| # | Author | Message |
21
| woody
Sat 4/12/2008 7:48p | >>The bestiality argument is trotted out all too often by opponents of giving the same rights to everyone.<<
Unless animals have the same rights as humans, it isn't relevant. |
22
| Mr X
Sun 4/13/2008 2:06a | It's absolutely relevent in the sense that animals have no ability to consent, thus any sexual activity is tantamount to rape, at the very least cruelty to animals laws.
Also, as to marriage, an animal can't sign a legal document. Case closed.
As far as the polygamy thing goes, I absolutely agree with ecdc. Not my cup of tea, personally, but I don't see why the law should have anything to say about it if that's what those people want.
Just more judeo-christian morals entering into legal arguments. There are countries and cultures out there where multiple spouses are accepted and legal. |
23
| Dabob2
Mon 4/14/2008 12:06p | <I don't know if it is true, but gay marriage will make any legal arguments against polygamy irrelevant. >
No, it wouldn't. These are two separate questions. It would be quite possible to allow either a gay or straight person to marry one person of their choosing, but only one. That's how it already works in other countries. None of them have legalized polygamy. So they are two separate questions. |
24
| EighthDwarf
Tue 4/15/2008 8:07a | <So they are two separate questions.>
And there are a lot of Mormon politicians and lobbyists making sure they remain two separate issues. Note the verbiage "ONE man and ONE woman" being written into most of these amendments. |
25
| woody
Tue 4/15/2008 10:34a | >>These are two separate questions. It would be quite possible to allow either a gay or straight person to marry one person of their choosing, but only one.<<
To most people and religious/legal institutions, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, but we are broadening the language to say two men or two women. Nothing will prevent the broadening of the language to say multiple persons especially since the court cases are based on legal arguments for equal protection rather than any argument for an unique arrangement between two men or two women.
In other words, open the gate and people will walk through it.
>>And there are a lot of Mormon politicians and lobbyists making sure they remain two separate issues.<<
That is surely the case, but they will face people in court who disagree. |
26
| imadisneygal
Tue 4/15/2008 10:39a | "To most people and religious/legal institutions, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman . . ."
Worldwide this just isn't true. If you had said "to most people in America/North America/Europe" then you'd be right. But worldwide by population polygamous marriage is more the norm. |
27
| woody
Tue 4/15/2008 10:43a | >>But worldwide by population polygamous marriage is more the norm.<<
But is it legal? Or merely practiced in their culture?
You would be contradicting Dabob2 and I'm not sure you intended this.
You don't need the government to validate your relationships. People will do what they want, but government sanctions make societies more accepting of the practices. |
28
| DouglasDubh
Tue 4/15/2008 10:56a | <But worldwide by population polygamous marriage is more the norm.>
I don't believe this is true. I'm pretty sure it is illegal in China, and rare in India, two countries which make up a pretty large chunk of the global population. Even in Muslim countries where it is legal it is not widely practiced. |
29
| imadisneygal
Tue 4/15/2008 11:13a | Right. It's illegal. But it's still practiced pretty widely and very rarely prosecuted. But you're right. It's not legal. And it's fairly widely practiced in some Muslim countries. I guess what I am saying is that while it may not be practiced among all cultures where it is accepted, there are far more cultures where polygamy is accepted than cultures where marriage is simply defined between one man and one woman. |
30
| DouglasDubh
Tue 4/15/2008 11:17a | <But it's still practiced pretty widely . . .>
I think the vast majority of the marriages in the world today are, at least nominally, monogamous. Polygamy may be widely practiced, but I don't believe it's deeply practiced. |
