• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group Marriage on the Way?

RJKarl said:
Does he believe polygamy should be legal?

P.S. I think it's inhumane and disgraceful to equate gays loving each other with polygamy, incest or beatiality.
Click to expand...

I see no difference in the legal claim (as it is currently constructed by our society) between homosexuality and polygamy. I have never mentioned incest or beastiality.
 
RJ he's not correlating the act with polygamous acts, he's merely saying that consent is the breaking point so what's the difference.
 
I think marriage between two humans would strike a nice compromise.

For me on gay marriage, it wasn't so much the protection of "marrying who you love" as much as "marrying the person of your choice."
 
It'd be okay to speak in purely conceptual terms if this were 1914, but in 2014 don't we need to consider these issues empirically? We have evidence that homosexual marriage is not appreciably different than traditional marriage with respect to all of the metrics that society cares (or should care) about, but we have evidence to the contrary about polygamy, no? To wit, that polygamy tends to disadvantage women disproportionately as compared to traditional marriage. In my mind, this is sufficient to draw a legal distinction. I understand the desire to establish guiding principles, but sometimes we have to bow to pragmatism.
 
jhmd2000 said:
There is no liberal bias on these boards. Please make a note.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'll take the quality of posts on a board with a "liberal slant" like this one than one with a "conservative slant" like Pack Pride.
 
Someone should just sodomize that dude to save everyone's time and money.
 
WakeandBake said:
I think marriage between two humans would strike a nice compromise.

For me on gay marriage, it wasn't so much the protection of "marrying who you love" as much as "marrying the person of your choice."
Click to expand...

Who are you to judge the treble romance?
 
Group marriage will be sponsored by Prozac and Baretta weapons.
 
PhDeac said:
Laws against plural marriage force bisexuals to choose to marry a man or a woman. Makes sense there will be challenges.
Click to expand...

No argument there. Traditional marriage "forces you to choose just one partner" as well. I don't really see this as different for bisexuals.
 
DeacinBama said:
It'd be okay to speak in purely conceptual terms if this were 1914, but in 2014 don't we need to consider these issues empirically? We have evidence that homosexual marriage is not appreciably different than traditional marriage with respect to all of the metrics that society cares (or should care) about, but we have evidence to the contrary about polygamy, no? To wit, that polygamy tends to disadvantage women disproportionately as compared to traditional marriage. In my mind, this is sufficient to draw a legal distinction. I understand the desire to establish guiding principles, but sometimes we have to bow to pragmatism.
Click to expand...

That would be a copout from a legal standpoint, though not unprecedented.

If the gay marriage issue is going to be decided on the basis of 14th amendment protections, however, then that whole legal distinction goes out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top