Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

Tenshinai wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:If he had relationships with all 3 girls at the same time, they all knew about each other, and all consented to the multiple relationships, and they all stayed together, then actually it would be polyamory: Consensual intimate relationships with multiple partners.

And that was exactly the case, which is of course why i used it as an example.

IMHO, justice would be to remove the legal ban on marriages of more than two people. I'm not talking about marrying animals or pedos marrying 12 year olds, I'm talking about legally competent consenting adults. Such people can make their own decisions about love and marriage, whether they're gay, straight or bi. It's their own business. Legal and record-keeping procedures can be adapted to accommodate this.

This is in keeping with a principle I cherish, that government should not interfere in people's personal lives without an overwhelming public interest reason. I don't see such a reason in either gay marriage or polyamory.

dscott8 wrote:
[SNIP]

This is in keeping with a principle I cherish, that government should not interfere in people's personal lives without an overwhelming public interest reason. I don't see such a reason in either gay marriage or polyamory.

The Government's interest is in the procreation, support, and raising of children, and charges to the public purse provides such when relationships break not providing such support. The problem with Gay Marriage is that to procreate one partner must get the sex cells outside of the union. Family medical history of the biological parents is important in genetic health concerns to the children. There are also many legal issues in the breakup of more complex marriages adjudicated in tax supported courts of law. Possibilities of incest and resulting genetic problems from inbreeding from not knowing true biological parents are possible. Mental problems from the break up of complex families where children and parents are sundered from each other. Economic costs as more people in a family demand time off work due to the birth of a child. yada yada yada.

Poker

Procreation is a BS argument. If that was really true then why isn't there a requirement that to be married you must have children?

pokermind wrote:

dscott8 wrote:
[SNIP]

This is in keeping with a principle I cherish, that government should not interfere in people's personal lives without an overwhelming public interest reason. I don't see such a reason in either gay marriage or polyamory.

The Government's interest is in the procreation, support, and raising of children, and charges to the public purse provides such when relationships break not providing such support. The problem with Gay Marriage is that to procreate one partner must get the sex cells outside of the union. Family medical history of the biological parents is important in genetic health concerns to the children. There are also many legal issues in the breakup of more complex marriages adjudicated in tax supported courts of law. Possibilities of incest and resulting genetic problems from inbreeding from not knowing true biological parents are possible. Mental problems from the break up of complex families where children and parents are sundered from each other. Economic costs as more people in a family demand time off work due to the birth of a child. yada yada yada.

Poker

Exactly, but gcomeau didnt think it was, so was just pointing that out.

Tenshinai wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:If he had relationships with all 3 girls at the same time, they all knew about each other, and all consented to the multiple relationships, and they all stayed together, then actually it would be polyamory: Consensual intimate relationships with multiple partners.

And that was exactly the case, which is of course why i used it as an example.

Every one of those arguments applies equally to heterosexual marriages where the couple is infertile for whatever reason.

pokermind wrote:

dscott8 wrote:
[SNIP]

This is in keeping with a principle I cherish, that government should not interfere in people's personal lives without an overwhelming public interest reason. I don't see such a reason in either gay marriage or polyamory.

The Government's interest is in the procreation, support, and raising of children, and charges to the public purse provides such when relationships break not providing such support. The problem with Gay Marriage is that to procreate one partner must get the sex cells outside of the union. Family medical history of the biological parents is important in genetic health concerns to the children. There are also many legal issues in the breakup of more complex marriages adjudicated in tax supported courts of law. Possibilities of incest and resulting genetic problems from inbreeding from not knowing true biological parents are possible. Mental problems from the break up of complex families where children and parents are sundered from each other. Economic costs as more people in a family demand time off work due to the birth of a child. yada yada yada.

Poker

Eyal wrote:Every one of those arguments applies equally to heterosexual marriages where the couple is infertile for whatever reason.

Indeed. And "mental problems from break ups", that depends on how badly the people involved handle it, something that is less likely to involve everyone if there´s more people involved at all.

Spacekiwi wrote:Exactly, but gcomeau didnt think it was, so was just pointing that out.

Even if it was, it still represents nothing any civil rights argument can be made about that needs to be addressed by any changing of current marriage laws. As far as the rights involved are concerned there is no functional difference between that and a guy impregnating a mistress, or just sleeping around and having children by multiple women before settling down and getting married to one. It is hardly a new or unique situation that hetero couples have never had to deal with within the confines of marriage law that represents some unique and unjust burden upon the guy or the triplets or the children. The law as it exists is entirely capable of dealing with that situation.

IMHO, justice would be to remove the legal ban on marriages of more than two people. I'm not talking about marrying animals or pedos marrying 12 year olds, I'm talking about legally competent consenting adults. Such people can make their own decisions about love and marriage, whether they're gay, straight or bi. It's their own business. Legal and record-keeping procedures can be adapted to accommodate this.

This is in keeping with a principle I cherish, that government should not interfere in people's personal lives without an overwhelming public interest reason. I don't see such a reason in either gay marriage or polyamory.

There is an overwhelming public interest.
Inheritance laws and the complexity that polyamorous marriages can bring. Especially when you go the next step and get group marriages, or someone involved in multiple polyamorous marriages at the same time.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sorry, I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding somewehre.I was talking about pokerminds assertation that the allowance of gay marriage would lead to successful litigation to force polyamory and the other things he thought would come form it, purely due to successful litigation around marriage - being between a man and a woman only- being discriminatory. Leading on from that was your statement later on from tenshinais point about the polyamorous relationship, followed on to this. I agree with you that it is hardly unique or new, but i was pointing out that even if common, there was no reason for the arguement to be made that banning polyamory was discriminatory, as opposed to banning gay marriage.



sorry for any confusion.

gcomeau wrote:
Even if it was, it still represents nothing any civil rights argument can be made about that needs to be addressed by any changing of current marriage laws. As far as the rights involved are concerned there is no functional difference between that and a guy impregnating a mistress, or just sleeping around and having children by multiple women before settling down and getting married to one. It is hardly a new or unique situation that hetero couples have never had to deal with within the confines of marriage law that represents some unique and unjust burden upon the guy or the triplets or the children. The law as it exists is entirely capable of dealing with that situation.

Annachie wrote:There is an overwhelming public interest.
Inheritance laws and the complexity that polyamorous marriages can bring. Especially when you go the next step and get group marriages, or someone involved in multiple polyamorous marriages at the same time.

I guess in your world dividing by n+1 is much harder than dividing by n.

You're also constructing ridiculous corner cases and claim that they have to be solved right now, when in actual fact these would and should be solved if and when they actually happen.