G-Prime Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Some may think this statement is really funny.I just think it is over the boundry. Blondie *hugs* I'll make it all better baby, and when I'm bored with you I'll go get another one ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 I’m sure you’ll all remember a year or so ago when anti-sodomy laws were challenged in the courts. At the time Rick Santorum came out and argued that this needed to be decided in the legislatures of the country and not the courts. He argued that a successful legal challenge to anti-sodomy laws would also negate any legal grounds for anti-polygamy and anti-polyamory laws. The legislature could easily write the anti-sodomy laws out of existence without setting a dangerous legal precedent.Now, of course, Santorum was attacked as a right-wing nut using fear and outrageous comments to polarize people against the issue. He was labeled a homophobe, a bigot and worse. That he was totally right didn’t seem to bother anyone then — maybe it will now. How do you legally sanction sodomy, and likewise gay marriage, on the grounds that two adults — both of whom consent to the activity — have an inherent right to privacy in matters of sexuality, and then ban polygamy and polyamory? The only thing that has changed is the number of consenting adults involved. :2cents: I think Sodomy is about only about Sex, unlike Polygamy which is about Marriage. I don't think that is a very good argument to make. Now gay marriage on a slippery slope that could lead to more acceptance and or legalization of polygamy...that I can defnitley see. As I've said before, there are most defintely a lot of upset and jealous Mormans and Muslims out there feeling persecuted because it is ok to discriminate against their type of marriages, but not gay marriages. And I can't really blame them, because it is a glaring double standard. Either it is ok to discriminate and mess around in the legality in types of marriage or it is not. We can't have unfair and confusing standards like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 man, Im trying to figure out how to stay married to my wife (who I adore) and not have to live with her. And there are people who want more than one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 This is a good discussion. If homosexuality is to be deemed perfectly acceptable, then why not Polygamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I'm not going to give an opinion on this at the present time, but can we admit to ourselves that marriage to one person, regardless of gender, is different from marriage to multiple people? Stating otherwise is either ignorance or oversimplification, and either way it's a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I'm not going to give an opinion on this at the present time, but can we admit to ourselves that marriage to one person, regardless of gender, is different from marriage to multiple people? Stating otherwise is either ignorance or oversimplification, and either way it's a mistake. Why? You're not really giving any logical reasoning here Fitz. You need to be able to back up your statements with reasoning. Why should marriage be limited to just one person if consenting adults are involved? As long as marriage=partnershp between two or more humans, what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I'm not going to give an opinion on this at the present time, but can we admit to ourselves that marriage to one person, regardless of gender, is different from marriage to multiple people? Stating otherwise is either ignorance or oversimplification, and either way it's a mistake. Those seeking gay marriage have framed the debate as one about the rights of all consenting adults to enter into personal contracts with each other. By what arbitrary rule do you decide that a marriage contract is valid between two, but not three or more? What is important here is that you must find a legal justification now. Why? Well, the standard used to be "community standards" of decency. But the anti-sodomy laws were overturned on grounds that wiped that justification away (exactly what Santorum warned about). You can no longer say that the community standard of morality is against bigamy, polygamy, etc. you have to have a logical legal rationale for outlawing the practices. So, what is the overarching societal benefit to limiting marriage contracts to two individuals? Does this societal benefit rise to the level of depriving these folks of their right to privacy? Don't get me wrong, I'm against bigamy, polygamy, polyamory,etc., but a very dangerous precedent was set by those who insisted on challengeing these laws legally rather than writing them out of the books through legislation. There is a proper way to do things in a Democracy and our ridiculously over-litigious society has lost sight of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 There is a proper way to do things in a Democracy . Republic. We live in a Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Republic. We live in a Republic. Well, technically it's a Representative Democracy -- imagine how crazy a true Republic would be at this size! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.