Vandeervecken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Midland MI USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
aps said:I see your point. I'm not ready to see a marriage of 3 or more people. But I fully support allowing any two people to get hitched. Woo hoo!
Kandahar said:As far as I'm concerned, a marriage should only be a contract in the eyes of the government, nothing more. With that said, I don't see any reason that any number of consenting adults of any gender shouldn't be allowed to enter into it. Now I'm fully aware that this would require the complete overhaul of a lot of federal laws on everything from child custody to immigration to income tax (which realistically means it's probably not worth the hassle), but in *theory* I don't see any fundamental reason that any number of consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Vandeervecken said:I'm curious, if you see my point, how can you disagree with it?
aquapub said:Copied from another gay poll thread:
Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)
Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b
aquapub said:Copied from another gay poll thread:
Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)
Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b
Vandeervecken said:As civil marriage is nothing more than the incorporation of multiple people into one socio-economic unit, I see no rational reason to restrict it to the current one man and one woman.
Persons should be able to set their own contractual limits as to what their marriage is.
Sans a compelling state interest the government has no reason to stop this.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:So?
If three people wish to get married, what do I care? I don't.
More importantly, why do you care?
RightatNYU said:The compelling state interests of continuing the current tax, responsibility, and right structure that results from when two people enter into a contract is easily compelling enough to prevent the extension of legal civil unions into group affairs.
As a personal matter, by all means go ahead. But in a legal sense, two is it.
Vandeervecken said:LOL, that is not complelling state interest. Try again. "Right structure." LOL
So you are right becasue you are right. Laughable.
RightatNYU said:Well, I care because the state has an interest in collecting taxes and maintaining property rights, all of which would be harmed by expanding legal unions in this fashion.
You see how complicated issues of deadbeat parents, divorces, custody, and taxes are now, now imagine a group fo ten people who are all "married," with 7 or 8 kids all by different parents and mothers, some with jobs and some without, all wanting to get divorced, all wanting to move different ways.
The state has the right to pass laws to protect its interests, and in a case like this, group marriage would never be allowed.
RightatNYU said:You misread. The state has a compelling interest in continuing the current tax structure, responsibility structure, and right structure (i.e. custody of children, survivors rights, etc).
RightatNYU said:And did you actually have a rebuttal for anything, or would you just prefer to snipe back and forth again?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:So, because it might make a bureaucrat's life complicated, the freedom of individuals must be limited.
That's a wonderful reason!:doh
Kandahar said:Our leaders need to pick their battles, and from a pragmatic perspective, reforming all of the necessary laws so that more than two people can get married just doesn't sound like a wise use of political capital. There's not that great of a demand for this freedom, and the political headache of trying to restructure all of the necessary laws just doesn't seem worth it.
Theoretically, of course, there's no reason to prevent more than two people from getting married. But realistically there's no reason to go through the hassle of changing the laws.
aquapub said:Copied from another gay poll thread:
Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)
Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b
Kandahar said:Our leaders need to pick their battles, and from a pragmatic perspective, reforming all of the necessary laws so that more than two people can get married just doesn't sound like a wise use of political capital. There's not that great of a demand for this freedom, and the political headache of trying to restructure all of the necessary laws just doesn't seem worth it.
Kandahar said:Theoretically, of course, there's no reason to prevent more than two people from getting married. But realistically there's no reason to go through the hassle of changing the laws.
Vandeervecken said:Our leaders? If only we really had some. So if justice, rights, and the law are inconvienant, the government should be allowed to ignore them in your world?
Vandeervecken said:Look at how many laws had to be changed concerning women during their rights movement. A century ago women couldn't vote, own property, had no rights really at all. Many, many laws had to be changed that were not convinenet. Should we then strip women of their rights becasue this was a mistake?
Vandeervecken said:I find it disgusting, immoral, and just plain sad that you would value the convenience of our lawmakers over basic human rights. I'd started to develop a much higher opinion of you than that. I am saddened to see I was wrong.
Kandahar said:How about they focus on maximizing the amount of improvement they can make to our justice and rights, rather than going through an enormous amount of trouble to change something that almost no one even cares about? This issue does not exist in a vacuum and must be weighed in the context of other more important priorities.
Kandahar said:Are polygamists 50% of our population? Are polygamists even 0.50% of our population? The government needs to prioritize; why should it completely overhaul all of our laws for an issue where there's not even a big demand for change, when they can more effectively spend political capital elsewhere?
Kandahar said:Well I find it naive, idealistic, and irrational that you would place a non-issue like this that would require enormous amounts of change, above issues where our leaders actually would be able to give people more freedom for a modest amount of political capital.
Vandeervecken said:I see few, on fact issues I consider more important. Gun rights beats it out, and the GOP attack on the 4th amendment as well. After that I think this issue is where the battle against the creeping theocracy is being waged. What issues do you consider more vital?
Vandeervecken said:In general though I will tell you I see no case where the government is usurping rights that I do not think should be fought.
Doesn't matter if there is but one or none. What matters is the government is usurping rights. Anytime you accede to that in any case you give tacit approval to them doing it in all cases.
Vandeervecken said:Give an example of what issues you consider more important. Nor would changing the definition of marriage entail all that much change. Nothing that couldn't be done in one bill frankly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?