What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

moevillini said:
Big differences between polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage...

Moving to a system that allows two people of any gender to enter into a legally defined status (commonly referred to as marriage) did not require recreating the system.

Legalizing polygamy so that it becomes an equivalent system would be very complex - - for instance, say three people are "married" and one wants out of the "partnership" - - does that mean the entire partnership dissolves? Or if one dies - same question? Would there be any limit on the number that could be joined under this system? It would be interesting to see what would happen if there is a state that wants to set up some sort of system that would answer these questions, and allow folks to apply for this new status.

As it is now, there's nothing to prohibit three or more people from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what is the purpose of "legalizing" polygamy?

To me, it just sounds like a form of communal living, which is certainly already allowed. Here's an interesting article:
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150320/ISSUE03/150329991/is-communal-living-making-a-comeback
Click to expand...

If three people love each other, who ar you to stand in their way, H8ter!
 
This is irrelevant to the current discussion, but relevant to Christiniaty, homosexuality, and my feelings on the matter. It describes it in a much better way than I've been able to. So I hope you guys read this, especially Trout, as this is how I feel Christianity views homosexuality.

https://adam4d.com/dont-hate/
 
moevillini said:
Big differences between polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage...

Moving to a system that allows two people of any gender to enter into a legally defined status (commonly referred to as marriage) did not require recreating the system.

Legalizing polygamy so that it becomes an equivalent system would be very complex - - for instance, say three people are "married" and one wants out of the "partnership" - - does that mean the entire partnership dissolves? Or if one dies - same question? Would there be any limit on the number that could be joined under this system? It would be interesting to see what would happen if there is a state that wants to set up some sort of system that would answer these questions, and allow folks to apply for this new status.

As it is now, there's nothing to prohibit three or more people from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what is the purpose of "legalizing" polygamy?

To me, it just sounds like a form of communal living, which is certainly already allowed. Here's an interesting article:
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150320/ISSUE03/150329991/is-communal-living-making-a-comeback
Click to expand...
i could use your argument agains tgay mariage

As it is was before the supreme court decision, there was no to prohibiting 2 same sex persons from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what was the purpose of "legalizing" same sex marriage?
 
Howard said:
This is irrelevant to the current discussion, but relevant to Christiniaty, homosexuality, and my feelings on the matter. It describes it in a much better way than I've been able to. So I hope you guys read this, especially Trout, as this is how I feel Christianity views homosexuality.

https://adam4d.com/dont-hate/
Click to expand...

As a non-believer in Christian-Judeo organized religion, the cognitive dissonance spilled all over that cartoon is why many are just baffled by your position.

First, I love how "Me" in the cartoon is circled many times mentioning that "there is love there" and "i love you", yet the other person doesn't have anything written about "You". Very telling actually.

Second, this cartoon basically says "I don't hate you, but God disagrees with the way you live your life, and in turn I do." This is classic religious deflection, i.e. "It's God's way, not mine." You get to appropriate your opinions and beliefs to God and not yourself. In essence, "It's God's call, not mine." Problem is, it is your call. You decide what your opinions are and what you believe. There are so many religions and interpretations of God, there is no way to know which one is correct. You have faith, an opinion, and believe if your interpretation. That's your choice, no one elses. Once you own that, you'll realize that "love" your trying to project is stifled by hurtful opinions.

Third, I know this works out in your head because it justifies your belief system and world view. But try turning it on its head and think if being straight was the "sin" and being gay was "God's plan". Think about someone giving this cartoon to you and how it would make you feel. Think about if a person from another religion gave this to you and it was about your religion being a "sin". Conversations go both ways, make sure you are able to take the same explanation and feel "loved".

"I love you, but God thinks who you are is sinful, so I will try to stop you from being able to truly be who you are. But I don't hate you, I love you." I'm sorry that makes no sense, and is a way for religious people to justify treating people like crap.

How does this logic makes sense to you? Ultimately, many just say "because Jesus" and move on. Because it doesn't make sense. You can tell someone you love them all day, and actively speak out against who they are, and they will not feel loved. So because you say it makes it true? No. Love is 2 way street. This is an extreme example but explains the macro idea: Some murders "love" their victims, does that make it ok? No. Doing things out of love are not always good. Love is not an excuse.

Once people stop lying to themselves just to keep their beliefs totally consistent across the board, they'll realize that its not about being right or wrong. It's about real love, the kind others feel from you, not just what you want to project.
 
DutchJazzer said:
i could use your argument agains tgay mariage

As it is was before the supreme court decision, there was no to prohibiting 2 same sex persons from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what was the purpose of "legalizing" same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

look at the U.S. Tax Code...

since you don't live in the United States or pay taxes here, it might not be something you're that aware of, or seem that important to you - - but it's a benefit that was formerly only available to married opposite sex couples
 
DutchJazzer said:
i could use your argument agains tgay mariage

As it is was before the supreme court decision, there was no to prohibiting 2 same sex persons from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what was the purpose of "legalizing" same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

again, a married same-sex couple was NOT eligible for the same tax benefits (and other legal status benefits) that were available to opposite-sex couples

all the ruling does is say that the legal benefits that are extended to couples of the opposite sex are extended to couples of the same sex - otherwise, it's the same thing
 
moevillini said:
look at the U.S. Tax Code...

since you don't live in the United States or pay taxes here, it might not be something you're that aware of, or seem that important to you - - but it's a benefit that was formerly only available to married opposite sex couples
Click to expand...
i know about that code. but seems like they wouldnt accept same rights with another name of mariage ;)
 
moevillini said:
again, a married same-sex couple was NOT eligible for the same tax benefits (and other legal status benefits) that were available to opposite-sex couples

all the ruling does is say that the legal benefits that are extended to couples of the opposite sex are extended to couples of the same sex - otherwise, it's the same thing
Click to expand...
i get that.

my personal view is gov should stay out of mariage.


but if 3 people legitamtly love eachother why cant those 3 get married then. we dont choose who we fall in love with right :P.

anywhoo seems like a few polygamy cases are starting up now
 
Nathan Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision that made marriage equal. He said he was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving gay couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy.

And so this week, Mr Collier and his two wives, Victoria and Christine, entered a courthouse in Billings, Montana, and sought an application to legalise the trio’s polygamous union.

“Right now we're waiting for an answer," Mr Collier told The Independent. “I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first.”

He added: "Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else - I am trying to define what marriage means for us."
The practice of bigamy - holding multiple marriage licences - is outlawed in all 50 of the US states, Montana among them. But Mr Collier said he planned to sue if his application was denied.

Mr Collier said he was former Mormon who had been excommunicated for polygamy and now owned a refrigeration business in Billings.

He married his first wife, Victoria, 40, in 2000. The 46-year-old, who appeared in the reality TV show Sister Wives, held a religious ceremony to marry second wife, Christine, in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges.

His first wife, Victoria, said that she and her husband's second wife got along "like sisters".

We're like any family. There are good days and there are bad days," she said. "But there are more good days."

Asked how she felt when her husband took a second wife, she said: "How can you know who you are going to fall in love with? This is our destiny."

Yellowstone County clerk officials initially denied Mr Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county legal officer before giving him a final answer.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen, told the Associated Press that he was reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Mr Collier by next week.

Mr Gillen said: “I think he deserves an answer.”
Click to expand...
.
 
Polygamous marriages among consenting adults should absolutely be legal. If a man and two women (mix and match sexes and numbers to suit your needs) then they should be able to.

No forced marriage or underage polygamy.
 
Stoked said:
Polygamous marriages among consenting adults should absolutely be legal. If a man and two women (mix and match sexes and numbers to suit your needs) then they should be able to.

No forced marriage or underage polygamy.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

One guy, three women would be ideal. Yep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top