Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting film. I found the notion of a third gender particularly intriguing. And I do agree that gender and sexuality are not always the same thing. But... they didn't get married. They had their own unique roles. Just saying.
It should be noted that in Samoa there is also the notion of a third gender, which they call "Fa'afafine".
Can someone please explain how removing the gender restriction removes the number restriction, or the blood relation restriction, or the consent restriction, or the age restriction, or the species restriction?
Did removing the race restriction remove any of those?
Logical fallacies do not get in the way of an extremist's argument
It seems that none of these morons ever heard of a Slippery Slope.
Those titles and terms don't BELONG to anyone. You don't own them, I don't own them, the guy across the street doesn't own them.
How about you define YOUR marriage, and I'll define mine.
He's already had two and is on to a third woman....but you know how it's the ones who have the bizarre sex histories that always throw their two cents in on how things "should" work!
Interesting film. I found the notion of a third gender particularly intriguing. And I do agree that gender and sexuality are not always the same thing. But... they didn't get married. They had their own unique roles. Just saying.
The did take spouses, and as couples were treated with the same respect as any other marriage.
In fact one two spirit person was married to the chief of his tribe. One of the Native American ambassadors was married to a two spirit person.
Quote:
1. Native American Cultures
Although few written records of pre-Columbian Native American
cultures are accessible to us, we do have the benefit of histories
describing those cultures written by Spanish explorers, missionaries,
and bureaucrats. 16 These sources provide early accounts of same-sex
unions in the Americas.1 17 For example, Francisco L6pez de G6mara's History of the Indies (1552), proclaimed that "'the men
marry other men who are impotent or castrated and go around like
women, perform their duties and are used as such and who cannot
carry or use the bow.'-118 Alvar Cabeza de Vaca also witnessed
unions between same-sex couples, stating in Narrative of the Expeditions and Shipwrecks of Cabeza de Vaca (1542) that he "'saw a man
married to another man.' '
119
Same-sex unions between women were also reported. Pedro de
Magdlhaes' The Histories of Brazil (1576) describes Native American
women in northeastern Brazil who "give up all the duties of women
and imitate men, and follow men's pursuits as if they were not
women.... [E]ach has a woman to serve her, to whom she says she is
married, and they treat each other and speak with each other as man
and wife." 121
What these (and other) accounts describe is the berdache tradition
in the Americas, which was institutionalized in the Indies and
throughout what is now the United States, as well as in the Aztec,
Mayan, and Incan civilizations. The Native American berdache is a
person-male or female-who deviates from his or her traditional
gender role, taking on some of the characteristics and perceived
responsibilities of the opposite sex. The berdache does not, however,
cross gender lines so much as mix them. Indeed, many Native American cultures considered berdaches to be a third sex.122 Most important for the present study, berdaches (like We'wha) married individuals of the same sex, and those transgenderal marriages were
well recognized by Native American laws and cultures. 123
Gay marriages among the American Indians, particularly the Sioux and the Cheyenne. In most such marriages one of the two men was called a berdache. One of the more famous berdaches was Yellow Head of the Cheyenne, who became the third wife of Chief Wagetote after being rejected by the white mountaineer John Tanner.
It hasn't happened, but that does not mean it won't happen here. We have a segment of our population whose religious beliefs and text postulate that polygamy is necessary to get to Heaven. The argument against polygamy when it was declared illegal was that marriage is defined by one man and one woman. At that time there weren't tax breaks, Social Security benefits, hospital visits, or such to worry about. The arguement for outlawing polygamy at that time was strictly the definition of marriage. We are now changing that definition, so the argument no longer holds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico
Must be referring to the LDS.
I'll take these two together. First of all, it is a fringe group of Mormons who practice polygamy. I have seen no groundswell of interest from them in legalizing polygamy. Polygamy is not what most of you seem to think it is. It's not a man and 2+ women deciding to get married. A man gets married to one woman, his legal wife. A few years later, he takes another "spiritual" wife. And so on. The kids from the first marriage are the only kids he is legally obligated to support. The kids from these other "wives" are on some form of assistance. These guys don't want to change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Here is the definition in the latest Blacks Law Dictionary (2009, 9th edition):
marriage, n. (Bc) 1. The legal union of a couple as spouses. - The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.
-Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition 2009 Pg 1059
The bold is an important point. In polygamy as practiced in the US today, the wife does not always consent to her husband taking another wife.
The kids from the first marriage are the only kids he is legally obligated to support. The kids from these other "wives" are on some form of assistance. These guys don't want to change that.
He'd still legally be required to support the kids. In some states the state will garnish wages of fathers of children who get assistance (as it should be!). No matter what the marriage status of the parents.
But, you're right that "not" being married means the baby mommas can GET the assistance because husband's income won't be taken into account in qualification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
The bold is an important point. In polygamy as practiced in the US today, the wife does not always consent to her husband taking another wife.
More importantly, there has NEVER been anyone who has brought forth a workable way to divide the rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract between more than two parties.
THAT is why multiple marriage won't work. The sex of the participants changes nothing vis-à-vis the rights and responsibilities of the contract, but #s actually do matter and make plural marriage infeasible. Infeasibility is a valid reason to restrict certain legal arrangements in #s (rather than by sex, race, religion, etc., which has no bearing).
He'd still legally be required to support the kids. In some states the state will garnish wages of fathers of children who get assistance (as it should be!). No matter what the marriage status of the parents.
But, you're right that "not" being married means the baby mommas can GET the assistance because husband's income won't be taken into account in qualification.
More importantly, there has NEVER been anyone who has brought forth a workable way to divide the rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract between more than two parties.
THAT is why multiple marriage won't work. The sex of the participants changes nothing vis-à-vis the rights and responsibilities of the contract, but #s actually do matter and make plural marriage infeasible. Infeasibility is a valid reason to restrict certain legal arrangements in #s (rather than by sex, race, religion, etc., which has no bearing).
The man would not be required to support the kids if he weren't named on the birth certificate in many states. It's amazing, too, how some women will protect these men by not naming them. (They've probably been brainwashed.) I like your last point.
First, what do you care? Don't like it, don't marry it/him/her/them. Second, animals cannot consent so no, it won't happen. You can untwist your panties now.
I'll take these two together. First of all, it is a fringe group of Mormons who practice polygamy. I have seen no groundswell of interest from them in legalizing polygamy. Polygamy is not what most of you seem to think it is. It's not a man and 2+ women deciding to get married. A man gets married to one woman, his legal wife. A few years later, he takes another "spiritual" wife. And so on. The kids from the first marriage are the only kids he is legally obligated to support. The kids from these other "wives" are on some form of assistance. These guys don't want to change that.
I want to change it. One of the reasons I want to change it is so that they do take responsibility for all their offspring.
why should the government tell me who not to marry?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
