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.
Just because they don't follow all the tenets of the text does not mean they don't care what it says or that they don't try to mostly follow it. Lots of people break the speed limit when driving. Using your logic, that would mean that they aren't allowed to be outraged when someone murders or robs a person.
PS - I have no feelings one way or another about SSM. I have attended two now, gifts in hand. I do have a huge issue with people who automatically dismiss others' religious beliefs.
It is not about dismissing others' religious beliefs. It is about if those religious beliefs should be forced onto others and if ACTUAL LAWS should be based off those religious beliefs
The polygamist and incest marriage should absolutely be legal, now that exceptions to "one man, one woman" have been made. Why can't 3 women and 1 man be married? If all are adults of legal contract age, and all enter into the contract voluntarily, why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy their "exception to the rule" form of marriage? Same for incest. If the parties involved in that weirdness are of legal contract age, and all enter into the contract voluntarily, why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy their "exception to the rule" form of marriage?
I am not being paranoid, fundamentalist or bleating about slippery slopes, just being logical. Once you set the "exception" precedent, logic dictates that every other exception should enjoy the same allowance as the first one. If we say that the RULE that has NO EXCEPTIONS is legal contract age and voluntary participation, then beyond that rule, whatever combinations people dream up should be allowed, not just same sex combinations. We've already pushed past the "so what if the majority finds it icky, it should be legal" point, now we just add new forms of icky that different percentages of majority disagree with, but have to shut up about.
Anyplace that has legalized same sex marriage, with all the benefits and privileges thereto, should by proper logic have legalized polygamy and incest marriage as well.
Yes, because anyplace that has legalized pot has to allow heroine, coke, and crack.
Do you not understand that there are many different restrictions for many different reasons, and each must stand or fall based on their own merits.
Legalized same-sex marriage currently exists in 16 or 17 US states (such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Iowa, Hawai'i, Vermont, etc.) and also the District of Columbia, and on the reservations of several Indian Tribal nations. It also exists in many countries ... Canada, England, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Argentina, Uruguay, Israel, South Africa, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, etc. It's also legal in some states in Brazil and Mexico.
Of all these places with Marriage Equality where is polygamy also made legal???
Your argument is neither logical nor rational. Please try again.
Your opinion based most likely on finding polygamy and/or incest more "icky" than homosexual marriage, with a dash of "what about the tax code" and a teaspoon of "what about family/procreation".
There are three valid numbers in a logic system - zero, one and many. The first two of those are self-explanatory, but people struggle with the concept that all things not zero and not one = many. I didn't come up with this, the science of formal logic did.
We'll go back to the pre and post Loving v Virginia case. Pre-Loving, the rule was one man, one woman, same race, legal contract age, voluntary participants. Post-Loving, the "same race" qualifier was dropped. Meaning one man, one woman, any combination of race, legal contract age, voluntary participants. To make the black+white case, the rule of same race was dropped, thus going from one race combination to many race combinations. That's how logic works. If it isn't zero or one, it's many.
Now, back to the present. Gay marriage being legal removes the one man, one woman stipulation, leaving legal contract age and voluntary as the only two "rules". Now, you could say "one + one" is left and all that got removed was gender specifics, and okie doke, but how does that keep the incestuous "one + one" couple from marrying? Why can't a mom marry a son, so long as both are of legal contract age and voluntarily participate? Uncle-niece, Grandma-grandson, whatever? Why not? Still one + one, legal contract age, voluntary, right? It can't be based on rules of procreation, because homosexual marriages are exactly zero percent naturally capable of producing offspring without outside intervention, while a hetero incest couple can procreate, albeit with much higher risk of birth defect, without outside intervention.
And at some point, revisiting age will occur, because depending on era, marriage at the age of 12 was not exactly ubiquitous, but it was legal.
This is the necessary logical conclusion when exceptions are made. Someone comes along and asks for the next one, spends time justifying why their exception is equally valid to other exceptions, and how once you go past one, you're at many.
The government will propagandize against both polygamy and incest by explaining the moral icky, but the real reason that they oppose it is because polygamy and/or incest are both wonderful ways to skirt a ton of the tax laws regarding estates and inter-family wealth transfers. And the government cannot allow the every day commoner more crafty ways to avoid taxes. But the moral icky thing is how they get the average citizen to rally behind their protection of taxation.
Legalized same-sex marriage currently exists in 16 or 17 US states (such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Iowa, Hawai'i, Vermont, etc.) and also the District of Columbia, and on the reservations of several Indian Tribal nations. It also exists in many countries ... Canada, England, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Argentina, Uruguay, Israel, South Africa, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, etc. It's also legal in some states in Brazil and Mexico.
Of all these places with Marriage Equality where is polygamy also made legal???
Inquiring minds want to know!
You should look at the world maps of the legal status of SSM vs. Polygamy worldwide. It's a completely inverse correlation. Countries where SSM is legal and supported have banned polygamy (1st World). Countries where SSM is illegal have made polygamy legal (3rd World).
For what specific, consistent and objective reasons should we embrace opposite-sex marriage while rejecting other less common, non-traditional or less accepted forms of marriage such as same-sex marriage or polygamy?
It all depends upon what our society thinks the purpose and function of the institution of marriage is.
So what is marriage? Pick the primary reason why society feels marriage is so important to it, and beneficial to the nation that it demands the government involve itself.
Is it people agreeing to live together under the same roof?
Is it about providing legal protections for sharing property and income with another person?
Is it a legal construct for the purpose of providing legal protections and encourage the adopting of children?
Is it to provide a public platform for people to publicly declare their love and devotion to another citizen?
Is it to provide hospital visitation rights for a person's life partner?
Is it to provide a legal framework to better decide probate court cases?
Is it to provide legal protections for men and woman to raise the children they create together?
Really? Is that why this continues to be such a hotly debated subject? Because nobody cares? People of faith, who take God seriously, care. I know there are those who would like to dismiss it, but the issue of God will always be around and faith will endure, so people will continue to care.
However, considering how society is changing... when it comes right down to it, I don't know why the government (state or federal) should to be involved in it at all (any longer).
If same sex marriage is declared legal, why does this couple still need a license? Cohabitation needs no license. A lot of that going on.
Common law marriage needs no license. Many common law marriages in existence.
Polygamy is illegal per federal law, so Mormons (who believe in it) do not practice it. Should the law get repealed, I think we'll see a lot of it, just as with same sex marriage.
The rest of the slippery slope is still there, and is still just as slippery, arguments against it notwithstanding. It doesn't go away just because liberals say it doesn't exist.
Gay-Lesbian-Bisexuals' advocacy groups will all be pushing for more 'rights'. Can you see
a 'polygamous marriage' of bisexuals?
The world is as ethically and morally corrupt as ever on all fronts.
Quote The world is as ethically and morally corrupt as ever on all fronts.
And that's why this ''world'' as we now know it....is on the horizon of ending, as GOD's plan unveils ...
Your opinion based most likely on finding polygamy and/or incest more "icky" than homosexual marriage, with a dash of "what about the tax code" and a teaspoon of "what about family/procreation".
You extrapolated THAT from a one line response, huh? Amazing.
And, inaccurate. Actually, the only argument against polygamy right now IS the tax code/benefits/immunities/privileges splitting arguments. Moving on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
There are three valid numbers in a logic system - zero, one and many. The first two of those are self-explanatory, but people struggle with the concept that all things not zero and not one = many. I didn't come up with this, the science of formal logic did.
Absolute dribble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
We'll go back to the pre and post Loving v Virginia case. Pre-Loving, the rule was one man, one woman, same race, legal contract age, voluntary participants. Post-Loving, the "same race" qualifier was dropped. Meaning one man, one woman, any combination of race, legal contract age, voluntary participants. To make the black+white case, the rule of same race was dropped, thus going from one race combination to many race combinations. That's how logic works. If it isn't zero or one, it's many.
Now, back to the present. Gay marriage being legal removes the one man, one woman stipulation, leaving legal contract age and voluntary as the only two "rules". Now, you could say "one + one" is left and all that got removed was gender specifics, and okie doke, but how does that keep the incestuous yet hetero couple from marrying? Why can't a mom marry a son, so long as both are of legal contract age and voluntarily participate? Uncle-niece, Grandma-grandson, whatever? Why not? Still one + one, legal contract age, voluntary, right? It can't be based on rules of procreation, because homosexual marriages are exactly zero percent naturally capable of producing offspring without outside intervention, while a hetero incest couple can procreate, albeit with much higher risk of birth defect, without outside intervention.
And at some point, revisiting age will occur, because depending on era, marriage at the age of 12 was not exactly ubiquitous, but it was legal.
This is the necessary logical conclusion when exceptions are made. Someone comes along and asks for the next one, spends time justifying why their exception is equally valid to other exceptions, and how once you go past one, you're at many.
The government will propagandize against both polygamy and incest by explaining the moral icky, but the real reason that they oppose it is because polygamy and/or incest are both wonderful ways to skirt a ton of the tax laws regarding estates and inter-family wealth transfers. And the government cannot allow the every day commoner more crafty ways to avoid taxes. But the moral icky thing is how they get the average citizen to rally behind their protection of taxation.
Sorry, there is still no logical path from point A to point B that you MUST or WILL allow plural marriage because gay marriage is allowed.
Here is where spending a little more time getting formal education in law, and a little less time trying to be a clever internet pundit would help everyone.
The law can only discriminate when there is - at the LEAST - a rational basis for same. There is no rational, logical basis to restrict marriage based on the race of participants, or religion of participants, and as we are arguing now, the sex of the participants. None. Age, however? Age DOES have rational basis to change and discriminate, due to consent and capacity concerns. And so we restrict marriage based on age.
At its core for the purposes of the government, marriage is a CONTRACT, enforceable by either party to same by force of the government. It is the only contract I can think of that limits participants to same based on the sex of the contractors. By allowing ANY sex to enter into the contract, however, you do not fundamentally change the contract or cause any extra issues for the existing legal framework.
The same happened with race. Nothing had to change at all vis-à-vis the rights, responsibilities, privileges and immunities that automatically attach to the parties in the marriage contract.
PLURAL marriage arguably does change the nature of the contract, because it complicates same and forces "the outside" to make accommodation for up to an unlimited amount of partners. To whom should we grant testimonial spousal immunity when a man has 50 wives? Under what paradigm do we require one person to divorce one of the other people they are simultaneously married to, while keeping their relationship in tact amongst the others. And then how does the government track the associations for tax, alimony, child custody, etc. purposes.
These are all questions that POLYGAMISTS bear the burden to find solutions for, because as of now they represent legitimate, rational basis to restrict the marriage contract based on # of participants. If they can meet that burden without exceptional cost to the government, THEN they can argue that the government has no legitimate interest in restricting the marriage contract participant #s.
You should look at the world maps of the legal status of SSM vs. Polygamy worldwide. It's a completely inverse correlation. Countries where SSM is legal and supported have banned polygamy (1st World). Countries where SSM is illegal have made polygamy legal (3rd World).
So who sits on high and arbitrarily decides polygamy is illegal?
Quote The world is as ethically and morally corrupt as ever on all fronts.
And that's why this ''world'' as we now know it....is on the horizon of ending, as GOD's plan unveils ...
Many Christians have been claiming the end is near since the death of Jesus.
Still waiting.
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.
