(nightowlrn) "Who is "everyone?"

Mind you, please refer to post I made at 11:24 last night as to the rationality of consanquinity marriage laws and that children don't have the ability to contract before a certain age and beagles don't have the capacity to contract at all. As to polygamy, there are several rationally based reasons to allow only one legally recognized marriage at a time."



By everyone.. I mean consenting adults of legal age.
If we believe gays have the "right" to marry. Then how can we deny anyone else that same right?
Who is to say that marriage is only between 2 (and only 2) people?

Once again people are trying to define marriage BUT only in their own limited ideas.

Our laws say that!

__________________
I dream to escape!

Well, you're right about that.

I rather think that if the population was unable to sustain itself due to a severe shortage of males, we would write the laws encouraging polygamy.

We write the laws as we see fit. There is no logical reason that one ruling opens a floodgate to other activities.

It does not matter if there is a "logical reason". It only is about an individual's right to decide for themselves..not being told by the FEDERAL government what sexual relationship they can be legally involved in.

I'm confused. If you don't even know what side of the issue you're on, what is your purpose in the debate?

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Just wanted to see it repeated!

__________________
"In life it is so hard to know which bridges to cross and which bridges to burn....."

To point out how "narrow minded" people can be.
To understand the ISSUE means you have to understand the basic prinicipal behind it.
Asking questions. looking for other sides of a "debate" brings out lots of points that are often overlooked.

Well, we're all grateful for your help.

OK... I am totally going to get flamed for this but it is an honest question.....

What is so wrong with polygamy? If everyone involved is happy, and not hurting anyone else, why is it so bad? I think it would suck to be a lawyer trying to figure who gets what in a divorce or death, but other then that?

__________________
Calling a illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

I don't find anything wrong w/ it. It's not for me, but whatever. As long as everyone enters into it willingly and as adults. Go for it. Doesn't affect me.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Oh. So, you're simply playing Devil's advocate.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

I personally think there's nothing wrong with pot and people act better stoned than drunk, but it's illegal. I'm not a polygamy expert, but you could use the same analogy (happy people w/ 30 spouses), but what it comes down to is that it's illegal.

__________________
I dream to escape!

So is gay marriage. I think the government should stop telling people who (and how many) they can love.

__________________
Calling a illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

There are many compelling arguments against legalizing polygamy. Most, in my opinion, have to do with logistics and the financial burden these relationships would place on our society. IMO - they can live together and have a fine life; I could care less. But, providing all the benefits attached is the problem.

__________________
YES. WE. CAN.

This makes sense when you think about health insurance. I never looked at it this way.

__________________
Calling a illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Health insurance, survivor benefits, child support, visitation, social security, splitting up property in a divorce, who gets to make medical decisions, who sues for a wrongful death, property rights, the list goes on and on ....

To extrapolate allowing gays the benefits of the legal marriage contract to legal polygamy is absurd. If gays are allowed the same legal benefits of marriage, it will continue to be two people, who stand before the community to express their love for only each other and their promise to be faithful to each other - hence, the ring. My guess is, the divorce rate will go down when gays can marry. I personally believe gays will take the vow of fidelity with more respect than many heterosexual couples currently do.

__________________
YES. WE. CAN.

I have been reading lots of articles that give your same argument above but... it is directed against gay marriages.

Edited to add: a quote from a recent article I was reading. Only using this as an example of arguments against gay marriages.
"How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?"

Edited again: To point out that I am reading several different articles about gay marriage for and against..trying to get a balanced view.

What about 2 men marrying each othere, instead of a woman, hence no maternity medical expenses. You can view it both ways.

__________________
No Piece, No Peace
Know Piece, Know Peace

TLJ Women United in Spirit!!!

Ah but if they legally adopt then there would be all the costs that involve raising children and SSI if one dies, etc...

but, no maternity care. A man and woman could adopt and have the same "expenses". So, I see no real difference.

If it is "legal" by the letter of the law, then it should be legal. Who is anyone to impose their moral beliefs on others??

__________________
No Piece, No Peace
Know Piece, Know Peace

TLJ Women United in Spirit!!!

Which is true of anyone who adopts a child....

It has been my observation that MOST gay/lesbian couples have both individuals working or having worked at some point. Conversely, MOST of the polygamous (sp?) "families" the female has not worked outside the home(ever), and probably never will. The majority of polygamy seems to be practiced by those who are involved a religion that prefer the women to be at home raising the family....

Now, of course that's based on generalities, since I don't know if there has ever been any "studies" done on this type of thing.

__________________
"In life it is so hard to know which bridges to cross and which bridges to burn....."

1) Lets start with the premise that an adopted child is born outside the marriage and is already a burden on society as a whole. The cost of raising a child is most likely less if any couple raises it in a home than if the state pays to raise it. So, the cost is net zeo. BUT - here is the kicker - when a gay couple adopts, only one of the two may be legally bound to support the child. So, if the adopting parent dies, the State has to start picking up the tab again. If the couple were married, the remaining parent would continue the financial liability of the child. And, in marriage, the couple must divorce and still both would support the child, which would benefit society.

2) A gay couple may want to be married, but cannot legally marry, and if one is poor and the other not, the poor one qualifies for medicaid benefits. If they were married, the richer of the couple would be responsile for the poorer spouse. So, theoretically, there would be fewer gays on welfare that might otherwise be eligible for benefits.

3) As to SSI, do you honestly believe a gay person's employment taxes are put into a social security system without any option to opt out and then used unequally, with the idea the legally married, heterosexual couples are more deserving?

So, your arguments actually favor gay marriage.

__________________
YES. WE. CAN.

We impose our moral beliefs as a society all the time. The question is (or should be) do we impose them rationally and equally without regard to gender, race or ethnicity, age, etc.'

ETA - not all laws are moral - slavery for example.

__________________
YES. WE. CAN.