Polygamy - the right to put down women

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

and what if one of them is bi? a 3 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality. what if both were bi? a 4 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality.

but i know, it's too much to comprehend.

it's not every day a liberal gets out liberaled by a conservative

Hardly, Charles. Read what the courts have ruled regarding rights in general and discrimination. You're argument is bogus because you're saying any restrictions on such rights is discrimination. That's a loose definition of what is discrimination, and wtih regard to constitutional rights, discrimination occurs when an individual from one sect of society is denied the same right that is afforded to other individuals.

bogus only because you can't consider it for long. i get it now: religious beliefs don't matter, nor do the wants or desires of those involved. only gay rights are worth speaking out for.

Charles, first take a step back and stop thinking of it as gay rights vs. polygamy. The larger argument here is whether restrictions or limits on individual rights is discrimination or not. It's not. It's why we can set the drinking age at 21 or voting age at 18. Civil law can set limitations in many numbers of ways without it being discrimination. You are trying to argue that if marriage can't be openly defined by number then that's discrimination and that's not the case. All you've got to do is think about other civil laws and how our rights limited without us being discriminated against.

for that matter, civil law can also limit who marries, thus denying same sex marriage. in short, we'll just have to agree to disagree then about polygamy.

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

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

and what if one of them is bi? a 3 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality. what if both were bi? a 4 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality.

but i know, it's too much to comprehend.

it's not every day a liberal gets out liberaled by a conservative

Hardly, Charles. Read what the courts have ruled regarding rights in general and discrimination. You're argument is bogus because you're saying any restrictions on such rights is discrimination. That's a loose definition of what is discrimination, and wtih regard to constitutional rights, discrimination occurs when an individual from one sect of society is denied the same right that is afforded to other individuals.

bogus only because you can't consider it for long. i get it now: religious beliefs don't matter, nor do the wants or desires of those involved. only gay rights are worth speaking out for.

Charles, first take a step back and stop thinking of it as gay rights vs. polygamy. The larger argument here is whether restrictions or limits on individual rights is discrimination or not. It's not. It's why we can set the drinking age at 21 or voting age at 18. Civil law can set limitations in many numbers of ways without it being discrimination. You are trying to argue that if marriage can't be openly defined by number then that's discrimination and that's not the case. All you've got to do is think about other civil laws and how our rights limited without us being discriminated against.

for that matter, civil law can also limit who marries, thus denying same sex marriage. in short, we'll just have to agree to disagree then about polygamy.

LOL...if you can't see that as discrimination then there's no point in arguing further on this. For the record though, the courts have ruled that denying gays the right to marry civilly is in fact discrimination.

[Amby 490]

never marry outside of your social class unless you're marrying up. that's my advice for the day.

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

never marry outside of your social class unless you're marrying up. that's my advice for the day.

Good advice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why not do away with marriage entirely. That would solve the whole problem wouldn't it...

[Amby 490]

oh 6 you have good ideas! I think that's fab! let's all run out and get a divorce to support this new law

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or allow people to marry everyone else - like a facebook group. Click "join" and you're married - with full legal rights.

[warriorprincess 0]

Heck if a man can have more than one wife, why can't a woman have one than one husband?

[Amby 490]

Or allow people to marry everyone else - like a facebook group. Click "join" and you're married - with full legal rights.

julie and I dated on facebook for awhile

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Heck if a man can have more than one wife, why can't a woman have one than one husband?

No man is an island...

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Heck if a man can have more than one wife, why can't a woman have one than one husband?

and that too.

[bhajishah 4]

Im for it,i need a night off with the girls

[kerewin21 2]

for that matter, civil law can also limit who marries, thus denying same sex marriage. in short, we'll just have to agree to disagree then about polygamy.

LOL...if you can't see that as discrimination then there's no point in arguing further on this. For the record though, the courts have ruled that denying gays the right to marry civilly is in fact discrimination.

Civil law also used to require people of different colors to drink from different water fountains. That's why we have the Constitution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the point is that laws evolve within limits. The same laws that theoretically permit same-sex marriage do so because 1) it doesn't fundamentally threaten or undermine the idea of the family unit (as in a monogamous unit of two people), 2) because it is something that can be practically applied in the bounds of the existing structure of laws; and 3) because there is significant public recognition and acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice. Yes the third point involves making a broad moral judgement - but that judgement is one that has already been made by society in general. If that weren't the case - we wouldn't even be talking about gay marriage, let alone having legislators put it forward to be signed into law. We should note that there is no significant push for the recognition of homosexuality - only the sort of relativistic arguments bandied about on forums like this one.

I think the confusion here is the assumption that every sexual/social practice must be equal and equivalent and that any expansion of the definition of marriage must cover all of them (just to be fair ). That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it.

But lets put it on the table - the agenda that's being expressed is obvious. There are still people who don't want committed homosexual couples to have equal legal rights to married heterosexuals and so they try to hide this either by making pointless arguments about semantics ("I don't mind them having equal rights, just as long as it's not called marriage") or by suggesting that homosexual marriage opens up some sort of "slippery slope". In the case of polygamy its clearly a spurious argument because there are so many legal precedents (for example: Tax Laws, Divorce, Inheritance, Child Custody etc.) that make a significantly tougher challenge than homosexuality to realise.

Thats not to say it won't ever happen - but the practical aspects notwithstanding it will require a fundamental shift in attitudes that simply isn't there at the present time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fixed

I think the point is that laws evolve within limits. The same laws that theoretically permit same-sex marriage do so because 1) it doesn't fundamentally threaten or undermine the idea of the family unit (as in a monogamous unit of two people), 2) because it is something that can be practically applied in the bounds of the existing structure of laws; and 3) because there is significant public recognition and acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice. Yes the third point involves making a broad moral judgement - but that judgement is one that has already been made by society in general. If that weren't the case - we wouldn't even be talking about gay marriage, let alone having legislators put it forward to be signed into law. We should note that there is no significant push for the recognition of polygamy - only the sort of relativistic arguments bandied about on forums like this one.

I think the confusion here is the assumption that every sexual/social practice must be equal and equivalent and that any expansion of the definition of marriage must cover all of them (just to be fair ). That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it.

But lets put it on the table - the agenda that's being expressed is obvious. There are still people who don't want committed homosexual couples to have equal legal rights to married heterosexuals and so they try to hide this either by making pointless arguments about semantics ("I don't mind them having equal rights, just as long as it's not called marriage") or by suggesting that homosexual marriage opens up some sort of "slippery slope". In the case of polygamy its clearly a spurious argument because there are so many legal precedents (for example: Tax Laws, Divorce, Inheritance, Child Custody etc.) that make a significantly tougher challenge than homosexuality to realise.

Thats not to say it won't ever happen - but the practical aspects notwithstanding it will require a fundamental shift in attitudes that simply isn't there at the present time.