Originally Posted by mimartin
Under that rational letís outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now. If you can have a law that only a man and a woman can marry, why canít you have a law where only two individuals can marry? Then you are not suppressing individual rights. Individual rights are something I believe this country was founded on. To me it is not about a popularity contest, it is not about giving people extra rights, it is about everyone having the same rights.
But that is the point. If marriage is to be open to consenting adults, then why just restrict it to heterosexual and homosexual unions between 2 consenting adults? Gay people fight and abuse one another, just like straights w/in the confines of a married/monagamous relationship. No surprise you'd find problems in a polygamist union. So, if gays are to be officially allowed to marry, why not the other? No one, including Skin, has provided a reason why gay marriage is so important as an issue that the consideration should end there. Maybe spideral was right (ohh, the irony)....just ban marriage. People can then make commitments to one another, draw up contracts defining those commitments and have all the benefits traditionally given to officially married people.
@ender---always with the cheap shots, eh. Nothing changes. Your comments only display your own igorance. No fallacies were successfully demonstrated. Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject. You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality. For something to be considered normal
by society is different altogether. So, you get an F
for comprehension and sloppy logic.
Originally Posted by Qliveur
You know, I was just saying to myself that a divorce involving a polygamous marriage would indeed be a legal nightmare.
Yeah, but a lawyer's wet dream.