Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   "In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a 'right' to [marry] one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?" Oh good lord, they've gone plaid   (cnsnews.com ) divider line 351
    More: Dumbass, obama, monopoly on violence, moral choices, same-sex marriages, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Defense of Marriage Act, Merriam-Webster, bisexuals  
•       •       •

2865 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2012 at 11:42 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



351 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-04 12:34:43 PM  

eepopoarkahah: Not that I want it for myself, but I've got no problems with polygamy. If all the adults involved in the marriage consent to a polygamist marriage, then why not?


Because Jesus! Did he need 12 husbands? I think not!
 
2012-07-04 12:34:46 PM  

Biological Ali: Raharu: You missed the part of my post where they have entered into a legal contract that hammered out these issues before hand. You know, taking responsibility and having forethought on the matter.

That doesn't help much. What if one or more of the partners are incapacitated at the time when some important decision needs to be made? With two-party marriage there are a number of default considerations that can be given in situations like that - which obviously couldn't apply under the current law (at least in the US, as far as I know) to a plural marriage.


Again, legal contract, ahead of time. Legal Guardian in case of medical emergency, listing guardians in order, similar to continuity of government.


Yes it can get complex, but these people want to have a complex marriage, it is their responsibility to have it sorted out ahead of time...

/in a poly
//3 people, we got our shiat sorted.
///I dont need a piece of paper to tell me who Im married to in my heart.
////I do however need one concerning the above issues, as its the responsible thing to do.
 
2012-07-04 12:34:57 PM  
Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, and how do you people manage to be so stupid and yet remember to keep breathing?
 
2012-07-04 12:37:50 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Perhaps a corporation? Each genatilia can be an investment, each orgasm a dividen!


you can call your genitalia an investment but will it stand up in court in the hands of your attorney?
 
2012-07-04 12:38:58 PM  
The real question is, why is marriage the business of the state? Wouldn't it be better to have a clear set of rules regarding child custody and parental responsibility, and leave it at that? If you want to have a wedding, in a church or otherwise, and call yourselves married, fine, and if you want to write up a contract regarding the specific terms of your relationship, fine, but why does the state get to dictate how relationships work? It's a relic from the days when women were chattel.
 
2012-07-04 12:39:10 PM  
Two points:

1. "It's hard" is not a reason to keep something illegal. Corporations are made of multiple parties, as are business partnerships, unions, guilds, clubs, and so on. Yes it's hard to split up property and benefits among multiple parties, but it's not like it's something we don't do all the f*cking time in society. If anything, divorce lawyers, the funeral industry and lawyers that execute wills would f*cking LOVE polyamorous marriages.

2. "Because those crazy fundie Mormons do it," is not a reason to deny that to anyone else who wishes to do it. It would actually be better for those crazy, fundie Mormon wives if they had the full, legal rights of a spouse in their plural marriages. As of now, they're basically single moms cohabitating with the dad.
 
2012-07-04 12:39:41 PM  

Raharu: Biological Ali: Raharu: You missed the part of my post where they have entered into a legal contract that hammered out these issues before hand. You know, taking responsibility and having forethought on the matter.

That doesn't help much. What if one or more of the partners are incapacitated at the time when some important decision needs to be made? With two-party marriage there are a number of default considerations that can be given in situations like that - which obviously couldn't apply under the current law (at least in the US, as far as I know) to a plural marriage.

Again, legal contract, ahead of time. Legal Guardian in case of medical emergency, listing guardians in order, similar to continuity of government.


Yes it can get complex, but these people want to have a complex marriage, it is their responsibility to have it sorted out ahead of time...

/in a poly
//3 people, we got our shiat sorted.
///I dont need a piece of paper to tell me who Im married to in my heart.
////I do however need one concerning the above issues, as its the responsible thing to do.


How would you handle immigration issues? Would a person be able to marry as many non US citizens as they want and would they be entitled to permanent residence? What about spousal health care benefits? Would a company or government be able to limit the families healthcare to a certain number of spouses if it causes a burden on the company or could they be compelled to cover all of them?
 
2012-07-04 12:41:20 PM  

malaktaus: The real question is, why is marriage the business of the state? Wouldn't it be better to have a clear set of rules regarding child custody and parental responsibility, and leave it at that? If you want to have a wedding, in a church or otherwise, and call yourselves married, fine, and if you want to write up a contract regarding the specific terms of your relationship, fine, but why does the state get to dictate how relationships work? It's a relic from the days when women were chattel.


Because the state grants a ton of rights on the bases of marriage. Including immigration status, health care, pension and medical proxy.
 
2012-07-04 12:44:05 PM  
Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.
 
2012-07-04 12:44:12 PM  

lilplatinum: Biological Ali: That doesn't help much. What if one or more of the partners are incapacitated at the time when some important decision needs to be made? With two-party marriage there are a number of default considerations that can be given in situations like that - which obviously couldn't apply under the current law (at least in the US, as far as I know) to a plural marriage.

So craft a basic system? Inheritance law can get messy and complicated but it does get done because it got hammered out over the years. The fact that there are procedural hurdles due to a lack of precedence does not mean consenting adults should not be able to enter into a legal contract with each other.


Yes. Something would have to be crafted first. This, of course, is in contrast to the people who think that it would be as simple as just legalizing it the same way you would gay marriage

Raharu: Again, legal contract, ahead of time. Legal Guardian in case of medical emergency, listing guardians in order, similar to continuity of government.


Yes it can get complex, but these people want to have a complex marriage, it is their responsibility to have it sorted out ahead of time...


The word "contract" is not some kind of silver bullet here. What if, for instance, there isn't any contract? Or perhaps there was some agreement that can't be verified at the time that the decision needs to be made (a number of decisions, medical ones in particular, will be time-sensitive for obvious reasons, and can't be put off till the paperwork is sorted out)?

The whole point is that, for situations like these, there are default considerations that can be made for a two-party marriage (i.e., you would strictly need no more information beyond just the fact that they're married in order to make decisions). Such considerations cannot be made for a plural marriage. You would need to set up this entire framework first.
 
2012-07-04 12:44:13 PM  

Biological Ali: Raharu: You missed the part of my post where they have entered into a legal contract that hammered out these issues before hand. You know, taking responsibility and having forethought on the matter.

That doesn't help much. What if one or more of the partners are incapacitated at the time when some important decision needs to be made? With two-party marriage there are a number of default considerations that can be given in situations like that - which obviously couldn't apply under the current law (at least in the US, as far as I know) to a plural marriage.


A situation where one or more partners is incapacitated is another one of those issues that would have been hammered out before hand. Complicated, no question, but thats the whole point of figuring out the details before you start.

I'm also of the mindset that someone should be able to marry whoever the hell they want to, and more than one somebody if they want to, if all of the details are worked out in advance. I have zero interest in having more than one wife but I really don't care what anybody else does. Probably because i'm one of those big government liberals that wants to interfere with everyones personal lives.

I honestly have no idea how you could make it work, and i don't care enough to think about it very hard, but if someone wants to devote their time and money to figuring out the details , what hell, its their time and money.
 
2012-07-04 12:45:40 PM  
Author sounds concerned. Deeply, deeply concerned.
 
2012-07-04 12:45:46 PM  

lohphat: simplicimus: Wasn't the two people = one marriage settled with the anti-polygamy laws in the 1800's?

Republican's don't believe in history.


We need that Mexican Romney to weigh in on this issue.
 
2012-07-04 12:46:11 PM  

Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.


Marriage rights have nothing to do with religious ceremony.
 
2012-07-04 12:46:24 PM  

Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.


So are you basically saying they should all be civil unions, regardless of sex?
 
2012-07-04 12:48:29 PM  

Biological Ali: Yes. Something would have to be crafted first. This, of course, is in contrast to the people who think that it would be as simple as just legalizing it the same way you would gay marriage


It wouldn't be as simple, but it is just as unjustifiable to deny polygamists or adults who want to have incestuous relationships as it is to deny gay relationships. (And I'm not saying this as a person who is trying to compare gay relationships to things people find icky, I'm saying it as someone who thinks all these things should be legal). Complications in implementing something are not really justifications to keep it outlawed.

And a common law system would probably develop solutions rather quickly even if they weren't crafted. It would take some time and trials in courts, but hey, it would get there originally - the legal precedents we have now had to come from somewhere too.
 
2012-07-04 12:49:50 PM  

Carth: How would you handle immigration issues? Would a person be able to marry as many non US citizens as they want and would they be entitled to permanent residence? What about spousal health care benefits? Would a company or government be able to limit the families healthcare to a certain number of spouses if it causes a burden on the company or could they be compelled to cover all of them?


These are valid questions!
-------------------------------
How would you handle immigration issues? Would a person be able to marry as many non US citizens as they want and would they be entitled to permanent residence?

Honestly, I would keep it just like it is, a 1 for 1. 1 legal adult, vouching for 1 legal adult.
------------

What about spousal health care benefits? Would a company or government be able to limit the families healthcare to a certain number of spouses if it causes a burden on the company or could they be compelled to cover all of them?

I would honestly leave it up to the company involved, maybe one day they will cover several people. Most just cover 1 spouse and kids. We have that in mind., Its an important issue that could use some attention. I'm covered by my job, which has our homemaker covered as well, and the 3rd person in our group has a job and insurance through their job.
 
2012-07-04 12:50:20 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Our system is set up for two consenting adults


I would only add that once women were given equal rights that marriage because a union of two consenting adults that were equal in the eyes of the law. Once that happened - any arguments against two people of the same sex getting married became moot.
 
2012-07-04 12:50:34 PM  

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


Is the history of bigamy one of men marrying both men and women? (And goats?)

Or is it one of religious fundamentalist men marrying a series of underage girls, one after another, into the man's 60's, keeping them pregnant, barefoot, uneducated, ignorant, submissive, and afraid?

If you implement an income tax, then the government might use those tax dollars to build death camps and herd millions of innocent people into those death camps. Is this a reason never to have an income tax?
 
2012-07-04 12:50:56 PM  

verbaltoxin: So are you basically saying they should all be civil unions, regardless of sex?


Sure. Really it should just be relegated to simple contract law.
 
2012-07-04 12:50:57 PM  

odinsposse: Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.

Marriage rights have nothing to do with religious ceremony.


That is correct. Marriage confers certain legal and tax benefits. Nothing intrinsic to religion.
 
2012-07-04 12:51:17 PM  

lilplatinum: Biological Ali: Yes. Something would have to be crafted first. This, of course, is in contrast to the people who think that it would be as simple as just legalizing it the same way you would gay marriage

It wouldn't be as simple, but it is just as unjustifiable to deny polygamists or adults who want to have incestuous relationships as it is to deny gay relationships. (And I'm not saying this as a person who is trying to compare gay relationships to things people find icky, I'm saying it as someone who thinks all these things should be legal). Complications in implementing something are not really justifications to keep it outlawed.

And a common law system would probably develop solutions rather quickly even if they weren't crafted. It would take some time and trials in courts, but hey, it would get there originally - the legal precedents we have now had to come from somewhere too.


Well there is one point that you can make against an incestuous relationship which I think is coherent. Most incest occurs because of prior child abuse by the parent. These are two people who literally shouldn't be around each other, much less in a sexual relationship as adults.
 
2012-07-04 12:51:31 PM  

verbaltoxin: Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.

So are you basically saying they should all be civil unions, regardless of sex?


Can't speak for the guy you quotes, but why shouldn't it be? If the religious 'tards out there are so butthurt about "marriage" meaning something other than what they want it to / wanting to claim "marriage" as their word, fine, let them.

Remove "marriage" from all legal documentation. "Civil unions" for all couples, gay or straight. Churches/etc can still call it marriage if they like, but the legal documentation that everybody signs will say "civil union."


Of course, I'm in a country where we already decided that the whole thing was nonsense years ago and just outright legalized it, so I'm just throwing ideas out there to shut your fundies up.
 
2012-07-04 12:51:54 PM  

Raharu: You missed the part of my post where they have entered into a legal contract that hammered out these issues before hand. You know, taking responsibility and having forethought on the matter.


How can you work that ahead of time when you don't know who will have kids, how the kids will be raised and by whom and if additional wives will be added to the marriage?

In any case, your type of legal contract would invalidate an existing marriage contract. If a couple was married (normal marriage) and wanted to add a spouse, they would first have to divorce and then create a third party contract. Division of assets, custody, living wills, parental rights would be much more complicated expensive both in terms of upfront work and the work out courts to resolve in cases of death or divorce.

Actually, the more I think of it divorce would be impossible. The only option would be full dissolution any time one party wants to leave. If a 5 party contract where 3 parties want to divorce 2 parties 1 of which wants to stay. That shiat can't be resolved fairly. The only way you can handle that is by dissolving the entire union and whatever's left can rebuild as they see fit with a whole new set of prenuptial/custody agreements. Any one party could hold the entire contract at their mercy. Throw a few disabled children in the mix and you have some good times indeed.

Even if you did make it legal, the registration costs should be much much higher, much more akin to registering/incorporating a business with a board of directors or something.
 
2012-07-04 12:52:56 PM  

malaktaus: The real question is, why is marriage the business of the state? Wouldn't it be better to have a clear set of rules regarding child custody and parental responsibility, and leave it at that? If you want to have a wedding, in a church or otherwise, and call yourselves married, fine, and if you want to write up a contract regarding the specific terms of your relationship, fine, but why does the state get to dictate how relationships work? It's a relic from the days when women were chattel.


It already exists. Its called civil marriage.
 
2012-07-04 12:54:01 PM  

simplicimus: That is correct. Marriage confers certain legal and tax benefits. Nothing intrinsic to religion.


The whole concept of marriage has its roots in religion. That's like claiming that a moment of silence is not religious.
 
2012-07-04 12:54:13 PM  

NeedlesslyCanadian: verbaltoxin: Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.

So are you basically saying they should all be civil unions, regardless of sex?

Can't speak for the guy you quotes, but why shouldn't it be? If the religious 'tards out there are so butthurt about "marriage" meaning something other than what they want it to / wanting to claim "marriage" as their word, fine, let them.

Remove "marriage" from all legal documentation. "Civil unions" for all couples, gay or straight. Churches/etc can still call it marriage if they like, but the legal documentation that everybody signs will say "civil union."


Of course, I'm in a country where we already decided that the whole thing was nonsense years ago and just outright legalized it, so I'm just throwing ideas out there to shut your fundies up.


I'm in agreement with you and it seems Shaggy is also.
 
2012-07-04 12:54:40 PM  

Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.


Maybe we also recognize that marriage comes with non-religious government tax breaks and other benefits, and that the religious aspect is both irrelevant and being used to deny those minority groups equal rights?

You managed to recognize the problem with denying gays the right to marry and then completely miss it again within the space of a single post. Which I suppose for you would count as a grand "accomplishment".
 
2012-07-04 12:56:02 PM  

NeedlesslyCanadian: Remove "marriage" from all legal documentation. "Civil unions" for all couples, gay or straight. Churches/etc can still call it marriage if they like, but the legal documentation that everybody signs will say "civil union."


I don't know about you - but I refuse to cede control of a meaning of a word because of a few religious extremists.

/and even if I was willing to - what you are asking to do is frankly impossible due to the nature of our legal system
 
2012-07-04 12:56:09 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Thoguh: Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?

Because the property law involved becomes nightmarish at that point, and there are no traditionally accepted ways to configure it.

You'll need some attorneys to draw up the paperwork and figure out the details. On your own dime.

Once you do that, I'm perfectly happy with the state deeming 3+ people married.


I think people should be allowed to exist in situations like that. The horrified reactions from social conservatives aside, one of the problems would be people marrying in 40 or 50 person groups to game the system for benefits reserved for spouses.

It's hardly the only place where the idea has been explored, but in the short-lived show Caprica there was a group marriage portrayed, though they didn't go into the legal details.
 
2012-07-04 12:57:24 PM  
Racial discrimination is wrong for the same reason homosexual behavior - or, for that matter, bisexual behavior - is wrong

Say whaaaa?
 
2012-07-04 12:57:30 PM  

Carth: Because the state grants a ton of rights on the bases of marriage. Including immigration status, health care, pension and medical proxy.


So why is it acceptable for the state to push a specific morality and worldview on everyone in this way? Is that not discriminatory toward people who do not buy into that worldview?

gingerjet: malaktaus:

It already exists. Its called civil marriage.


And what if you want different terms? Why is the state allowed to dictate them?
 
2012-07-04 12:57:44 PM  
Frankly, I always thought this was the logical next step...if it is about the rights of consenting adults then why not more than two? I haven't heard a logical argument againts it yet.

/for gay marriage
//there is no logical expansion of rights beyond consenting adults.
///all parties must be consenting adults
 
2012-07-04 12:58:23 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Maybe we also recognize that marriage comes with non-religious government tax breaks and other benefits, and that the religious aspect is both irrelevant and being used to deny those minority groups equal rights?


Marriage as a religious institution came first. You can't disconnect the two. Government didn't come up with the idea on its own. It's no different than Blue Laws as far as I'm concerned.
 
2012-07-04 12:59:02 PM  

Shaggy_C: simplicimus: That is correct. Marriage confers certain legal and tax benefits. Nothing intrinsic to religion.

The whole concept of marriage has its roots in religion. That's like claiming that a moment of silence is not religious.


That's not really correct either. Marriage has always been a matter of joining rights and property. It's just that the conflation of state and religious power in earlier governments meant that it was both. Religious figures used to also oversee property transfers and other contract signings. As state and religion separated, marriage clearly was sorted under the authority of the state.
 
2012-07-04 01:01:06 PM  

malaktaus: s that not discriminatory toward people who do not buy into that worldview?


You don't understand what discriminatory means in a legal context. It means applying different standards, not applying any standards at all.
 
2012-07-04 01:01:10 PM  

Shaggy_C: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Maybe we also recognize that marriage comes with non-religious government tax breaks and other benefits, and that the religious aspect is both irrelevant and being used to deny those minority groups equal rights?

Marriage as a religious institution came first. You can't disconnect the two. Government didn't come up with the idea on its own. It's no different than Blue Laws as far as I'm concerned.


Like I said, you had it and then you lost it. Orwellian mind-wipe or something. Go back and read the first sentence or so of your other post if you want a hint.

But it's no surprise to me that anyone who can etch-a-sketch that fast doesn't understand why others behave the way they do.
 
2012-07-04 01:02:18 PM  

verbaltoxin: Shaggy_C: Marriage is discriminatory in general and the government should not recognize it all. Why we should be giving tax breaks and other benefits to people to going through some silly ritual from thousands of years ago is beyond me. People on this site are pretty hateful towards christians but seem to get all defensive about religion whenever there is some 'favored status' minority group that wants to take part in stupid religious ceremonies. Whether it is gays getting married or moslems demanding a wtc mosque this place suddenly turns into some kind of religionist protection syndicate. Makes no sense to me.

So are you basically saying they should all be civil unions, regardless of sex?


I think unions should be civil, preferably with lots of sex, unless "civil" isnt the kind of sex you want.
 
2012-07-04 01:02:21 PM  
HI-larious watching Farkers twist themselves into knots explaining that Gay marriage is A-OK, but Polygamy is "Impractical", "Unwieldy" etc.

The line has been crossed. There is no logical basis to allow gay marriage, but not extend it to polygamy. None. You can argue that it's bad for the participants (reference the social/economic travails of societies with widespread polygamy) but that's, like, just you're opinion, man.

I argue that Gay marriage is a bad idea because of how it's going to screw up child rearing in our society, not because of any homophobia, yet I'm denounced as a bigot. Sorry, none of you can make an argument that justifies Gay Marriage, and opposes Polygamy.

Nothing left to do but let events unfold, and show through bitter, hard won, first hand experience that there's a reason that traditional marriage arose and existed in highly successful societies for hundreds of years....
 
2012-07-04 01:02:25 PM  

lilplatinum: It wouldn't be as simple, but it is just as unjustifiable to deny polygamists or adults who want to have incestuous relationships as it is to deny gay relationships. (And I'm not saying this as a person who is trying to compare gay relationships to things people find icky, I'm saying it as someone who thinks all these things should be legal). Complications in implementing something are not really justifications to keep it outlawed.


Not wanting to stir up a hornet's nest of actual, definable complications has long been a justification for disallowing certain kinds of transactions or contracts and it is very distinct from something being disallowed due to religious bigotry. It's one of the reasons, for instance, that very few places in the world have an open, legal market for organs, even though it in theory also consists of perfectly consensual agreements (and is actually a much, much simpler matter than plural marriage). So no, it's not "as unjustifiable" as a gay marriage ban. Sure, you can look at the justifications and find them lacking, but it's just would not be correct to term it to be "as unjustifiable".

Incestuous relations are a legitimate issue, but the time to bring it up is after all the other more insidious forms of discrimination have already been ended, and not while that process is still going on. Bringing things like these up while that conversation is still going on will only poison the well - something that bigoted social conservatives are well aware of every time they make pointed references to those things.
 
2012-07-04 01:02:51 PM  

verbaltoxin: Well there is one point that you can make against an incestuous relationship which I think is coherent. Most incest occurs because of prior child abuse by the parent. These are two people who literally shouldn't be around each other, much less in a sexual relationship as adults.


At this point you set a precedent that the government should dictate that we should only enter into healthy relationships. Sure, it is probably better that most incestuous relationships don't happen - but then again its probably better that a lot of people who get married don't get married in the first place.

The other incest argument about having kids who are at higher risks for birth defects seems compelling at first too, but then again a woman having kids after the age of 40 is putting that kid at a much higher risk of birth defects... should we ban old broads trying to selfishly beat their biological clock too?
 
2012-07-04 01:03:41 PM  

malaktaus: Carth: Because the state grants a ton of rights on the bases of marriage. Including immigration status, health care, pension and medical proxy.

So why is it acceptable for the state to push a specific morality and worldview on everyone in this way? Is that not discriminatory toward people who do not buy into that worldview?
gingerjet: malaktaus:

It already exists. Its called civil marriage.

And what if you want different terms? Why is the state allowed to dictate them?


People who don't "buy into" marriage aren't a protected class. There are no laws saying you can't discriminate against them.
 
2012-07-04 01:03:50 PM  
Duh. you're---your
 
2012-07-04 01:03:54 PM  
No rational person could argue that there is a God-given right to same-sex marriage or bisexual behavior

Few rational people use "But, but, a magical sky wizard wills it" in an argument.

Rational people would, however, argue that it is a human right to be able to marry someone you can convince to put up with your flaws for a lifetime; and it is a civil right to have access to the same legal status regardless of the gender of your better half.

Unless you live in a theocracy, God is out of the picture. This is about the law.

Oh, and bisexuality has no bearing on the number of partners somebody has. The most common multiple-partner marriages actually follow the pattern IN THE BIBLE, ie one patriarchal dude, multiple subjugated women with no rights.
 
2012-07-04 01:04:31 PM  

mrshowrules: Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?

Therefore, you are arguing slippery slope.

Limiting marriages to two people is a societal imposition that would be equally applied to straight and gay people so it is not discriminatory. Unless you contend that people are born polygamist by nature (both men and women).

There are practical reasons for not recognizing 3 party contracts because it is complicated (who makes medical decisions, who gets benefits, divorces). It is really messy.

The reason why Proposition 8 was shot down in California was not because it wasn't discriminatory. Discrimination is permissible to an extent in American society. It was that it was discriminatory without any reasonable societal benefit. The complication of 3, 4, 5 and 6 party contracts in polygamist marriages, potential for unfairness and even abuse represents is generally not good for a society. It is acceptable discrimination.


A ban on polygamous or plural marriage is discriminatory against certain religions. Other societies have figured out legal matters concerning these types of marriages so your "too messy" argument won't hold water for long.
 
2012-07-04 01:04:42 PM  

mark12A: HI-larious watching Farkers twist themselves into knots explaining that Gay marriage is A-OK, but Polygamy is "Impractical", "Unwieldy" etc.

The line has been crossed. There is no logical basis to allow gay marriage, but not extend it to polygamy. None. You can argue that it's bad for the participants (reference the social/economic travails of societies with widespread polygamy) but that's, like, just you're opinion, man.

I argue that Gay marriage is a bad idea because of how it's going to screw up child rearing in our society, not because of any homophobia, yet I'm denounced as a bigot. Sorry, none of you can make an argument that justifies Gay Marriage, and opposes Polygamy.

Nothing left to do but let events unfold, and show through bitter, hard won, first hand experience that there's a reason that traditional marriage arose and existed in highly successful societies for hundreds of years....


I really don't have any problem with gay marriage or polygamy. Traditional marriage isn't going to disappear because of the existence of either of them. It isn't a zero-sum game.
 
2012-07-04 01:05:42 PM  

rynthetyn: Someone needs to explain the difference between "bisexual" and "polyamorous" to the author of TFA.


...and besides that, bigamy laws kinda answer his question.

/Another thing we can blame the Mormons on.
//In fact, they were so mad that they couldn't just marry everybody, that they decided to actively try and ruin it for the gays.
 
2012-07-04 01:05:43 PM  
Yes, Christians, this is the game to play.

In the fundementalist Christian world does a rapist have the right to rape a child, and add her to his collection of wives if he throws a handful of silver at the father? Let me check the book for a ruling on this one..... YES.

/The answer to the CNS riddle is "he marries a hermaphrodite"
//It's kinda like that "his mother is the doctor" thing only way kinkier.
 
2012-07-04 01:07:07 PM  

Aldon: mrshowrules: Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?

Therefore, you are arguing slippery slope.

Limiting marriages to two people is a societal imposition that would be equally applied to straight and gay people so it is not discriminatory. Unless you contend that people are born polygamist by nature (both men and women).

There are practical reasons for not recognizing 3 party contracts because it is complicated (who makes medical decisions, who gets benefits, divorces). It is really messy.

The reason why Proposition 8 was shot down in California was not because it wasn't discriminatory. Discrimination is permissible to an extent in American society. It was that it was discriminatory without any reasonable societal benefit. The complication of 3, 4, 5 and 6 party contracts in polygamist marriages, potential for unfairness and even abuse represents is generally not good for a society. It is acceptable discrimination.

A ban on polygamous or plural marriage is discriminatory against certain religions. .


The Supreme Court disagrees. See Reynolds v. United States
 
2012-07-04 01:09:24 PM  

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


---------------

In the eyes of the government, marriage is just a contract that gives two people special legal rights. You can do your taxes differently, certain personal privacy rules are changed (hospital rights, etc), and the rules change if one of you dies. The government doesn't care about love, or Jesus, or anything else other than its specific laws that apply to people who sign a marriage contract.

The key thing to note is that almost all these laws assume 2 people in the marriage. Marriage law would have to be totally rewritten in order to allow more than 2 people. It couldn't just happen in a day like gay marriage can, because gay marriage fits just fine with all the current marriage laws since the law never assumes an opposite sex relationship.

So 3 people can love each other all they want, but they will never be able to marry unless the legal definition of marriage is drastically changed to allow for such a situation. And that simply isn't going to happen. So calm down.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report