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.
If polygamy were legal, I would expect to see a whole bunch of strategic polygamy. Legal marriages for the purpose of enjoying certain legal rights and privileges, with no true marital relationship.
For example, I would legally marry my son-in-law. In that way, my daughter can inherit indirectly through her husband. No estate tax.
No one would ever have to pay estate tax again. See the problem? It would only be a matter of time before there would be no exception for assets held jointly with your spouse. For anyone.
Add no fault divorce to the mix and you get a few new twists and turns as well. lol Good, that whole system needs some shaking up anyway.
I see no reason why any consenting adults shouldn't be able to marry. It's one of the reasons I feel the government should get out of the marriage business.
If four men want to get married, that has no affect on myself whatsoever; therefore, I could care less.
I knew a polyamorous family in Seattle, who were a long established threesome of two men and one woman. They bought a house together, had children, and were together for 15 years. Then one of the guys died, and it was a legal nightmare for the survivors because the guy who died owned 1/3 of their assets but was not legally married to either one of them. They lost their home and custody of their son in extended court battles.
I have no problem with this. If the state has no right to dictate the genders of people entering a marriage contract it should also not get to dictate how many people are involved in a marriage contract. Frankly I'd rather see the state getting out of the marriage business altogether, but so long as it remains involved it has no business using its power to force particular family arrangements.
"From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions," Turley wrote in his answer to Utah's appeal.
Goats and dogs, like children, are not capable of consent. That is a barrier I hope and pray that we never break.
This should come as no surprise to anyone. If gender is no longer material in the definition of marriage I see no reason why numbers or prior relationships should be either.
They'd have to work out the logistics in terms of joint tax filing, social security death benefits and so forth. That might be a bit of a quagmire.
How will you "divide up" the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse? If a defendant has 3 legal spouses, can the state compel each spouse to testify, but they may omit every third word?
I don't at all agree with your last statement. Every adult now has the right to be married to the person of his/her choice. We all share that right equally. In what way is that hypocritical?
I said appropriately. If you don't have the wherewithal to understand that caveat then that is a personal problem. Now in this case you can't divide that appropriately. So they all get all of this particular benefit.
Secondly you need to re-read my last statement as you clearly didn't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspistol
I'm not interested in paying for other people to have "rights". People have the right to mate and breed but they shouldn't expect my success to foot the bill for it. There is a difference between "rights" and "entitlement". No one is owed anything more than what they earn.
No one is owed anything less which is what is happening. Everyone is affected by everything no matter how small the ripple is. Calm down and view things in a wider context. Not like a frog at the bottom of the well.
Good. "Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
So, we are in agreement, then, that "anyone should be able to do anything they want as long as everyone involved consents and is of age" is THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
That's great. But then you go and drop this nugget:Why do you want to extort people?
How on earth would expecting people to take care of themselves be extortion?
Excellent since you aren't capable of understanding my posts. Bye Bye.
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.
