DOMA and Prop 8 bite the dust

[scootsy]

Why congrats to them? They're still unfairly persecuted, are they not?

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

 

[Deleted member 848]

Good day for America. I wish they could just legalize it federally already.

Not sure why people hold the word 'marriage' so sacredly, that they want only people of their same sexual orientation to hold it.

Where it gets confusing for me, is where you draw the line for it. If marriage is a completely religious term, does that mean only Christians are allowed to have that status? If we allow other religions to participate (which we do), then do we simply allow only religions that view the institution of marriage as monogamous? If so, then how on earth is that fair?

"We will let you participate in this thing called marriage only if your faith/lifestyle is similar to ours".


Also, I think the civil union argument that Stoked makes, makes sense in principle-- but I do not think the majority of Americans associate the definition of marriage with what you think it is, and vice-versa for the definition of civil-union.


To me it all boils down to: why the **** do we care what someone else considers what 'marriage' is. If you're Mormon, then marriage is a (mostly) monogamous union between a heterosexual couple. Cool. Why feel the need to apply this definition to everyone else?

 

[Deleted member 848]

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

Going off of no statistics, but I think the fact that polygamy is much more small-scale, and its widely-publicized negative connotations, or consequences that are associated with polygamy will make it verrrry difficult for it to be legalized. IMO.

 

[Deleted member 365]

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

Next logical or probable step?

After walking on the moon the next logical step would have been to walk on Mars. Yet... We're still amazingly far from that.

I don't understand why or how this is a victory for polygamy.

Maybe we could start with why polygamy was outlawed in the first place?

 

[scootsy]

Next logical or probable step?

After walking on the moon the next logical step would have been to walk on Mars. Yet... We're still amazingly far from that.

I don't understand why or how this is a victory for polygamy.

Maybe we could start with why polygamy was outlawed in the first place?

This is why.

Polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Generally the same argument that has historically been held against homosexual marriages. We'll see..

 

[Stoked]

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.

 

[scootsy]

As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.

why should that be necessary? no such provision or prerequisite is required for any other type of marriage

 

[Deleted member 848]

As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.

Yup. I mean obviously it seems pretty freaky to me, but if that is what they think is best, and they are presenting no significant 'harm' relative to a more traditional marriage, then I think its fair for us to let them do as they wish.

 

[Deleted member 848]

why should that be necessary? no such provision or prerequisite is required for any other type of marriage

I think most legal systems (you would know this 378347893x better than myself) are designed to protect citizens of a given state.

For example, incest is illegal because it tends to maximize genetic defects of their respective offspring.

If polygamy is shown to have very negative consequences on any of the partners or the kids on a CONSISTENT, mostly-frequent basis, then I think that the legal system could designate them as illegal.

 

[Stoked]

why should that be necessary? no such provision or prerequisite is required for any other type of marriage

And I have a problem with arranged marriages and those that have kids beyond their means to provide for. Becasue we screwed up one thing is that justification to continue making the same mistake? No, it is not.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Yup. I mean obviously it seems pretty freaky to me, but if that is what they think is best, and they are presenting no significant 'harm' relative to a more traditional marriage, then I think its fair for us to let them do as they wish.

Who wouldn't want to get down and freaky with this? That's some hot tail right there...

Race you and stoked to the line to join the polygamists!

 

[mellow]

If polygamy is shown to have very negative consequences on any of the partners or the kids on a CONSISTENT, mostly-frequent basis, then I think that the legal system could designate them as illegal.

I was young once, I remember when I believed that studies and statistics were conducted and published to demonstrate facts, not commissioned to support a preconcieved notion or agenda. - signed Jaded Old Man.