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 the words-----" between one man and one woman"---(in marriage law) violates civil rights, wouldn't the word " one" be just as violating as the words " man and woman " ?
No, not really. It would be easily distinguishable.
"Civil rights" and "equal protection" with respect to the marriage debate deals with whether it is right to exclude one class of people from the right to contract for marriage.
Currently, the law says only two people (one man, one woman, of a certain age, not related) can enter into the contract.
Whether or not the marriage contract is expanded to allow multiple people to enter into the contract is not a civil rights issue akin to the gay marriage issue, because it has no identity component.
For example, if the law says only one person can be on the title to a car, it really isn't a classic civil rights issue if two people want to buy a car together. If the law says that everyone but Jews can buy cars, THEN there is a civil rights issue.
No, not really. It would be easily distinguishable.
"Civil rights" and "equal protection" with respect to the marriage debate deals with whether it is right to exclude one class of people from the right to contract for marriage.
Currently, the law says only two people (one man, one woman, of a certain age, not related) can enter into the contract.
Whether or not the marriage contract is expanded to allow multiple people to enter into the contract is not a civil rights issue akin to the gay marriage issue, because it has no identity component.
For example, if the law says only one person can be on the title to a car, it really isn't a classic civil rights issue if two people want to buy a car together. If the law says that everyone but Jews can buy cars, THEN there is a civil rights issue.
i see your point.
with that said, it could be seen as a civil rights issue by people who define their sexuality as polyamorous and want to have that legally recognized. while people generally don't identify in terms of being the sole owner vs. the co-owner of a car, there are people who identify as being monogamous vs. polygamous.
Only a mentally challenged person would try to compare gay marriage with our current definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
Really?
1. A man and a woman living together in a monogamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can get married legally and DO have the social, legal and financial benefits and protections for them and their children that are automatic with marriage.
2. A woman and a woman living together in a monogamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationhship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can't get married legally and do NOT have the social, legal and financial benefits and protections for them and their children that are automatic with marriage.
1. A woman and a woman living together in a monogamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationhship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can't get married legally.
2. A man and a woman living together in a monogamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can get married legally.
See? It's easy to compare.
So is this:
3. A man and two women living together in a polygamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can't get married legally.
with that said, it could be seen as a civil rights issue by people who define their sexuality as polyamorous and want to have that legally recognized. while people generally don't identify in terms of being the sole owner vs. the co-owner of a car, there are people who identify as being monogamous vs. polygamous.
I'm not so sure that "polyamorous" is really a "personal" sexuality descriptor (such as gay, straight, bi, etc.), or if its a behaviorial indicator. Many people are attracted to multiple people... even fall in love with multiple people (even when in monogamous relationships). But it's not necessarily a sexuality. I don't know if anyone has ever said, "I only ever love multiple people at once. I simply cannot be in love with just one person. It's multiple people, or nothing."
Marriage as recognized by the state entails the choosing of ONE person to contract and bond with, especially for property division and rights division purposes.
The sheer logistics of plural marriage recognition is also almost impossible to imagine or reconcile with our current tax and benefits structure. Morally, I have no issue with people marrying plurally if it is really consensual and equal, but from a practical standpoint, I just don't see how it works contractually. Maybe if there were NO benefits associated with marriage (for inheritance, child support and visitation rights, etc.), and it was just a piece of paper that said, "Congratulations, you're married!"....
3. A man and two women living together in a polygamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can't get married legally.
True. However because there are 3 people involved it's far more complex than marriage between 2 people (whether same or opposite sex), so it's not really comparable in my opinion.
1. A man and a woman living together in a monogamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can get married legally and DO have the social, legal and financial benefits and protections for them and their children that are automatic with marriage.
2. A woman and a woman living together in a monogamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationhship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can't get married legally and do NOT have the social, legal and financial benefits and protections for them and their children that are automatic with marriage.
See? It's easy to compare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
So is this:
3. A man and two women living together in a polygamous loving relationship for 10 years.
Each have a biological child from a previous relationship and are raising the children as a family.
They can't have any more children.
They can't get married legally.
So is this:
4. A man (convicted murderer and child rapist) and a woman (drug addict and prostitute) meet up in a brothel in Las Vegas and decide to get married. The man raped and killed his daughter from a previous marriage and the woman just got her 2 young daughters from 2 different "johns" back after continually having them taken away from her by the family courts because of neglect. Neither can have any more children because the man had his testicles cut off in a attack in prison and the woman had pelvic inflammatory disease and had a hysterectomy.
They can get married legally and DO have the social, legal and financial benefits and protections for them and their children that are automatic with marriage.
4. A man (convicted murderer and child rapist) and a woman (drug addict and prostitute) meet up in a brothel in Las Vegas and decide to get married. The man raped and killed his daughter from a previous marriage and the woman just got her 2 young daughters from 2 different "johns" back after continually having them taken away from her by the family courts because of neglect. Neither can have any more children because the man had his testicles cut off in a attack in prison and the woman had pelvic inflammatory disease and had a hysterectomy.
They can get married legally and DO have the social, legal and financial benefits and protections for them and their children that are automatic with marriage.
So which one of our congressmen are you describing?
I'm not so sure that "polyamorous" is really a "personal" sexuality descriptor (such as gay, straight, bi, etc.), or if its a behaviorial indicator. Many people are attracted to multiple people... even fall in love with multiple people (even when in monogamous relationships). But it's not necessarily a sexuality. I don't know if anyone has ever said, "I only ever love multiple people at once. I simply cannot be in love with just one person. It's multiple people, or nothing."
Marriage as recognized by the state entails the choosing of ONE person to contract and bond with, especially for property division and rights division purposes.
The sheer logistics of plural marriage recognition is also almost impossible to imagine or reconcile with our current tax and benefits structure. Morally, I have no issue with people marrying plurally if it is really consensual and equal, but from a practical standpoint, I just don't see how it works contractually. Maybe if there were NO benefits associated with marriage (for inheritance, child support and visitation rights, etc.), and it was just a piece of paper that said, "Congratulations, you're married!"....
i do know people who have said they can't just be in love with one person, cause they feel tied down with one person. so in that case being polyamorous would be a descriptor.
it's easy to solve the tax/benefits structure. there are two solutions:
1) like you said, do away with legal marriage altogether and assess all people as individuals in the eyes of the law, or
2) use an algorithm that defines how much each succeeding person will receive in benefits. for example let's an individual receives 100% of amount x; two individuals could receive 90% of amount x; and three could receive 90% of 90% of amount x, or 81%, and so on and so forth.
the issue of parental rights is easily solved by making legal guardianship a matter of conscious decision and signing on a paper or document instead of defaulting the biological father and mother as the parents. certain criteria could be outlined if necessary, such as any legal guardians must be at least 12 years or older than the child in question. anyone who signs on the piece of paper is then entitled to/responsible for any benefits/requirements.
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.
