View Poll Results: which are Constitutional rights?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • SSM

    12 23.53%
  • polygamy

    0 0%
  • both

    18 35.29%
  • neither

    18 35.29%
  • undecided/other

    3 5.88%
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 152

Thread: the right to marry whoever

  1. #101
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    31,749

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Marriage by itself means nothing and does nothing for anyone. Sex exists for procreation, but is many times done for pleasure. The pleasure exists so people actually involve themselves in the activity. If it didn't have any aspect about that was pleasurable then more than likely there wouldn't be enough children to maintain the species.
    How do you know what I get or don't get from marriage?
    Old saying: Any child can grow up to be President.
    New saying: Any child can be President.

  2. #102
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,462

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Laws are constrained by practical and political realities. Barring incest is something easy to do politically, barring couple with genetic diseases, for example, from having kids would not be easy politically. Instituting some sort of system of testing for genetic factors that cause birth defects would not be easy practically, but knowing who is related how is easy practically. So, that's where the law landed.
    There are many things put into law that was not easy to do politically or practically. Ending slavery, pops to the top of my mind, not to mention interracial marriage. I am not equating these things in any manner save the political and practical ease by which they were put into law. If any state were truly worried about genetic factors, they would not be limiting their concerns to blood relations only. The genetic issues is merely a spin to cover their moral taboo.



    I'm reading it as follows:

    The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either: (i) the whole or (ii) half blood without regard to: (i) legitimacy, (ii) relationship of parent and child by adoption, (iii) relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and (iv) relationship of stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild
    The commas, are important in that law, assuming that you did a copy paste and not typed it out yourself. After the word include the commas separate out the individual criteria. You'll notice there is no commas between blood relations and whole and half. That is all one criteria. The other criteria are devoted to non blood related status. Some states go even further than Kentucky does.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  3. #103
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,462

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    as of right now, only SSM is a "constitutional right".

    progressives had polygamy banned a long time ago.. and I don't see anyone making a fuss over stopping the government from violating that right.. no special flags, no movement, no polymarriage warriors on the prowl hunting down errant disbelievers..... so it will probably remain banned for the foreseeable future.
    ... cuz' government knows best how people should live their lives.
    Actually it was conservatives that had polygamy banned. As to what modern polys are fighting for, we know that to regain our ability to be legally recognized as poly groups there needs to be many changes within the entirety of the law. SSM was simple legally speaking. You simply did not worry about gender. All laws should be as such. But polygamy laws would have to deal with multiple spouses and there is no such easy fix legally. The poly community sees this and is working on getting changes to the law structure that would later allow making polygamy legal easier, from a structural point of view. One of the things we are working on is the cohabitation laws, for example.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  4. #104
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    25,507

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    Puzzle pieces.
    When I've had sex with my boyfriends the pieces always seem to fit just fine, thanks! And, we were very, very intimate.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  5. #105
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,462

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    Because of how rare polygamy is in the first place within the developed world, I'm not sure what we have to look at to determine whether or not they tend to be consensual. But given the countries that do have legal polygamy, you can understand my concerns that at least in these countries, not everyone in a polygamous union is living a happy married life and is treated with respect.
    Oh believe me the poly community has quite the issue with many of the Mideast Muslims and the FLDS out west. They cast such a bad light on the rest of us and they are the only ones the media talk about. And while Cody and his wives are not the best example, we are starting to be shown out there in a more positive light. But many of us have to be "in the closet" about it, because of the FLDS and others. The sad truth is that these people who are abusive in their poly, would be abusive if they were monogamous as well. Abuse is an issue of personality not numbers in a relationship.

    See my response to maquiscat. If a polygamous union is fully consensual, I don't have a problem with legal recognition of it, but is there even a legitimate movement pushing for such a thing?
    not directly as I noted before. We need to get many other laws changed first.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  6. #106
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,462

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    That would have to be ironed out, but it could be and shouldn't be used as an excuse to not allow it.
    Inertia my friend. Legally speaking, and by that I mean the structure of the law, there is a lot more to reverse and correct that there ever was for interracial or same sex marriages.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  7. #107
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,462

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Just as an aside, the more accurate term is "polyamorous" unless you you mean to refer only to situations where there is one guy and many women. "Polyamorous" includes polygamous, but also polyandrous (one woman, multiple men) and whatever other combinations. Presumably any change in the law would apply to all polyamorous relationships, not just polygamous ones.

    Polyamorous relationships are certainly less common than same sex relationships, so the pressure to recognize them is proportionally less, but certainly people in those relationships are just as passionate about getting the right to marry. I think most liberals and libertarians who have spent much time thinking it through are supportive of giving them that right.
    And you, my friend, just demonstrated the common error most people make when it comes to poly. Polygamy simply refers to multiple spouses within a single marriage. Polygyny refers to one man many wives, while polyandry refers to one wife many husbands.

    Polygamous and polyamory are new terms that were coined to reflect the growing number of relationships that while committed, even if only for a relatively short term, are not marriages. An example would be where I currently have two wives and a husband, but am also dating a third woman. The third woman is not part of the polygamy but is part of the polyamory. Also do not confuse having multiple sex partners with polyamory. Polyamory is about the relationship and in some cases occur without sex being involved.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  8. #108
    Actually I am.
    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,388

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Traditionally, it was to check for STDs. In those days, you were not supposed to have sex until you get married, so testing before marriage was supposedly equivalent to getting tested before you have sex with somebody without protection for the first time, which kind of makes sense. But, I think it also had some darker functions, like outing women for not being virgins before the guy signs on the dotted line or preventing somebody who cheats on their spouse and gets an STD from claiming that they must have had it all along.
    It was for both - to check for STDs and to also check for compatibility, genetically.

    Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease. You will not be tested for HIV, but in some states, the person who tests you will provide you with information about HIV and AIDS. In most states, blood tests can be waived for people over 50 and for other reasons, including pregnancy or sterility.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky
    It's easy to be a Conservative, until you need help.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug
    Asking Sarah Palin to head up the Department of Education is like asking Hitler to head up a human rights advocacy group.

  9. #109
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,462

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    How do you know what I get or don't get from marriage?
    Granted that this is my interpretation, but I think that was his point. There is no universal result of marriage, save that the people involved are, well, married. Some marry for love, other power or property. Some marry for fear or an illusion of security.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #110
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    There are many things put into law that was not easy to do politically or practically. Ending slavery, pops to the top of my mind, not to mention interracial marriage. I am not equating these things in any manner save the political and practical ease by which they were put into law. If any state were truly worried about genetic factors, they would not be limiting their concerns to blood relations only. The genetic issues is merely a spin to cover their moral taboo.
    I mean, sure, they sometimes do hard things. They calculate out what is to be gained and weigh it against the political or practical cost. Obviously, something like legalizing sex between same gender siblings would have a very high political cost and almost no actual benefit, so they don't do it.

    The way you're thinking about this isn't quite right. You're thinking of it like if their objective is X, they would do everything that would be ideal for X. That would maybe be true if they were dictators, but in a democracy, it is more like they pick an objective then work towards that objective in fits and starts when opportunities present themselves. Showing that they didn't go all the way to X does not suggest that X isn't their objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    The commas, are important in that law, assuming that you did a copy paste and not typed it out yourself. After the word include the commas separate out the individual criteria. You'll notice there is no commas between blood relations and whole and half. That is all one criteria. The other criteria are devoted to non blood related status. Some states go even further than Kentucky does.
    Depends how you read it. The comma separated list could either be the list of things that are included, or, it could be the list of "without regard for" things, like how I marked it up.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •