⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
Three cheers for morality!
Why not? What makes passing judgement on polyamory any more ok than on homosexuality?What would their Constitutional argument be? Religious discrimination I doubt would fly since as of now no religion can have state sanctioned polygamy, not muslim, momon, hindu, satanist, wiccan, etc.
This is one of the reasons I am not too keen on making gay marriage "legal."
Allowing the government to regulate gay marriage in addition to straight marriage isn't progress any more than allowing white women to own black people as slaves in addition to allowing white men to own black people as slaves would have been a couple centuries ago.
Progress would be people telling their government not to regulate things that are none of its damn business.
That doesn't sound like a constitutional argument to me.So the Constitutional argument is because gays can get married polygamy should be allowed to?
The first is that one must be naming another person to be their one irreplacable partner.
The second is that both participants must be of the age of legal majority, in their sound mind, and be consenting to the arrangement.
I wouldn't want to see cousins marrying either, but, in the case of homosexuality, that restriction makes no sense though I find the thought of cousins coupling to be rather revolting.
Maybe the fabric of its purpose needs to change then. Perhaps the fabric of its purpose should be determined by the consenting adults involved, rather than by the government.No one is passing judgment on polyamory as far as I can tell. I don't give a flying rat's ass who someone falls in love with. However, to take part in the marriage contract without changing the fabric of its purpose, certain requirements need to be met.
But I must point out that polygamy is illegal in every state. Homosexuality is not. That is a key factor in determining the legitimacy of polygamous marriage contracts being recognized by the state.
Further, it wouldn't be a marriage in the sense that we know it because the participants are not naming one person to be their irreplacable partner. They are naming several to stand in for each other. I believe that's already an exisiting contract: corporation.