- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,357
- Reaction score
- 986
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Seeing as how I don't think being married should influence taxes at all, I'd say yes. Marry all the people you want.
Definitely where we differ. The legality of marriage is sponsored by the state. If something has no benefit to the state, the state has no reason to sponsor it. Plural marriage is not an orientation nor has it been shown to provide any benefits to the individuals, children, or society. I have no issue with polygamy OUTSIDE of state sponsorship.
Free speech and gun rights are a huge detriment to the state. Without these things, the state could very easily grab more and more power. So because it's a detriment to the state and not a benefit, I guess we should get rid of that stuff too? It's about the people, not the government.
What about parks? Those definitely don't benefit the state, they benefit the people.
Free speech and gun rights certainly benefit the state. Free speech allows the free flowing of information. The more information a society has, the more it is able to use that information to progress. Gun rights also benefit the state. A well-armed populace helps the state survive potential threats.
Sure they do. The state has a vested interest in supporting parks. Parks can be positive places for children to be; if children are healthy, society thrives, something that the state certainly has a vested interest in.
So I see you're using the word state to mean "the citizens" and not the term usually associated with it, "the government".
In that case, I don't see why the freedom of a citizen to freely associate or form a contract with another human being isn't in the best interest of society. Should black people be able to vote? It would only really benefit black people, who are a minority. The majority of people wouldn't benefit from it.
No, each of the things I mentioned benefits the government in the way I mentioned. A well informed populace benefits the state, as does a well-armed populace, as to healthy children.
I don't see how.UHC is also a bad idea I strongly disagree with. I was speaking mostly of divorce courts. I know people think they'll live happily ever after forever and ever when they get married, but statistics say otherwise. Domestic courts are tied up enough as it is. This would absolutely destroy an already choked up system.
Aha, so it's what I originally thought, you're concerned about the government and the bureacrats benefit, not the benefit of the citizens.
Back to the scenario I proposed. What if the current government decided it would be in their best interest to disallow black people voting? Should they do that? Apparently rights are only important if they benefit the government.
The government and the bureacrats are held in check by the constitution. Citizens speaking out against them does not benefit them, it makes their jobs harder.
The color six.Which one gets to get married?
The car or the dinosaur?
I do, so what? Polygamy and same sex marriage are two entirely different issues.You don't know ANY gay people, do you?
Not if they're true. Check FalacyFiles.com. If one can show that Z necessarily is the logical consequence of A,B,C.....then it's not a fallacy.Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.
More wives, more cases, more ways to split the property, and more ways to decide custody of the children who are better off in foster homes.I don't see how.
Not in the context of "marriage equality" they aren't.Polygamy and same sex marriage are two entirely different issues.
Not if they're true. Check FalacyFiles.com. If one can show that Z necessarily is the logical consequence of A,B,C.....then it's not a fallacy.
The thing is so many people are more interested in venting their emotions then actually proving an argument.
The number of people marrying and divorcing remains the same, so there wouldn't be an increase in any of those.More wives, more cases, more ways to split the property, and more ways to decide custody of the children who are better off in foster homes.
The only argument that I've seen against SSM is that it's non-traditional. If a person feels that that doesn't matter, it only makes sense to allow other forms of non-traditional marriage if that's the only reason for the opposition. Unless you can show some other reason to oppose polygamy, I don't see why the two issues need to be segregated.The issue would be whether the state has a rational basis to refuse them. Since SSM and polygamy are two different things, the basis for a state banning them would have to be different.
The only argument that I've seen against SSM is that it's non-traditional. If a person feels that that doesn't matter, it only makes sense to allow other forms of non-traditional marriage if that's the only reason for the opposition. Unless you can show some other reason to oppose polygamy, I don't see why the two issues need to be segregated.
No one is saying that they're the same issue, but some things are analagous and it's wrong to apply logic selectively.The reason they are separate issues is because they are not the same issue. To simplify it way down: is 2 the same thing as more than 2? If the answer is no, then they are not the same thing. Just as liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism are all political ideologies, you cannot call them all the same idea, so too while SSM, mixed sex marriage and polygamy are all types of marriage, they are not the same as each other.
No one is saying that they're the same issue, but some things are analagous and it's wrong to apply logic selectively.
Yes it should.Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
It's perfectly fine for you to bring that up, but you made it sound like two issues should never be discussed in the same thread.They are not analogous though. They have different personal, social and psychological effects as one very important example.
It's perfectly fine for you to bring that up, but you made it sound like two issues should never be discussed in the same thread.
Please tell us about these personal, social and psychological effects.
Sane, consenting adults should be able to do ANYTHING they want to each other.
If a guy wants to marry 50 different women - and they all agree - go ahead.
Just make sure they are all sane adults.
And I do not have a cat - but if I did, I think I would call him/her Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.