(April 20, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: What happens, or rather what do you think should happen, when marriage equality is requested for second and third wives. Can any number of people legitimately claim marital status? Is there a compelling state interest for not extending marriage equality to blood relatives? Etc.

Oh, I don't know. Probably something like equality for any and all consenting adults. Terrifying.

Chad, legalising gay marriage does not mean anything else anyone ever suggests about marriage has to also be legalised. The legal system is not a massive domino rally. This is the fallacious slippery slope argument.

Like Becca says, what the hell does it matter to you who marries who? In what way does it hurt anyone else?

It is blisteringly clear that you just can't stand the idea of gays having equal rights, because you consider them inferior. Laws change for the better. Remember when we got rid of slavery? Should we have kept that sacred idea too?

(April 20, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: ... The marriage partners cannot be blood relatives.

...

That isn't true.  It is a question of how closely related the people are.  But they may be related by blood.  To get you started, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage


As for gay marriage, it changes only one thing about a marriage, and that is the sex of the people who are getting married.  It changes nothing else, or, at least, it need not change anything else, about marriage.  This is conceptually an extremely simple change, and consequently you should have no trouble at all understanding it.

Frankly, I don't really believe that you have any trouble understanding this.  If you did have trouble understanding it, you would be near brain-dead.  It is so simple and easy to understand that you would have to be a total moron to have any trouble with the concept.

Obviously this whole topic is just about bigotry, but I thought I'd add in my two cents on a side issue. I don't believe marriage is any way a sexual contract. Please correct me if I am wrong. As far as I know, marriage is not a legal promise of any sexual activity in the future whatsoever.

I'm not saying this is likely; I'm just talking about the bare bones of what the agreement is actually about legally.

(April 20, 2015 at 2:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: Obviously this whole topic is just about bigotry, but I thought I'd add in my two cents on a side issue. I don't believe marriage is any way a sexual contract. Please correct me if I am wrong. As far as I know, marriage is not a legal promise of any sexual activity in the future whatsoever.

I'm not saying this is likely; I'm just talking about the bare bones of what the agreement is actually about legally.

In the past, a total lack of sexual activity was considered grounds for an annulment.  I do not know what the current laws are in the various states of the U.S. (or in other countries), but I would not be surprised if this is still grounds for annulment in many places.

An annulment is quite different from a divorce.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

However, in order to get an annulment, someone would have to seek it.  So a total lack of sexual activity would not automatically result in a marriage being declared null and void.

Really? That's interesting, thanks.

How would one go about demonstrating such a thing? Or can you just say it anyhow and get your annulment?

(April 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: Really? That's interesting, thanks.

How would one go about demonstrating such a thing? Or can you just say it anyhow and get your annulment?

I am not too sure about how it was demonstrated, or what sort of evidence was required.  It might be enough that both claim that no sexual activity occurred, conjoined with the absence of any contrary evidence (e.g., a pregnancy, etc.).  Of course, one would need to look at the particular time and place at issue to know precisely what was required and what wasn't.

OK I see, cool. But what if just one partner was complaining about no sexual activity and the other did not want an annulment, even if they admitted there was no sexual activity?

Again I'm thinking of the "promise of sexual activity" angle.

Rebecarox, I cannot say that personally I care all that much. The depravity, promiscuity, and over-sexualization of Western culture have already done their damage, unwed mothers, high abortion rates, custody battles, etc.. I choose to ignore it and go on with my life. And yet, on an intellectual level I cannot ignore the likelihood that alternative forms of marriage will have negative cultural effects. Many of those will eventually affect me and the people I care about. Anyone that is concerned about crime, equal opportunity, income disparity, and social stability should seriously reflect on such changes.

For example, I had a friend that was raised in a commune. None of the children were certain about who their real parents were. When the adults gave favor to some children over others for no apparent reason, the children got very confused. While not inevitable, these kids grew up with lots of issues. Few people would deny that today’s high divorce rates and serial monogamy negatively affect the children. Why would Western democracies want to create even more problems for themselves?

Robvalue, unfortunately the concerns raised by the 'slippery slope' argument have already started. I know of at lease one case about the constitutionality of plural marriage bans has started making its way through the courts.

(April 20, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: Rebecarox, I cannot say that personally I care all that much. The depravity, promiscuity,  and over-sexualization of Western culture have already done their damage, unwed mothers, high abortion rates, custody battles, etc.. I choose to ignore it and go on with my life. And yet, on an intellectual level I cannot ignore the likelihood that alternative forms of marriage will have negative cultural effects. Many of those will eventually affect me and the people I care about. Anyone that is concerned about crime, equal opportunity, income disparity, and social stability should seriously reflect on such changes.
For example, I had a friend that was raised in a commune. None of the children were certain about who their real parents were. When the adults gave favor to some children over others for no apparent reason, the children got very confused. While not inevitable, these kids grew up with lots of issues. Few people would deny that today’s high divorce rates and serial monogamy negatively affect the children. Why would Western democracies want to create even more problems for themselves?
Robvalue, unfortunately the concerns raised by the 'slippery slope' argument have already started. I know of at lease one case about the constitutionality of plural marriage bans has started making its way through the courts.

Maybe it's a lot more simpler than this. Maybe the marriage 'stay with one person for a gazillion years' just isn't an effective paradigm. Biologically, I don't believe we are cut out for life long monogamy, rather mankind over the years tries to control people through various conformist rules. Maybe the 'depravity' of which you speak is just a natural reaction to people growing tired of trying to fit themselves into a controllable box.