We're all going to die!

[grue 0]

billvon

>But in all seriousness, I really don't see the point in blocking it. If I want to "marry" my
>girlfriend and my heretofore secret mistress and we're all cool with it, why not?

The only problem is one of structure. Right now "marriage" includes things like the right to make medical decisions if the other person is incapacitated. That is generally pretty clear. But what if you are injured and three of your wives want to pull the plug but wife 4 wants to try the risky surgery? Who gets to make the call? Is it a vote? That's something that _could_ be incorporated into marriage but is not currently. So that would have to change. It would become something very like a corporation, with rules on what a quorum was, what the procedures are for voting etc.

But provided you dealt with all of that, then no problem.

(And of course this is all solved by government civil unions plus whatever marriage you want.)

And suddenly I'm reminded of the joke my grandpa told me when I was too young to get it:

"Do you know the punishment for polygamy? Multiple wives"

cavete terrae.

[Coreeece 2]

marks2065

since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner, animals, and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?

Next will probably be polygamy, and then emancipated teens wanting to marry their sugar daddies...then it will be all those girls oppressed by evil christian parents who dare discipline their children and keep them locked up to where they may only have that "one chance" to sneak out and embrace the freedom of their sexual maturity...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[SkyDekker 842]

Coreeece

*** since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner, animals, and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?

Next will probably be polygamy, and then emancipated teens wanting to marry their sugar daddies...then it will be all those girls oppressed by evil christian parents who dare discipline their children and keep them locked up to where they may only have that "one chance" to sneak out and embrace the freedom of their sexual maturity...

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, discriminating against two consenting adults who want to be married, because you don't want 5 consenting adults to be able to get married is silly.

[marks2065 0]

SkyDekker

****** since same sex marriage is mostly legal, I was wondering when multi partner, animals, and groups like Manbla will get their turns to marry?

Next will probably be polygamy, and then emancipated teens wanting to marry their sugar daddies...then it will be all those girls oppressed by evil christian parents who dare discipline their children and keep them locked up to where they may only have that "one chance" to sneak out and embrace the freedom of their sexual maturity...

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, discriminating against two consenting adults who want to be married, because you don't want 5 consenting adults to be able to get married is silly.

I like how you say " consenting adults" why would you discriminate against teens?

[wolfriverjoe 999]

marks2065

I like how you say " consenting adults" why would you discriminate against teens?

Because they aren't adults?

Regardless of what comes out of gay marriage (monogamy) and polygamy (gay, straight, or "mixed"), I can't see the laws on age of consent for marriage (or anything else) changing much.

We "protect" kids (juveniles, teens, whatever) from their own bad decisions by not letting them make serious ones.

The "age of maturity" is pretty arbitrary, and as a 'one size fits all' is not the best, but it's what we have and works pretty well most of the time.

Science has shown that the brain doesn't fully mature until the mid-twenties for most people.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 842]

Quote

I like how you say " consenting adults" why would you discriminate against teens?

I don't think you are helping your cause with absurd statements.

[marks2065 0]

Helping my cause? I am just pointing out that there are many people that believe differently then you. If some disagrees with gay marriage these days they are put on the front page of the news and called bigots, seems to me that someone that disagrees with minors getting married they would be bigots also.

[SkyDekker 842]

marks2065

Helping my cause? I am just pointing out that there are many people that believe differently then you. If some disagrees with gay marriage these days they are put on the front page of the news and called bigots, seems to me that someone that disagrees with minors getting married they would be bigots also.

Yes society changes. Though I highly doubt there will be a time, soon, where society feels it will be acceptable for minors to freely marry.

We as a society have decided that minors are not capable of making informed decisions. Marriage would be one of those. (though clearly many adults, gay or straight fuck it up)

Personally I don't see those objecting to gay marriage and those objecting to Nambla as similar. I guess YMMV.

[marks2065 0]

My point is that by making gay marriage legal through the courts it opens the door for many more that are even farther over most people's lines to get rulings in their favor based on legal president set up by the courts. We should have the people vote through elections and not have the court make law through lawsuits. Now that the courts have overturned gay marriage bans and basically made it law for gays to marry as to not discriminate, all others now have a legal in for other forms of unions based on the gay marriage rulings.

[kallend 1,269]

marks2065

My point is that by making gay marriage legal through the courts it opens the door for many more that are even farther over most people's lines to get rulings in their favor based on legal president set up by the courts. We should have the people vote through elections and not have the court make law through lawsuits. Now that the courts have overturned gay marriage bans and basically made it law for gays to marry as to not discriminate, all others now have a legal in for other forms of unions based on the gay marriage rulings.

Slippery slope fallacy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

[Andy9o8 0]

marks2065

Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

Let me answer by imperfect analogy: what you've argued was pretty much the same argument used in the 1950s & 60s re: racial civil rights in the US, and the use of (in that case, mostly federal) courts to enforce those civil rights. The doom-predicting wasn't borne out then; it won't be now, either.

[grue 0]

marks2065

Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

Neither the cat nor the 14yo can give informed consent

cavete terrae.

[JerryBaumchen 785]

Hi marks,

Quote

We should have the people vote through elections and not have the court make law through lawsuits.

This country is not a democracy. It was founded on the rights of the individual.

And to expand your knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Andy9o8 says it very good in his rebuttal.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bolas 5]

marks2065

Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

If you really want to point fingers to the cause, you have to go back to when the government started awarding special rights, privileges, and advantages to marriage.

The government basically had two options with both interracial and orientation marriages: expand the rights to include the "new" group, or limit the rights of the traditional group going forward.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 1,269]

marks2065

Why is it a slippery slope John?

It is an almost perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 999]

marks2065

... We should have the people vote through elections and not have the court make law through lawsuits...

Jerry and Andy both mentioned it, but no.

The majority isn't allowed to deny a minority it's rights via the ballot box.

Period.

We've been through all that.

If that were true, Jim Crow would still exist across the south. Quite possibly, slavery would still exist in a few states, too.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

kallend

*** Why is it a slippery slope John?

It is an almost perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

So it's a fallacious fellatio fallacy.

[marks2065 0]

Bolas

*** Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

If you really want to point fingers to the cause, you have to go back to when the government started awarding special rights, privileges, and advantages to marriage.

The government basically had two options with both interracial and orientation marriages: expand the rights to include the "new" group, or limit the rights of the traditional group going forward.

I wish they would take away those "special rights" because they cost me a lot of money, I could use a tax break.

[marks2065 0]

kallend

*** Why is it a slippery slope John?

It is an almost perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It may have other factors that will effect the outcome but one factor has now been eliminated.

[marks2065 0]

Andy9o8

*** Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

Let me answer by imperfect analogy: what you've argued was pretty much the same argument used in the 1950s & 60s re: racial civil rights in the US, and the use of (in that case, mostly federal) courts to enforce those civil rights. The doom-predicting wasn't borne out then; it won't be now, either.

But the courts do now have to give the case a review based on previous rulings and at least polygamy would have a chance at this point.

[SkyDekker 842]

marks2065

****** Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

Let me answer by imperfect analogy: what you've argued was pretty much the same argument used in the 1950s & 60s re: racial civil rights in the US, and the use of (in that case, mostly federal) courts to enforce those civil rights. The doom-predicting wasn't borne out then; it won't be now, either.

But the courts do now have to give the case a review based on previous rulings and at least polygamy would have a chance at this point.

I don't think a ruling on gay marriage has any relevance to rulings on legalizing polygamous marriages.

[JerryBaumchen 785]

Hi marks,

Quote

I wish they would take away those "special rights" because they cost me a lot of money, I could use a tax break.

About 20+ yrs ago, I was raising my then ~15 yr old son by myself. I worked for the federal gov't. and my agency had provided a room where the LBGT could meet to discuss issues.

I came home one day and complained to him that now they would probably be giving a priority in promotions to the gay folks. My son said, 'So why not join them? They won't make you prove it will they?'



Jerry Baumchen

[marks2065 0]

SkyDekker

********* Why is it a slippery slope John? The courts created the slippery slope with the ruling. There are many times people use one courts ruling to back there suite. It happens every day. Why would the current court ruling based on discrimination against gays not be relevant in another court? If a gay couple can marry then so can a polygamist with multiple partners, so can a woman that wants to marry her cat, and a 50 year old to a 14 year old. Denying them would be discrimination also, wouldn't it?

Let me answer by imperfect analogy: what you've argued was pretty much the same argument used in the 1950s & 60s re: racial civil rights in the US, and the use of (in that case, mostly federal) courts to enforce those civil rights. The doom-predicting wasn't borne out then; it won't be now, either.

But the courts do now have to give the case a review based on previous rulings and at least polygamy would have a chance at this point.

I don't think a ruling on gay marriage has any relevance to rulings on legalizing polygamous marriages.

Why wouldn't it? it is discrimination to not allow gay marriage same if you don't allow multiple consenting adults. The gay community said it should be ok for consenting adults to marry, you telling me that there can't be 3, 4, or more consenting adults?

[wmw999 1,629]

My personal feeling is that there's no problem with polygamy. Heck, it's even in the Bible

With the current legal status of marriage, it's unlikely to be approved. What does community property mean? Who inherits? Who gets social security or whatever? With polygamous marriages, it'd have to be spelled out for each relationship. So you might as well live "in sin," and define the boundaries of the specific relationship. The gummint ain't gonna do it for you

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)