Marriage exists in every state. I don’t want same sex marriage. I want marriage.
You can get married.
Just maybe not to another dude.
I know what it literally means (and the word you’re looking for is “fucks,” not “loves”), I was asking what about a person makes them “polyamorous” other than behavior? Can there be a polyamorous virgin.
This would be meaningful if I had said there was anything innate about monagamy. Cite that there is anything innate about polyamory, though?
We’ve already determined men and women are equal. If a woman is allowed to marry a man why shouldn’t a man be able to marry a man. That doesn’t seem very equal to me.
MORMON: But, confound it, sir, can you cite any Scripture that forbids polygamy?!
MARK TWAIN: Certainly! “No man can serve two masters”!
Dude. Can there be a gay newborn?
Conflating homophobia with sexism is silly. May as well tell a straight man who doesn’t want to fuck you that he’s homophobic while you’re at it.
Apparently not all religions are equal, right? Because Muslims or closet fundie Christians who practice poly-marriages out of their own free will are not as good as you, right?
Probably, yes. The genetic wiring is there, anyway.
Sexual orienmtation is defined by attraction, not behavior. “Polyamory” is just behavior.
Looks like I wasted those years in law school.
Enlighten me. What class is being discriminated against if federal benfits are offered only to marriage pardigms consisting of two people? Who is unequally protected under that policy?
Possibly.
The jury is still out on that one.
A study done of identical twins found that if one was gay the other was not necessarily gay (if they were “born” that way then you would expect both to be either straight or gay). However, the likelihood that if one was gay the other would be too was much higher than between non-twin siblings.
Studies on identical twins separated at birth (taking nurture out of the equation) alos shows a high correlation of sexual orientation. Not 100%, but well outsdie of random distribution.
And of course, all of these kinds of studies are hampered by the fact that they rely on self-reporting, and a lot of gay men will deny it even to themselves.
No, he’s saying that with regards to polygamy we’re all being treated equally.
See, that’s the problem. You want to discriminate against those who want a different kind of marriage than you envision. I am not arguing slippery slope here, just that it becomes a lot more complicated one you add more people.
Do you see anything morally wrong with this scenario:
A and B get married. B falls in love with C, but A does not. A has not problem with B having a second marriage and agrees to let them marry, but does not want to be part of their relationship. Should B be able to marry C? Why not?
I will say it again: In my opinion, none of this is unsolvable. It would just be complicated and a) require a lot of legislative effort to work out laws governing and b) increase the court load for divorce and family law. That is sufficient in and of itself for a rational basis. You can work on getting the law changed, and I would probably vote for it in a ballot initiative here in Cali if it came up, but I do not believe the courts should over turn it.
Plural heterosexual marriages are unnecessary. A person wishing to take an additional spouse need only obtain a civil divorce from the existing spouse, with sensible and enforceable legal agreements, marry the next spouse in a church that recognizes plural marriage, and structure the living arrangements as agreed to by all parties.
I would recommend court-order child support and a trust for all members of the extended family. And a power of attorney and health care proxy to the most appropriate spouses or co-spouses.
Plural homosexual marriages would be emotionally trickier - who gets to marry the new spouse, for example?
Plural bisexual marriages would be a complete logistical nightmare.
Those who wish to practice polygamy, for example for religious reasons. It’s far from a suspect class, but it’s a class.
It’s completely circular to call that discriminatory. By that definition, anyone who disagrees with any law is being discriminated against by that law. Am I being treated unequally if I want to smoke pot, but I can’t because it’s illegal?
So then by the same logic, Diogenes, isn’t it also circular to call a ban on same-sex marriage discriminatory? I am being treated unequally if I am a man and want to marry a man, but I can’t because it’s illegal.
To echo something from upthread:
Couldn’t we just as easily say “The US is in the business of offering marriages. Excluding people from being able to participate in that offer based on their * n > 2* cardinality is discriminatory”?
Yes, you are being treated unequally from women who want to marry a man, Wannabe polygamists are not being denied anything available to anybody else.
Fer cripes sakes people, we’re talkin bout people sharing medical insurance coverage which shouldn’t be so expensive to start with, and Catholic hospitals deciding who family members are for visitation once since lots of gay people started getting AIDS. I’m not sure there should be any legal recognition of marriage, or even civil unions. This debate and the other one have only convinced me that the government should get out of this stupid marriage business, in every way, shape, or form.