Euthanasia IS being killed with consent. You can't say that one does not have the freedom/right to be killed by another if he gives consent, and then say that euthanasia is allowable. That's like saying you can't have any kind of canine, but you are allowed to have a dog.
That was the wrong argument to use, as it is already against the law to have more than one spouse. The logical step from your response is that polygamist have to follow the law of having only one spouse.
I believe that you meant that any poly marriage would still require all participants to be at or over the age of consent.
As much as I hate to say it, they are comparable in the context given because we are talking about actions/whatever, that should be allowed by consenting adult individuals as long as no harm is imposed upon any non-consenting or non-adult individual.
You keep ignoring the AGE of consent argument. When we keep saying that the choice needs to be available for consenting ADULTS, and you bring up children, then you are being dishonest at worst or using a red herring argument at best.
If you can't see it Chris, then you are more optimistic than most of the poly community. Most of us realize that these legal hurdle are present.
Neither I nor, I'm sure, MD disagrees with you per se', except to note that even your suggestion has to be codified into law.
The argument for what the age of consent should be is a separate issue from poly marriages. In the course of world history the age of consent has been as young as 11. But age of consent is irrelevant to the issue of poly marriages, because we are discussing marriages between 2 or more individuals above the age of consent. Do not move the goal posts that we are not even heading for.
You know, and I don't mean this in any negative manner, but I think there are key point from both sides here that are getting lost in translation.
I think I just figured it out! Medusa, are you automatically equating polygamy as being an adult male with underage females? If such is the case then you are sorely mistaken. Just like the legal act of sex in general is illegal with an underage individual, so would the conceptually legal act of poly marriages be illegal if it involved any underage individuals
Ok Dan chill a bit. While I would credit Medusa with confusion or even improper premises, she has at no point shown herself to be lying. That is to say, she has done nothing that exhibits that she is telling an untruth, knowing what the truth is and intentionally intending to deceive.
But the arguments are misapplied. You're basically telling us something can't be blue because it's round. The two have nothing to do with each other.
As much as I hate pitching for the other side of the argument...
Yes the laws CAN change. Would they? Most likely not, but Medusa seems to be under the impression that they will, or if I am correct about the assumption of polygamy she has that I mentioned above should, at least as far as if you allow this one act by perverts (as she is seeing poly) then you need to allow the other acts of perverts (pedophilia, at least at the teenage level).
Secondly, since we are talking about the legal impact of poly marriage, it is indeed to a point the business of anyone potentially affected by changes in the law. It's not our business of whom they decide to marry or even if they decide to marry, but changing the laws on how many can enter into a single marriage contract can impact the rest of us.
Many of us are probably misunderstanding you. You keep using consent as a noun when it is a verb. 17 year old girls are not consent, they either or giving or withdrawing consent or they are below, at or above the age of consent. As I said earlier, I think the translation issue is causing misunderstandings i both directions.
WOW. You are late to the game on that aspect. The poly community is quite spread out across this country and around the world. The vast majority of us are NOT like the Mormon sects out Utah/Arizona way. We don't believe in children being part of the marriage, although they are part of the family just like in mono marriages. We don't believe in interbreeding. And there are plenty enough of us out there, that we really don't need to. If you go to Fetlife, and look up poly as an interest, there are over 1,000 people alone there. And that's just the tip of the iceberg because many of us list poly in our relationship status or just in our profile wording and never add it to our interest list, because we don't see poly as a fetish, but as a lifestyle. And that is just the tip of an even larger iceberg because it's just a small percentage of polys who bother being part of Fetlife.
As for the expected to marry 3 of them statement, you are applying an Islamic practice/tenant, again an extreme minority among all polys, to the rest of us. First off, as polys we don't expect any given number within a given marriage group. A vast majority of us tend to stick to triads or v's. Group families as you see on Sister Wives are on the large side.
The problem with the perception of polys is that you get the Islamists and the fundie Mormons who are abusing their women and of course are put front and center into the public eye. Most polys, realizing that we are a minority among the overall population, tend not to advertise our lifestyle. It's similar to mixed race marriages/relationship before the civil rights movement or same gender relationships until relatively recently.
l can say ,because not everybody can have the right to be consent to be killed! .euthanasia is very different issue .one of my realtives who was cancer patient committed suicide because she couldnt get over the pain she had to suffer during radiotherapy sessions .who can be killed depends on the conditions. and please dont quote lots of posts.l dont have to try to look for your responses..and your marginal ideas have no validity .