Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Currently there is nothing to stop you from having a sexual/emotional relationship with more than one person if that is what you want to do. As for the idea of making a legal 'marriage' contract between multiple adults - I agree with #6 it could prove very difficult to implement, if not impossible.

As for the emotional side to polygamy, personally, I find the complexities of a monogmous marriage enough to be getting on with. I don't think I need to complicate life any further trying to relate to multiple wives/husbands.

ah come on, don't you want multiple mothers in law?

[jundp 191]

Currently there is nothing to stop you from having a sexual/emotional relationship with more than one person if that is what you want to do. As for the idea of making a legal 'marriage' contract between multiple adults - I agree with #6 it could prove very difficult to implement, if not impossible.

As for the emotional side to polygamy, personally, I find the complexities of a monogmous marriage enough to be getting on with. I don't think I need to complicate life any further trying to relate to multiple wives/husbands.

ah come on, don't you want multiple mothers in law?

Well if only men can have multiple spouses, then they'd be the ones with multiple MILs

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or even multiple MILF's

[pedroh 21]

Or even multiple MILF's

:lol: :lol:

[Sheriff Uling 3]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

Is it faulty logic because you don’t agree with it?

People actually feel that way and this nation has found ways to justify social intolerance through the very essence of the law of the land, but that was not my point, eventhough it's the truth. If it were not, there would be no way that gay marriage could have been banned for this long. It's called social intolerance. Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage. Do I think it should be banned? Yes, but that's a christian social position this nation has weaved into law.

Any social intolerant position can be justified via the constitution if it violates a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why folks have stated other obscure things they should have the right to do, if gays are permitted to marry under the law. It's a valid legal argument. Why should their pursuit of happiness be any less valid than yours? You are operating on the premise that citizens are free to do whatever they want in a society or community governed by laws. Who determines what is socially unacceptable? Push the idea that you are free right out of your head because you are not as long as you participate in a society/community. Anyway, the issue is that there has not been a true separation of church and state. The problem has been that our implementation of the laws has been covertly forged with church ideology of what is socially acceptable and we've run with it as a nation. You also don't have to agree with that either, but it's true. We either stand for something or fall for anything. At some point, we have to draw lines in the sand.

Anyway, my post was a reply to explain where folks were coming about being about to do other things that may not be socially acceptable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

Is it faulty logic because you don’t agree with it?

People actually feel that way and this nation has found ways to justify social intolerance through the very essence of the law of the land, but that was not my point, eventhough it's the truth. If it were not, there would be no way that gay marriage could have been banned for this long. It's called social intolerance. Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage. Do I think it should be banned? Yes, but that's a christian social position this nation has weaved into law.

Any social intolerant position can be justified via the constitution if it violates a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why folks have stated other obscure things they should have the right to do, if gays are permitted to marry under the law. It's a valid legal argument. Why should their pursuit of happiness be any less valid than yours? You are operating on the premise that citizens are free to do whatever they want in a society or community governed by laws. Who determines what is socially unacceptable? Push the idea that you are free right out of your head because you are not as long as you participate in a society/community. Anyway, the issue is that there has not been a true separation of church and state. The problem has been that our implementation of the laws has been covertly forged with church ideology of what is socially acceptable and we've run with it as a nation. You also don't have to agree with that either, but it's true. We either stand for something or fall for anything. At some point, we have to draw lines in the sand.

Anyway, my post was a reply to explain where folks were coming about being about to do other things that may not be socially acceptable.

By that logic, we should lock up homosexuals because to allow them to be gay you are accepting their homosexuality, right? So, unless you are willing to do that, and they are free to choose whom they love and what they do behind closed doors, why deny them the right to marry? You can't...at least not without discriminating against them...and that is a violation of their civil rights.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

Is it faulty logic because you don’t agree with it?

People actually feel that way and this nation has found ways to justify social intolerance through the very essence of the law of the land, but that was not my point, eventhough it's the truth. If it were not, there would be no way that gay marriage could have been banned for this long. It's called social intolerance. Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage. Do I think it should be banned? Yes, but that's a christian social position this nation has weaved into law.

Any social intolerant position can be justified via the constitution if it violates a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why folks have stated other obscure things they should have the right to do, if gays are permitted to marry under the law. It's a valid legal argument. Why should their pursuit of happiness be any less valid than yours? You are operating on the premise that citizens are free to do whatever they want in a society or community governed by laws. Who determines what is socially unacceptable? Push the idea that you are free right out of your head because you are not as long as you participate in a society/community. Anyway, the issue is that there has not been a true separation of church and state. The problem has been that our implementation of the laws has been covertly forged with church ideology of what is socially acceptable and we've run with it as a nation. You also don't have to agree with that either, but it's true. We either stand for something or fall for anything. At some point, we have to draw lines in the sand.

Anyway, my post was a reply to explain where folks were coming about being about to do other things that may not be socially acceptable.

Well I partly agree with you here - but what I'd suggest is that what determines whether lifestyle A is acceptable while lifestyle B isn't is partly a matter of general consensus - but is also dependent on whether that lifestyle can be enshrined into law in a practical manner. In the case of polygamy I'd say that's rather difficult. Though it probably wouldn't be top of the list of the most wacky piece of litigation (I mean, there's a reason why a TV ad showing a man jumping off a cliff has to have a "do not attempt disclaimer" underneath).

I will say that if you approach the issue from the (strictly) logical perspective that your argument above (in bold) is perfectly valid - but the argument is a legal one rather than a strictly logical one. While all non standard lifestyles might equal from a logical point of view - the law doesn't follow the same rules. Pedophilia for example - is illegal because it contradicts a whole raft of laws designed for the protection of minors. Pretty much the same deal with bigamy, polygamy or beastiality. Logically equal, but not legally equal - because in order to legalise those things would require a far more fundamental shift in our existing legal framework than is required to permit homosexual marriage.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

Is it faulty logic because you don’t agree with it?

People actually feel that way and this nation has found ways to justify social intolerance through the very essence of the law of the land, but that was not my point, eventhough it's the truth. If it were not, there would be no way that gay marriage could have been banned for this long. It's called social intolerance. Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage. Do I think it should be banned? Yes, but that's a christian social position this nation has weaved into law.

Any social intolerant position can be justified via the constitution if it violates a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why folks have stated other obscure things they should have the right to do, if gays are permitted to marry under the law. It's a valid legal argument. Why should their pursuit of happiness be any less valid than yours? You are operating on the premise that citizens are free to do whatever they want in a society or community governed by laws. Who determines what is socially unacceptable? Push the idea that you are free right out of your head because you are not as long as you participate in a society/community. Anyway, the issue is that there has not been a true separation of church and state. The problem has been that our implementation of the laws has been covertly forged with church ideology of what is socially acceptable and we've run with it as a nation. You also don't have to agree with that either, but it's true. We either stand for something or fall for anything. At some point, we have to draw lines in the sand.

Anyway, my post was a reply to explain where folks were coming about being about to do other things that may not be socially acceptable.

Well I partly agree with you here - but what I'd suggest is that what determines whether lifestyle A is acceptable while lifestyle B isn't is partly a matter of general consensus - but is also dependent on whether that lifestyle can be enshrined into law in a practical manner. In the case of polygamy I'd say that's rather difficult. Though it probably wouldn't be top of the list of the most wacky piece of litigation (I mean, there's a reason why a TV ad showing a man jumping off a cliff has to have a "do not attempt disclaimer" underneath).

I will say that if you approach the issue from the (strictly) logical perspective that your argument above (in bold) is perfectly valid - but the argument is a legal one rather than a strictly logical one. While all non standard lifestyles might equal from a logical point of view - the law doesn't follow the same rules. Pedophilia for example - is illegal because it contradicts a whole raft of laws designed for the protection of minors. Pretty much the same deal with bigamy, polygamy or beastiality. Logically equal, but not legally equal - because in order to legalise those things would require a far more fundamental shift in our existing legal framework than is required to permit homosexual marriage.

Very good points...

[Amby 490]

it's a good day to be gay!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

it's a good day to be gay!

put away your village people outfit.

[pedroh 21]

i have my helmet and orange vest in my car

[eric&gen 0]

Edited May 30, 2008 by eric&gen

[Sheriff Uling 3]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

Is it faulty logic because you don’t agree with it?

People actually feel that way and this nation has found ways to justify social intolerance through the very essence of the law of the land, but that was not my point, eventhough it's the truth. If it were not, there would be no way that gay marriage could have been banned for this long. It's called social intolerance. Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage. Do I think it should be banned? Yes, but that's a christian social position this nation has weaved into law.

Any social intolerant position can be justified via the constitution if it violates a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why folks have stated other obscure things they should have the right to do, if gays are permitted to marry under the law. It's a valid legal argument. Why should their pursuit of happiness be any less valid than yours? You are operating on the premise that citizens are free to do whatever they want in a society or community governed by laws. Who determines what is socially unacceptable? Push the idea that you are free right out of your head because you are not as long as you participate in a society/community. Anyway, the issue is that there has not been a true separation of church and state. The problem has been that our implementation of the laws has been covertly forged with church ideology of what is socially acceptable and we've run with it as a nation. You also don't have to agree with that either, but it's true. We either stand for something or fall for anything. At some point, we have to draw lines in the sand.

Anyway, my post was a reply to explain where folks were coming about being about to do other things that may not be socially acceptable.

Well I partly agree with you here - but what I'd suggest is that what determines whether lifestyle A is acceptable while lifestyle B isn't is partly a matter of general consensus - but is also dependent on whether that lifestyle can be enshrined into law in a practical manner. In the case of polygamy I'd say that's rather difficult. Though it probably wouldn't be top of the list of the most wacky piece of litigation (I mean, there's a reason why a TV ad showing a man jumping off a cliff has to have a "do not attempt disclaimer" underneath).

I will say that if you approach the issue from the (strictly) logical perspective that your argument above (in bold) is perfectly valid - but the argument is a legal one rather than a strictly logical one. While all non standard lifestyles might equal from a logical point of view - the law doesn't follow the same rules. Pedophilia for example - is illegal because it contradicts a whole raft of laws designed for the protection of minors. Pretty much the same deal with bigamy, polygamy or beastiality. Logically equal, but not legally equal - because in order to legalise those things would require a far more fundamental shift in our existing legal framework than is required to permit homosexual marriage.

Very good points...

I could not elaborate because I was leaving the house earlier. Your points are well made, but the standard of lifestyle and the disposition of other laws affected by permitting that which others have the right to pursue in and of itself still is not provide solid grounds to dismiss them. If other laws have to be amended in order to accommodate the pursuit of happiness, then so be it. However, I say that by permitting gay married although it does not inherently affect any other laws bears a social consequence that is irresponsible to ignore. Therefore, why not explore permitting bigamy, polygamy and beastiality, if our citizens wish to do so. Is that social irresponsible or in violation of our citizen’s God given right? That argument can be made since gay marriage is on the table. Therefore, using a fundamental shift in our legal framework seems like a weak argument in light of the fact that we can amend the laws to permit what we see fit in reference to our citizens constitutional right.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I think comparing polygamy to beastiality is more than a bit of a stretch. I don't remember any old testament stories of folks getting it on with their camels but I can sure tell you there was a lot of polygamy in there!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

Is it faulty logic because you don’t agree with it?

People actually feel that way and this nation has found ways to justify social intolerance through the very essence of the law of the land, but that was not my point, eventhough it's the truth. If it were not, there would be no way that gay marriage could have been banned for this long. It's called social intolerance. Hey, I don't agree with gay marriage. Do I think it should be banned? Yes, but that's a christian social position this nation has weaved into law.

Any social intolerant position can be justified via the constitution if it violates a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is why folks have stated other obscure things they should have the right to do, if gays are permitted to marry under the law. It's a valid legal argument. Why should their pursuit of happiness be any less valid than yours? You are operating on the premise that citizens are free to do whatever they want in a society or community governed by laws. Who determines what is socially unacceptable? Push the idea that you are free right out of your head because you are not as long as you participate in a society/community. Anyway, the issue is that there has not been a true separation of church and state. The problem has been that our implementation of the laws has been covertly forged with church ideology of what is socially acceptable and we've run with it as a nation. You also don't have to agree with that either, but it's true. We either stand for something or fall for anything. At some point, we have to draw lines in the sand.

Anyway, my post was a reply to explain where folks were coming about being about to do other things that may not be socially acceptable.

Well I partly agree with you here - but what I'd suggest is that what determines whether lifestyle A is acceptable while lifestyle B isn't is partly a matter of general consensus - but is also dependent on whether that lifestyle can be enshrined into law in a practical manner. In the case of polygamy I'd say that's rather difficult. Though it probably wouldn't be top of the list of the most wacky piece of litigation (I mean, there's a reason why a TV ad showing a man jumping off a cliff has to have a "do not attempt disclaimer" underneath).

I will say that if you approach the issue from the (strictly) logical perspective that your argument above (in bold) is perfectly valid - but the argument is a legal one rather than a strictly logical one. While all non standard lifestyles might equal from a logical point of view - the law doesn't follow the same rules. Pedophilia for example - is illegal because it contradicts a whole raft of laws designed for the protection of minors. Pretty much the same deal with bigamy, polygamy or beastiality. Logically equal, but not legally equal - because in order to legalise those things would require a far more fundamental shift in our existing legal framework than is required to permit homosexual marriage.

Very good points...

I could not elaborate because I was leaving the house earlier. Your points are well made, but the standard of lifestyle and the disposition of other laws affected by permitting that which others have the right to pursue in and of itself still is not provide solid grounds to dismiss them. If other laws have to be amended in order to accommodate the pursuit of happiness, then so be it. However, I say that by permitting gay married although it does not inherently affect any other laws bears a social consequence that is irresponsible to ignore. Therefore, why not explore permitting bigamy, polygamy and beastiality, if our citizens wish to do so. Is that social irresponsible or in violation of our citizen’s God given right? That argument can be made since gay marriage is on the table. Therefore, using a fundamental shift in our legal framework seems like a weak argument in light of the fact that we can amend the laws to permit what we see fit in reference to our citizens constitutional right.

Well you can amend laws to a point - but not when doing so impinges on other areas of established law (for example - the laws that permit equal rights for women). As I said - outside of the mormon version of polygamy I can't imagine how granting the right to practice it could be applied in such a way that doesn't grant males greater legal rights than females. Its simply unfair - and while I'm no lawyer I can't imagine how that unfairness would not shoot down the entire policy if someone were to propose it.

In any case there is the matter of consensus - as I said. Gay rights is something that has been hard fought for, for a long time - and which has gained something of a mainstream following and indeed - acceptibility. These conditions simply don't exist for polygamy - and the question as to whether lawmakers considering gay marriage should have to pause to consider legalising everything else under the sun doesn't seem particularly feasible to me. I don't think these things will ever be totally dismissed - polygamy may actually be legal one day (though I can't imagine this in the immediate or medium term), just that the conditions for it aren't right at the present time.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Number 6