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.
Why would you object to three or more living together? What do YOU care, and how does it affect YOU or ANYBODY else?
It doesn't, and it won't.
It won't hurt anyone else's marriage, but neither you nor polygamists have figured out a way to make the 1000+ legal ramifications of entering into a marriage contract work beyond 1 person + 1 person. (including benefits, child custody, property division and alimony, immigration implications, court spousal immunities, tax filings, etc. etc. etc.)...
That is a burden that polygamists must overcome before bringing their case that they should be allowed to be able to have their marriage legally recognized. And when (if) they do meet that burden, what's it to you how others live their lives? There are already tons of people living in polygamous arrangements in several states.
Because our laws are not based upon the moral and ethical standards of "pfffft, what's it gonna hurt?"
If we are basing marriage laws on what's it gonna hurt, then why have any standards at all? What business would it be of anyone, for who marries whom? If a mom or sis are unable to have children anyway, why not let them marry sons or brothers, what's it gonna hurt? What's it gonna hurt if a parent marries their adopted child, what's it gonna hurt?
But according to you, we can't allow marriage between more then two people, because that's just too complicated and would take too much paperwork?
Our marriage laws are based on morals, ethics, and what society believes is best for the nation's culture and society, now and in the future.
Marriage laws are arbitrary and discriminatory. Any law you come up with will be arbitrary and discriminatory, because they'll be based on your perception of the morals and ethics you hold to. This goes for any judge who sits on high and thinks they should decide for everyone else, their ruling will be arbitrary and discriminatory.
Because our laws are not based upon the moral and ethical standards of "pfffft, what's it gonna hurt?"
If we are basing marriage laws on what's it gonna hurt, then why have any standards at all? What business would it be of anyone, for who marries whom? If a mom or sis are unable to have children anyway, why not let them marry sons or brothers, what's it gonna hurt? What's it gonna hurt if a parent marries their adopted child, what's it gonna hurt?
But according to you, we can't allow marriage between more then two people, because that's just too complicated and would take too much paperwork?
Our marriage laws are based on morals, ethics, and what society believes is best for the nation's culture and society, now and in the future.
Marriage laws are arbitrary and discriminatory. Any law you come up with will be arbitrary and discriminatory, because they'll be based on your perception of the morals and ethics you hold to. This goes for any judge who sits on high and thinks they should decide for everyone else, their ruling will be arbitrary and discriminatory.
Actually no. Even so called moral based laws have to show that harm is being prevented by having that law in place. The reason Utah's polygamy law was struck down was that the state could not show that actual harm would be caused by allowing polygamy, especially in light of cohabitation by more than two people was effectively already occurring.
Liberals have never been known for extraordinary foresight. Emotionalism, instead of logic, simply does not allow it.
Therefore, liberals simply cannot comprehend the "slippery slope" theory. It's beyond their intellectual reach. Emotional thinking, instead of rational thinking, will do that to a person and society is paying a price for it.
Therefore, liberals simply cannot comprehend the "slippery slope" theory.
Sure we can. But unlike conservatives, we also understand that everything is on a slope, that all slopes are slippery, and we still have to navigate them anyway.
Liberals have never been known for extraordinary foresight. Emotionalism, instead of logic, simply does not allow it.
Therefore, liberals simply cannot comprehend the "slippery slope" theory. It's beyond their intellectual reach. Emotional thinking, instead of rational thinking, will do that to a person and society is paying a price for it.
Actually the slippery slope theory is emotional thinking which you are doing right now. Tell me one good intellectual reason why two gay people can't get married?
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.
