Bisexuals

[novasteve]

So if I consent to my own murder that's cool? Why can a 12 year old consent to abortion but not sex?

 

[AmyNation]

Is this thread about abortion, murder or sexual consent laws?

 

[PratchettFan]

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

I fail to see how the same arguments cannot and were not applied to every other change to marriage laws. Either there is equality or there is not. If there is not, don't call it equality.

Bigger families and a total restructuring of marriage law are not arguments you can make to any other challenge to marriage law except polygamy.

No. Same argument - just different specifics. The ultimate argument is that the purpose of marriage is to serve the society rather than the individuals in the relationship. It is therefore the place of the government to define marriage.

The reality is that marriage as a contract is no more complicated than any other contract involving more than two parties - which is not at all unusual. Polygamy does not necessarily imply a large family, nor does two person marriage imply small ones. Any relationship is as complicated as those involved in it and that does not change because of a piece of paper.

The only things marriage adds to a relationship are a level of protection under the law for the participants and some tax benefits. Denying someone those benefits simply because it is too compllicated is not equality. It is a justification for inequality.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm not sure I believe it's an either/or argument. I don't think marriage is either serving society or solely for the individual.

 

[PratchettFan]

So if I consent to my own murder that's cool? Why can a 12 year old consent to abortion but not sex?

As far as I am concerned, if you wish to terminate your life that is your decision. Just don't hurt anyone else in the process.

I don't believe a 12 year old can give consent for either. However, if we are going to extend consent to that age then it should certainly be for abortion rather than sex. She should have the absolute right, as should any woman, to make that decision for herself without limit or interference by anyone else - no matter who that person is. Any attempt by anyone to interfere with that right should be a felony. I do hope I am making my position on abortion clear here. Now we can get back to the actual topic you initiated.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not sure I believe it's an either/or argument. I don't think marriage is either serving society or solely for the individual.

And I see it as solely for the individuals involved. Certainly society has an interest that it not result in violence, which is the purpose for all contracts, but beyond that it should have no say in the matter. If three women wish to marry four men, that is entirely their business. They should have all of the rights any other married people enjoy.

Of course, all of this could be resolved by getting government out of the marriage business entirely.

 

[bodecea]

So if I consent to my own murder that's cool? Why can a 12 year old consent to abortion but not sex?

Cool as the Antarctic.

 

[jwoodie]

Or if your girlfriend wants to marry her two boyfriends.

Thats our business though, we're not hurting anyone.

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

No, it wouldn't. Your argument about a "2 party contract" appears to be an artificial distinction designed to insulate gay marriage from legitimate criticism.

 

[AmyNation]

Thats our business though, we're not hurting anyone.

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

No, it wouldn't. Your argument about a "2 party contract" appears to be an artificial distinction designed to insulate gay marriage from legitimate criticism.

You disagree that marriage laws are set up for 2 parties?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Since they "love" both sexes don't anti polygamy laws hurt them? Should only gays and straights be able to marry the people they love?

Another idiot who doesn't know what "bisexual" means.

It means you considerably raise your odds of getting a date!

*runs*

 

[sfcalifornia]

People should be allowed to marry trees and butterflies and every one of God's creatures and it doesn't matter if the hard working hetrosexuals have to shell out for plant and maggot support.

If you can find a church (and I'm sure it exists somewhere in this country) willing to perform the ceremony, then go ahead and marry your tree but don't expect visiting rights if your tree-spouse winds up in the hospital and don't expect to file a joint tax return.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Or if your girlfriend wants to marry her two boyfriends.

Thats our business though, we're not hurting anyone.

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

The tax code alone would be a nightmare......

 

[idb]

Or if your girlfriend wants to marry her two boyfriends.

Thats our business though, we're not hurting anyone.

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

How is a bigger family a greater burden on society?
How does a bigger family have a greater chance for abuse?

 

[Noomi]

Since they "love" both sexes don't anti polygamy laws hurt them? Should only gays and straights be able to marry the people they love?

Bisexuals have no desire to marry multiple people, just as homosexuals have no desire to marry children.

 

[High_Gravity]

Since they "love" both sexes don't anti polygamy laws hurt them? Should only gays and straights be able to marry the people they love?

Bisexuals have no desire to marry multiple people, just as homosexuals have no desire to marry children.

If a bisexual loves a man and a woman, why can he or she not marry both of them?

 

[jwoodie]

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

No, it wouldn't. Your argument about a "2 party contract" appears to be an artificial distinction designed to insulate gay marriage from legitimate criticism.

You disagree that marriage laws are set up for 2 parties?

No, I disagree that "polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and [would] become too complicated and burdensome."

 

[AmyNation]

Thats our business though, we're not hurting anyone.

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

How is a bigger family a greater burden on society?
How does a bigger family have a greater chance for abuse?

If my husband and I fall on hard times and need assistance, it would be he and I and as many children as we were able to make in 10 years of marriage. If my husband, I and his 4 other wives fall on hard times, you now have 4 times the amount of children needing supported by the state.

As for abuse, polygamy is ripe with abuse in this nation. Child brides, cults, molestation, abandoning boy children. You will find this with polygamy all over the world.

 

[AmyNation]

No, it wouldn't. Your argument about a "2 party contract" appears to be an artificial distinction designed to insulate gay marriage from legitimate criticism.

You disagree that marriage laws are set up for 2 parties?

No, I disagree that "polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and [would] become too complicated and burdensome."

We have no laws designed for mulitple partner marriages. We would have to create a whole new set of laws and procedures for it. We would have to figure out how to deal with divorce, inheritance, taxes etc etc. It would be a huge undertaking and could be very burdensome.

 

[idb]

The arguments against polygamy that I think have valid concerns are, bigger families that would be bigger burdens on society and a greater chance for abuse. As well as the fact that marriage law is set up all over the nation as a 2 party contract, and adding polygamy would mean a total restructuring of the system and may become too complicated and burdensome.

How is a bigger family a greater burden on society?
How does a bigger family have a greater chance for abuse?

If my husband and I fall on hard times and need assistance, it would be he and I and as many children as we were able to make in 10 years of marriage. If my husband, I and his 4 other wives fall on hard times, you now have 4 times the amount of children needing supported by the state.

As for abuse, polygamy is ripe with abuse in this nation. Child brides, cults, molestation, abandoning boy children. You will find this with polygamy all over the world.

Should there be a mandated maximum family size then?
You know, just in case they fall on hard times.
Maybe the Chinese were onto something.

In fact, maybe marriage should be discouraged, families with only one parent have one less mouth for the state to feed.
One couple marriage is rife with abuse as well, probably more so than polygamy.

 

[AmyNation]

How is a bigger family a greater burden on society?
How does a bigger family have a greater chance for abuse?

If my husband and I fall on hard times and need assistance, it would be he and I and as many children as we were able to make in 10 years of marriage. If my husband, I and his 4 other wives fall on hard times, you now have 4 times the amount of children needing supported by the state.

As for abuse, polygamy is ripe with abuse in this nation. Child brides, cults, molestation, abandoning boy children. You will find this with polygamy all over the world.

Should there be a mandated maximum family size then?
You know, just in case they fall on hard times.
Maybe the Chinese were onto something.

In fact, maybe marriage should be discouraged, families with only one parent have one less mouth for the state to feed.
One couple marriage is rife with abuse as well, probably more so than polygamy.

Couldn't help the straw man could you?


We, as a society, generally( because there are plently of people who are not ok with helping support other people's families) accept the responsiblity of helping support families down on their luck. A single polygamous family could fill an entire shelter. It's simply, a fact, I'm not a fan of ignoring facts.