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.
Goats and dogs, like children, are not capable of consent. That is a barrier I hope and pray that we never break.
...
I agree with you on this.
Quite honestly, I've never heard a responsible person in a non-standard relationship bring up such a wacko scenario. The only people that ever seem to introduce that scenario are those who have some psychological issues themselves and attempt to toss in "what if's" that are "straw man" arguments. Yes, there are some total nuts out there, but this issue is really a non-issue in terms of where society is evolving to.
BS if the gays can have their gay marriages then the polygamists should have their plural marriages. Divide the benefits up appropriately and if me as a taxpayer pay more then so be it. I'm for the rights of all not a few. People who are for gay marriages and against plural marriages are hypocrites.
One man one woman marriages have also been a source of oppression for many women over the centuries. Would that be a rationale for banning it?
What I think is interesting is that we always think of polygamy as being one man with multiple wives. What about the one wife with multiple husbands scenario?
I don't understand people saying that government should get out of the business of marriage. Then who would define and legitimize marriages? Someone needs to-- marriage has legal consequences. If your answer to that question is "religion" or "church" or any variant of those, then you're essentially saying that atheists and agnostics shouldn't be able to marry. You would be taking a civil institution and making it into a purely religious one. That sort of violates a little thing called the Constitution.
Marriage predates religion, whether religious folks want to believe it or not.
As for the arguments against plural marriages purely for insurance reasons, there's a pretty simple answer to that: universal healthcare. Insurance tied to employment is an idea whose time has run its course.
As for the issue of SS benefits, why not just split the benefit? I'm sure a system could be devised.
I don't necessarily think plural marriage is a "good" thing, but it's not my job to determine what's right for other consenting adults.
First step towards that end goal. Just like decriminalization of sodomy was the first step towards SSM. They have paid attention to the playbook.
I don't agree. There should have never been any laws about cohabitation in the first place. It is a private matter, affecting only the people involved.
Social Security - If you are my spouse, I die and you get $400 per month from being my spouse, it would remain the same, $400 would go to the the spouses. If I had four wives, each would receive $100.
That's just the death benefit. What about monthly benefits?
Further reading shows that the Browns are claiming that the cohabitation laws violate their first amendment rights to free exercise of their religion also.
[scribd]276381389[/scribd]
IMO, they have a valid point.
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.
