Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

Rasmus said:
Well, then frankly I don't think polyamorous relationships happen very often at all (at least according to my standards of what constitutes "often") and we just won't need to bother, right?
Click to expand...

Define often? Many interracial marriages do not happen often, and you could make the same arguement about homosexual marriage too. Those are fairly small minority of marriages.
 
The California Supreme Court upheld the gay-marriage ban emplaced by the passage of Proposition 8 by the majority of those who voted in a legally-constituted election. This door is closed tight now. And whether you like it or not, marriage as defined between a man and a woman is now the Law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298
 
Fnord said:
The California Supreme Court upheld the gay-marriage ban emplaced by the passage of Proposition 8 by the majority of those who voted in a legally-constituted election. This door is closed tight now. And whether you like it or not, marriage as defined between a man and a woman is now the Law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298
Click to expand...

You know that this thread had nothing to do with California? So why are you spamming it?

This also has nothing to do with states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont.
 
Fnord said:
The California Supreme Court upheld the gay-marriage ban emplaced by the passage of Proposition 8 by the majority of those who voted in a legally-constituted election. This door is closed tight now. And whether you like it or not, marriage as defined between a man and a woman is now the Law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298
Click to expand...
This thread has nothing to do with prop 8, California, or even with gay marriage. They are at best peripheral issues, but this post makes no effort to even link the two issues.
 
sugarb said:
I do NOT know why, but the line about "abandoned middle age women who weren't dead yet" made me laugh...a lot. :) Good grief, that's sick humor, lol.
Click to expand...

It's gratifying when someone gets the joke.

May I just take this opportunity to say that you make so much more sense than a lot of people who discuss these issues.
 
Meadmaker said:
It's gratifying when someone gets the joke.

May I just take this opportunity to say that you make so much more sense than a lot of people who discuss these issues.
Click to expand...

Thank you...and it is nice to have someone ask sensible questions, and display a willingness to actually consider the answers. I really do appreciate that (and...by the way...it helps me understand myself better by considering the things you are asking about).
 
Rasmus said:
You did read the post I replied to?

I don 't think this is a very good argument at all.

(Or am I guilty of making the same mistake I am currently attributing to you?)
Click to expand...

It seemed that the point was that it was not a large enough minority for them to have laws written to permit them to recognize how they wanted to live. There is a certain practicality in this argument but it does not seem to hold much moral weight.

I really don't know what the percentages of marriages would be polygamous if there was this option available, not many, but then again interracial marriage and gay marriage are only ever going to be a small minority of marriages either.

So it seems that some minorities of marriage are being given preferential treatment.

I honestly don't know what the rates of poly type marriages are, as it is still a fairly strong taboo, and seems in many ways stronger than recognizing homosexual marriages that fit better into current marriage formats. I would not be at all surprised if this stigma was reduced if it would have rates not unlike homosexual marriages.
 
arthwollipot said:
What, you're calling me a liar now?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is doing that, just doing what I have done in the past and thinking that while you have obtained near parity in some areas, it is likely that if the legal status of your relationship was strongly legaly tested it would be found to be different than a marriage in important ways.

One for example is with immigration. I would be suprised if you could find any nation that would recognize your relationship as a marriage. So if you wanted to emmigrate or if you were not all citizens this would be a substantive difference.

Now you are currently happy in your relationship and that is great, but that does not mean that the legal contracts you have had drawn up are all that close to being married in a legal sense.
 
sugarb said:
Thank you...and it is nice to have someone ask sensible questions, and display a willingness to actually consider the answers. I really do appreciate that (and...by the way...it helps me understand myself better by considering the things you are asking about).
Click to expand...
Always a pleasure. For me, it's the only worthwhile reason to participate. I like to have my own position challenged, and see if I can find unassailable arguments to support them, or weaknesses that have to be patched.

Occasionally, I have actually been known to change my mind, but I try to avoid that sort of thing. People would take away my internet forum club card if they found such a flagrant violation of the standards for forum conduct.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, fair enough. I apologise for my insinuation. I probably shouldn't be posting in this thread right now - bad time for me.
Click to expand...

PT got it right.

I didn't mean to call you a liar, but I can see why you would have understood it that way. So I apologize as well. And whatever it is, I hope its a better time soon, because even though we seem to disagree I value your contributions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom