where they exist currently, you get a better chance to stop the abuses. Now certainly there are some legal entanglements to deal with but with a bit of thought and effort I am pretty sure those can be worked out.

While I agree whole heartedly that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want there is problem with your rationale....politicians don't like to think things through. It would take some thought to do it right and figure out all the leagalities...i think that is too much to ask of most of our politicians.

 

[AAABatteries]

Polygamy?Knock yourself out.

What about gay polygamy. Can I marry shuke, SLB and evilgrin? We can include WetDream just to show us what to do.

 

[Zow]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

A-freakin'-men.

Why this is so hard for people to accept - moreso, usually the same people who want government to be smaller - is beyond me. Just no respect of freedom for others.

GL with this guys. I'll let you guys carry this torch for a while. It's not a very popular position here in the FFA.

I'm just big on everyone having equality under the law. If you want to give the same benefits to everyone or give none of the benefits to anyone, it makes no difference to me.

Won't someone think about the single people?

If we included single people there'd be almost no legal point to marriage at all.

And as a lawyer who does some family law, I say pipe down sir!

 

[NCCommish]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

Except, you know, to the people who want it... To them its just as (if not more) important as gay marriage or anything else.

So? If they are consenting adults who cares? I don't. If you want more than one wife or husband more power to you. One wife is more than enough for me thanks. And as pointed out by bringing these things out of the shadows, where they exist currently, you get a better chance to stop the abuses. Now certainly there are some legal entanglements to deal with but with a bit of thought and effort I am pretty sure those can be worked out.

While I agree whole heartedly that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want there is problem with your rationale....politicians don't like to think things through. It would take some thought to do it right and figure out all the leagalities...i think that is too much to ask of most of our politicians.

You do make a good point.

 

[Zow]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

So it is okay to discriminate against small groups?

No. As I wrote, I'm for consenting adults to do what they want. I brought up the numbers to demonstrate that the whole question of polygamy is a non-sequitur.

Except, you know, to the people who want it... To them its just as (if not more) important as gay marriage or anything else.

So? If they are consenting adults who cares? I don't. If you want more than one wife or husband more power to you. One wife is more than enough for me thanks. And as pointed out by bringing these things out of the shadows, where they exist currently, you get a better chance to stop the abuses. Now certainly there are some legal entanglements to deal with but with a bit of thought and effort I am pretty sure those can be worked out.

While I agree whole heartedly that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want there is problem with your rationale....politicians don't like to think things through. It would take some thought to do it right and figure out all the leagalities...i think that is too much to ask of most of our politicians.

You do make a good point.

He does. Present divorce/custody law is entirely premised around a 50/50 community property idea and the best interests of the children of the two legal parents. Throwing a third plus party wrench in there with the assumption that he/she would have the same rights would be a freaking mess. Our legislatures would probably have to re-write the marital laws and courts would become even more packed with litigation but adding new issues and a third or more party to a case.