Page 44 of 55 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #431
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, the rights only existed, were only recognized to exist when we said they did. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had to say it. Doesn't matter what others believed/believe.
    People recognized the right to defecate long before the concept of rights was conceived. It exists to this day, and is certainly recognized despite never having been formally named. The right has long been heavily regulated, but no government has ever tried to do away with the right altogether, which is probably why we've never really had to declare it.

  2. #432
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Obergefell happened.
    Loving v. Virginia also happened. Long before.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  3. #433
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Only prior to the 26th of June.
    This ruling didn't legalize incestuous marriage; it did set up a framework that makes it much easier to achieve. However, I don't see how you get there without first decriminalizing the act of incest. You can't do that without a bunch of people challenging the laws in high profile cases, publicly saying "I want to legally have sex with my brother/mother/uncle" etc.

    Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

  4. #434
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
    Sounds very similar to people whining about gay marriage.

  5. #435
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    From a value judgement perspective, it excludes some people from marriage. Wealthier men can horde wives at the cost to less prvileged men creating a societal imbalance. At least same-sex marriage was largely inclusive since gays and lesbians were not particularly likely to form lasting marriages with opposite sex individuals.
    And wealthier women could likewise horde men. And that is a lot more likely to happen in this day and age.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  6. #436
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    This ruling didn't legalize incestuous marriage; it did set up a framework that makes it much easier to achieve. However, I don't see how you get there without first decriminalizing the act of incest. You can't do that without a bunch of people challenging the laws in high profile cases, publicly saying "I want to legally have sex with my brother/mother/uncle" etc.

    Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
    You start with handling the stupidest aspect of many of the incest laws, the non-blood legal relationship. Using the Brady Bunch as an example, because they are probably the best known blended family, what real reason would there be to prevent Greg and Marcia from marrying? Especially given the age they were when they became legal siblings?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  7. #437
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    From a value judgement perspective, it excludes some people from marriage. Wealthier men can horde wives at the cost to less prvileged men creating a societal imbalance. At least same-sex marriage was largely inclusive since gays and lesbians were not particularly likely to form lasting marriages with opposite sex individuals.
    Actually there is a lot more wrong with this argument than I initially thought. Not only does it dismiss women having many husbands, but it ignores that polygamy, as opposed to polygyny as per your description, can easily consist of both multiple wives AND husbands. My poly family has two wives and two husbands. We are not the only ones out there.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  8. #438
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    You start with handling the stupidest aspect of many of the incest laws, the non-blood legal relationship. Using the Brady Bunch as an example, because they are probably the best known blended family, what real reason would there be to prevent Greg and Marcia from marrying? Especially given the age they were when they became legal siblings?
    I don't know of any states that prohibit Greg from marrying Marcia. Most "non blood incest" laws are of the step-parent/step-child variety, which boils down to someone having sex with their spouse's child. The best course of action there is not to challenge the law, but to get a divorce.

  9. #439
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Part 1:
    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I don't know of any states that prohibit Greg from marrying Marcia. Most "non blood incest" laws are of the step-parent/step-child variety, which boils down to someone having sex with their spouse's child. The best course of action there is not to challenge the law, but to get a divorce.
    Connecticut:"Any person related within degrees specified in 46b-21; No man may marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece, stepmother or stepdaughter, and no woman may marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, uncle, nephew, stepfather or stepson" No mention of blood related status. Refers to marriage.

    Delaware:"Without regard to legitimacy or adoption, male & his child, parent, brother, sister, grandchild, niece or nephew, father's sister or brother, mother's sister or brother, father's wife, wife's child, child of his wife's son or daughter; female & her parent, child, brother, sister, grandchild, niece or nephew, father's sister or brother, mother's sister or brother, mother's husband, husband's child, child of her husband's son or daughter." Refers to sexual intercourse

    Kentucky:"Known ancestor, descendant, brother, or sister without regard to legitimacy, adoption, whole or half blood, or stepparent and stepchild" refers to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse (whatever that may be)

    New Mexico:"Persons known to be parents and children (including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree), brothers and sisters of half and whole blood, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews" Refers to marriage or sexual intercourse. With the bold part it is to be noted that it comes after the mention of blood, Which I actually find strange. Maybe a copy error from the law itself or over looked wording. But as is it implies any relation not just blood.

    New York:"Persons known to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece" refers to marriage, sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, or anal sexual conduct. Again the whole/half blood qualifier is only on the siblings further enforcing the implication that it is any relationship for what is in bold.

    North Carolina:"Person that is grandparent or grandchild; parent or child or stepchild or adopted child; brother or sister of whole or half-blood; uncle aunt, nephew or niece" Refers to "Carnal intercourse" however that may be different from regular intercourse.

    Rhode Island:"No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife, daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister; No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, son's son, daughter's son, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, son's daughter's husband, daughter's daughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's son's son, husband's daughter's son, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or mother's brother." Refers to marriage. Boy they detailed this one down. There is a lot there that I have to wonder about since if a man divorces his wife and then marries the woman's mother or daughter (assuming the daughter is not his own, which is why they put it in the law) does that violate the law since the first woman is no longer his wife. Same with stepmother, if she is no longer married to his father, does she still count as the stepmother. A lot of these seem moot given that one cannot have more than one marriage, currently. I also note a lack of steps. For example a man may not marry his brother's daughter, but if his brother has a step daughter is that allowed? Still there is no mention of blood being required thus step is out I would say, although it's a tough call from a layman's perspective.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #440
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Part 2:


    South Carolina:"(1) A man with his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister; (2) A woman with her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother." Refers to carnal intercourse. See Rhode Island. Although it is interesting to note that incest, by law, in some of these states does not cover same sex relations. Looking at SC here as an example technically a man and his son or his brother is legit, unless they are defining intercourse as only penis/vagina penetration


    South Dakota:"Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, or aunts and nephews, and between cousins of the half as well as of the whole blood, are null and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate and include such relationships that arise through adoption." refers to mutually consensual sexual penetration. I find it strange to not whole and half blood and then claim that adoption counts too, but it is still another example of where the non linear non blood relationship is prohibited.


    Texas:"Person known to be ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; current or former stepchild or stepparent; parent's brother or sister of the whole or half blood; brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption; children of the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption; the son or daughter of the actor's aunt or uncle of the whole or half blood or by adoption." Refers to "Sexual intercourse (any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ), deviate sexual intercourse (any contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person)"


    West Virginia:"Engaging with his or her father, mother, brother, sister, daughter, son, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, nephew, niece, uncle or aunt." Refers to "Sexual intercourse (any act between persons involving penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ by the male sex organ or involving contact between the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another person) or sexual intrusion (any act between persons involving penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ or of the anus of any person by an object for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the person so penetrated or for gratifying the sexual desire of either party)." Again no specification of blood ties being required so step is covered.

    Reference:http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_inc...rt%20_2010.pdf


    That's 11 states whose incest laws cover non blood non linear relationships. I do find it interesting to note that some states only have incest laws against sex but not marriage, meaning that should they wish to push the issue a sibling pair could get a legal marriage in some states and never consummate it and it would not be illegal. Other states apply the incest law only to marriage and thus do not forbid the sexual relationship. I also have a feeling that many of these laws will have to change to accommodate same sex relations, either in marriage or sex as per the state, as they are not actually covered by law.
    Last edited by maquiscat; 07-04-15 at 06:37 AM.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

Page 44 of 55 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •