Actually I think if all parties are consenting adults that polygamy should not be illegal. The cults who marry off 15 year old girls to 40 year old men are a different story. I am in general opposed to any legislating of personal morality when no one is actively harmed. However, this is a different matter than marriage equality. No slippery slope. If there were, we'd see polygamy in Canada and gay marriage in Saudi Arabia. BTW, the legal definition of incest is all over the map. As has been pointed out, in some U.S. states first cousins can marry; in others it's incest. I don't know if it is still true but at least in the recent past Britain did not consider marriages between adoptive siblings as incest; in the U.S. it is. In some Middle Eastern countries marriage between uncle and niece is not only legal, it's desirable; in Western Europe and North America that is incest. There is also the thorny question of whether it is incest if the parties don't know they are related and find out later. (I remember from that font of wisdom, Dear Abby, a young woman writing to say she wanted to marry the "boy next door" and her mother had to confess to her that the young woman and the "boy next door" had the same father. What if the mother had never confessed her affair, or had died and the secret died with her? Interesting thought experiment.)
The only argument against polygamy that stands up to Reason is that young girls are forced to marry against heir will. I think that should be illegal. But for consenting adults? Where's the beef?
Due to the myriad of ways it affects how people are treated/controlled/rewarded/penalized/prosecuted/imprisoned...by the government and also by the corporations that now run our government. The day our government actually becomes a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it could back out of the issue without harm. Under our current oppressive and corrupt government, it's regulatory involvement in marriage is ironically our only defense against it's inequality in serving married versus single Americans.
Every time I see a photo like this, all I can think about is the massive amount of B.O. that must exist in that scene.
There is nothing wrong with a compassionate society, and I want that too. But voting for a government that forces this compassion causes a fundamental opposition to maintaining responsibility for oneself, freedom and rights.
I know there is the "tl;dr" for "too long; didn't read". Is there an abbreviation for "too much gibberish, didn't read"?
Careful or you'll slip down that slope into the abyss of ... what? Someone nowhere near you being happy?
Not quite. I swear, people would learn a lot by reading the wikipedia page about what a strawman actually is.
I don't think the left hid the fact they support incest or poly "unions". It's part & parcel of anyone can marry whomever they please and for whatever reason they choose. It's the natural evolution of their position. But, I will give you credit for being the first to say so here.
You are exactly correct. Marriage has been defined for several thousand years as a the joining of a man and a woman. There never was an equally protection argument (14th amendment) until now. This slope started with the sixteenth amendment and Congress and the States giving deference or preference to the married couples in tax law. Now that the marriage penalty has been eliminated in tax law, we now have the push to redefine the word marriage. If you accept the word as redefined, (to what ever joining you want) then you violate equal protection clause by not allowing any union any person can conjure up. This is a ridiculous progression as Marriage and the sanctifying of the family unit became basic institution of human society for the betterment and the good of that society. There is no benefit to society for marriage between other than the man and woman. There are benefits though to these individuals due to tax law but only because they will be no longer excluded from the benefits by the original design of the tax law. The intent of tax laws maybe the equal protection violation, not the traditional long standing definition of marriage.
If there are benefits to society for heterosexual marriages, the exact same benefits would come from homosexual marriages. They both show the importance of commitment. They both provide a loving atmosphere for a child. They both provide for merging of accounts to free up capital or time to make the community better.
A hundred years ago, the democrats were really conservative. Way to pass judgment when you don't know the entire details. Ps, when racism was at its highest peak in America, we had democratic leadership. Go figure?!
