CDZ Do you support polygamy?

[ChrisL]

Oh bullshit.

No flaming?

Seriously, I believe there should be no restraints on who should be allowed to marry who or what they choose and no restraints on numbers. That would end so many disputes over who/what was to inherit, who or what could be at the bedside to comfort a sick or dying person or creature.

It's not the marriages that cause trouble; it's those troubled by the marriages.

I'm not flaming. I think you are bullshitting me is all.

 

[HenryBHough]

Very few species live long enough to reach the age of consent which is 18 in most states.

And there's another problem. In many countries there is a much lower age of consent or, in some, none at all. In Europe, held to be the ultimate in "civilization" by so many, Newborn infants were "married" to further political goals. That they were not immediately "consumated" is a matter for the consideration of the parties (and those of immediate family it does seem) but not of the population.

 

[ChrisL]

Very few species live long enough to reach the age of consent which is 18 in most states.

And there's another problem. In many countries there is a much lower age of consent or, in some, none at all. In Europe, held to be the ultimate in "civilization" by so many, Newborn infants were "married" to further political goals. That they were not immediately "consumated" is a matter for the consideration of the parties (and those of immediate family it does seem) but not of the population.

So you advocate child marriage?

 

[ChrisL]

How about a serious response? This isn't the flamer zone.

I AM serious and believe all those things I enumerated ought to be legal and accepted by society. No flaming, just clearly stating my feelings on the matter. I'm surprised anyone "tolerant" could find that troubling!

Is there some reason I might not be entitled to hold and express my beliefs?

Very few species live long enough to reach the age of consent which is 18 in most states.

So? What's your point?

 

[HenryBHough]

So . . . you are serious in saying that you think a person should be able to marry a goat?

Yes!

Is not it written:

"A woman for children"
"A boy for pleasure"
"A goat for necessity"

Colonel Cross of the Gurkhas - The Atlantic

But that is flawed through gender specificity. I'm rather at a loss to rewrite it to be properly inclusive. But we could append: "the terms 'woman' and "boy' are by way of example, not by way of limitation".

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . you are serious in saying that you think a person should be able to marry a goat?

Yes!

Is not it written:

"A woman for children"
"A boy for pleasure"
"A goat for necessity"

Colonel Cross of the Gurkhas - The Atlantic

But that is flawed through gender specificity. I'm rather at a loss to rewrite it to be properly inclusive. But we could append: "the terms 'woman' and "boy' are by way of example, not by way of limitation".

Can you have a serious discussion? Otherwise, this is just a waste of your time and mine.

 

[HenryBHough]

So you advocate child marriage?

Whether I do or do not advocate is not important. What IS important is that the right should not be infringed by vulgar, antiquated belief systems.

 

[ChrisL]

So you advocate child marriage?

Whether I do or do not advocate is not important. What IS important is that the right should not be infringed by vulgar, antiquated belief systems.

It is important to me. Now if you would state your position on this topic, that would be great. Thanks!

 

[HenryBHough]

It is important to me. Now if you would state your position on this topic, that would be great. Thanks!

OK, we'll try again.

If confined to the limited choices presented at the start of this thread I'll state that the closest I can come to describing my position is: I’m for promiscuity!

However I do not restrict that to simple bigamy; rather to true polygamy and broadly enough that in any given relationship one male might have multiple female wives and each of the females, without dissolving the first "union" fare entitled to multiple husbands. But even that is restrictive and the species limitations ought not apply. There are already relationships in which, for example, a man feels closer to his dog than to his wife or, perhaps, a woman closer to her cat than to her husband. Why should they not be allowed to express that openly? Should there be sex between them? Myself I don't find the prospect attractive but, if someone might, then what business is it of yours or mine.

Once it's no longer "one man/one woman" - which was wrong to begin with - then what restrictions can be supported....and if anyone tries to restrict them should it not be played out in court in light of recent precedent?

Yes, there are those who would deny a fair hearing but that, of course, would be (or should be) against such a person'd very own principles unless they had opposed the original matter going to court.

 

[FA_Q2]

Consequently, there are no 14th Amendment 'violations' denying three or more people to marry because no law exists to accommodate such a configuration.

In your mind because you support that kind of legal barrier but not to those that are gay.

Sorry but the base reasoning is identical weather or not you wish to acknowledge it.

 

[ChrisL]

It is important to me. Now if you would state your position on this topic, that would be great. Thanks!

OK, we'll try again.

If confined to the limited choices presented at the start of this thread I'll state that the closest I can come to describing my position is: I’m for promiscuity!

However I do not restrict that to simple bigamy; rather to true polygamy and broadly enough that in any given relationship one male might have multiple female wives and each of the females, without dissolving the first "union" fare entitled to multiple husbands. But even that is restrictive and the species limitations ought not apply. There are already relationships in which, for example, a man feels closer to his dog than to his wife or, perhaps, a woman closer to her cat than to her husband. Why should they not be allowed to express that openly? Should there be sex between them? Myself I don't find the prospect attractive but, if someone might, then what business is it of yours or mine.

Once it's no longer "one man/one woman" - which was wrong to begin with - then what restrictions can be supported....and if anyone tries to restrict them should it not be played out in court in light of recent precedent?

Yes, there are those who would deny a fair hearing but that, of course, would be (or should be) against such a person'd very own principles unless they had opposed the original matter going to court.

Why? Because it's fucking stupid, that's why. If a person feels closer to a dog than to his wife, then he or she has no business being married at all. Get a divorce and be with your dog. No need to marry it. It cannot give consent to such a relationship, neither can children.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A Future History Lesson by The Progressive Patriot 5.7.14

While people continue to wring their hands and agonize over same sex marriage, I thought that I would offer some thoughts about what might lie ahead and what we might do to smooth the way. We must realize that down the road anything can happen. Any number of issues, foreseen or not can arise. I frequently rail against slippery slope predictions-such as plural marriage- that are injected into the same sex marriage debate. However, I do so not because I dismiss the possibility that a redefinition of marriage now, can lead to other changes later. Nor am I voicing a moral objection. Rather, I believe that we must deal with further change at the right time, learn from history, and be smarter going forward in order to avoid, or at least minimize the anguish that has plagued the gay marriage debate. I believe that we first have to deal with marriage equality in the here and now and new issues as they arise, spontaneously, in the future. Here is a time line of how it might all play out:

2015: While the debate over same sex marriage continues and more states allow it, intersexual people, those who are not clearly male or female are revealing themselves and begin to assert their rights. In a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, a couple applies for a marriage license. One of them, who wants to marry a male, has the biological and chromosomal characteristic of both a male and a female. This person has an androgynous name and appearance and refuses to identify as male or female. In fact many government forms that ask for “gender” have an option for “other” which this person chooses. The license request is rejected on the basis of marriage still being between a man and a woman.

2015: Later that year, SCOTUS has ruled that same sex people have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as they are now a protected class as well as deserving of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. States that refuse to legislate it are forced by federal courts to allow it. However, there is still the matter of intersexual people. Is he/she / whatever the same or opposite sex as his/her partner. Where do they fit in? Even now that same sex marriage is legal, with the court having found that discrimination against same sex couples is unconstitutional, intersexual people may fall between the cracks. They may not be exactly the same sex, nor the opposite sex of their partner. It’s a gray area, and many jurisdictions are unsure of how to deal with it. Furthermore, while gays and same sex marriage is generally accepted, inter-sexuals are regarded as freaks and are being denied other rights as well.

2020: The concept of polyamory-or group marriage, which has been around a while, is gaining in popularity. A heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license to marry another heterosexual couple. At the same time, another couple consisting of a man and a bi sexual woman seek to marry another bi sexual woman. Both applications are rejected and a long and arduous national debate and many court cases ensues. Meanwhile the issue concerning that intersexual situation rages on with some states refusing to be more inclusive.

2025: Inter-sexual people have become rather vocal and militant in demanding rights. More and more of them are choosing to live openly rather than in the closet- pretending to be exclusively male or female. Some, including gays, are accusing them of being bullies in demanding the same rights as “normal’ people, i.e. male or female. As a result of the relentless pushing of the intersexual agenda, some states are changing their laws to include them while others are seeking to ban marriages that include any person who is not clearly male or female. There are also a number of lawsuits pending in state and federal courts.

2030: Group marriage among heterosexuals gains more popular and acceptance, and some states, through legislation or court rulings, are beginning to allow it. Courts find that there is no rational basis for states to deny these marriages. However, all of the cases to date were brought by heterosexual couples who argued that large families of men and women are in keeping with tradition and create the most efficient and efficacious environment for children . They begin to win in court but ruling were narrowly tailored to only include married heterosexual couples or singles marrying other married heterosexual couples or singles. Gays and intersexual people are left out in the cold.

Almost immediately, gay couples are taking notice. They want “equality” –the ability to marry other gay couples and gay singles. More years of debate and legal maneuvering ensue. Rulings go constantly against gay couples. The basis for these rulings is concern for children. While it has been established by this time that gay parenting by a couple does not harm children, studies have emerged-sponsored by the Family Research Council which now supports heterosexual group marriage- that show that a child’s exposure to more than two gay parent figures at a time is in fact harmful, and that is the basis for opposing group marriage for gays. Meanwhile the issue of intersexual people is still unresolved.

2035: The SCOTUS finally decides that marriage is between any two consenting adults solving the problem of what to do about intersexual people. However, group marriage involving gay married couples still is a divisive issue. Furthermore, groups of people-married and single- of different gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are seeking the right to marry and further complicating the issue.

2040: SCOTUS determines that marriage is a universal natural right and that everyone –including intersexuals haves the right to marry as many people as they wish. There is no rational basis or compelling government reason for restricting marriage at all.

Could the road to 2040 have been less arduous? It would have helped if the issue of same sex marriage as it is before us today was resolved sooner, before other alternative lifestyles came to the fore. Even now, the waters are being muddied by those who bring up plural marriage as an invented issue. It can only get worse if it becomes a real issue before the current debate is laid to rest. I will add, that to push the envelope on issues before their time serves no one’s interest, but we must be prepared to address them at the appropriate time in history and cultural evolution. And in dealing with those future issues, it is important that we build on the lessons that were hopefully learned from the earlier matters. However, that will only happen if we can get over the moronic, puritanical and ridged positions that we hold and think more about what actually makes sense and what’s important and relevant in the current cultural and legal environment.

2045: All is well. The angst of the culture wars is a fading memory. Marital bliss for all. But wait! Farmer Brown in Montana wants to marry his flock of sheep. That same year, space aliens who have been living among us for centuries reveal themselves to us. Young people are fascinated by them and “hooking up” and marrying them becomes a fast moving fad. However, marriage is only for and among humans. The fight begins anew. Pat Robertson literally turns in his grave and Michelle Bachman, now 92, comes out of retirement and teams up with Rick Perry 95 and Rick Santorum 93, to start a clinic to cure people of wanting to have sex with aliens, legal or other wise. At the same time, congressional Republicans introduce a constitutional amendment against (space) alien marriage and adopt a party platform to encourage them to self deport. Pope Francis II says “Maybe civil unions”

2048- Republican Presidential candidate Senator William Paul, son of former Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, stated in a speech today that "If not for Republican and conservative support for gay rights, Democrats and liberals would have prevented gay couples from enjoying full rights and benefits of marriage."

 

[FA_Q2]

It is important to me. Now if you would state your position on this topic, that would be great. Thanks!

OK, we'll try again.

If confined to the limited choices presented at the start of this thread I'll state that the closest I can come to describing my position is: I’m for promiscuity!

However I do not restrict that to simple bigamy; rather to true polygamy and broadly enough that in any given relationship one male might have multiple female wives and each of the females, without dissolving the first "union" fare entitled to multiple husbands. But even that is restrictive and the species limitations ought not apply. There are already relationships in which, for example, a man feels closer to his dog than to his wife or, perhaps, a woman closer to her cat than to her husband. Why should they not be allowed to express that openly? Should there be sex between them? Myself I don't find the prospect attractive but, if someone might, then what business is it of yours or mine.

Once it's no longer "one man/one woman" - which was wrong to begin with - then what restrictions can be supported....and if anyone tries to restrict them should it not be played out in court in light of recent precedent?

Yes, there are those who would deny a fair hearing but that, of course, would be (or should be) against such a person'd very own principles unless they had opposed the original matter going to court.

Why is it your business and mine?

Because the entire concept of civil marriage is not only making that union public but entering into a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION - something that a dog simply cannot do. And that is not even covering the fact that consensual agreement must exist where one species cannot give actual consent.

You understand that arbitrary restrictions are not the same as consent and the inability to enter into contract, right?

 

[HenryBHough]

I overlooked stating another aspect of my opinion favoring promiscuous "mariage":

Once it's firmly established as settled law then all jurisdictions must be required to issue the required documentation though they may call them "licenses", "contracts" or whatever term they choose. And importantly, to charge fees for them so long as the fee is consistent regardless of the species participating. The fee being to cover one "event". If a person decides to marry several of the same or opposite sex (or one or more other species) at the same time then only one fee would apply. However an additional "event" occurring later would require payment of an additional fee.

All personnel hired into licensing functions after adoption of the laws (or court rulings) would be required to fulfill those functions or be terminated with loss of all benefits. Those hired prior to the new rules would be allowed to decline. Attrition would resolve any issues in the fullness of time. No non-governmental agency or individual would be required to participate in any way in the forming of such unions however all public officials entering government service after the implement date would be required to fulfill their roles or be terminated as above.

Yes, I believe that!

Some may choose not to so believe and that's their right so long as no court deprives them of that - which one (in my oipinion) will, given time.

 

[HenryBHough]

You understand that arbitrary restrictions are not the same as consent and the inability to enter into contract, right?

As in political proceedings, silence IS consent.

 

[Kosh]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

If you truly believe in "equality" and you truly believe that "marriage" is a "right", then they should back this as well..

But for most it was not about a "right" is was about a political agenda, so you will suddenly see those that once claimed marriage is a :right" on this issue claim that marriage is NOT a "right"..

Don't be too sure of that. I for one, who supports same sex marriage would not be inclined to stand in the way. Anyone who want's plural marriage is free to purse the right to enter into one through legislation or court action. I do however see it as a separate issue with different implications for society. If it ends up in court, states would then have to articulate a rational basis-if not a compelling government interest in banning plural marriages. They failed that test with gay marriage. It would be interesting to see how this would play out.

So you see marriage is not a "right" anymore. It is only a "right" for a small privileged few and not for everyone. See how the far left changes it's mind over what a "right" is..

 

[FA_Q2]

You understand that arbitrary restrictions are not the same as consent and the inability to enter into contract, right?

As in political proceedings, silence IS consent.

Yes, you are obviously trolling here.

 

[presonorek]

So . . . you are serious in saying that you think a person should be able to marry a goat?

Yes!

Is not it written:

"A woman for children"
"A boy for pleasure"
"A goat for necessity"

Colonel Cross of the Gurkhas - The Atlantic

But that is flawed through gender specificity. I'm rather at a loss to rewrite it to be properly inclusive. But we could append: "the terms 'woman' and "boy' are by way of example, not by way of limitation".

Can you have a serious discussion? Otherwise, this is just a waste of your time and mine.

We are all here to waste time. You can't build a spaceship while you are jabbering on a message board.

The objective of this website is to help us all waste time. Be honest. Your schedule really isn't that right. You can fit HenryBHough into your non-busy schedule for four or five hours a day.

 

[Kosh]

So . . . you are serious in saying that you think a person should be able to marry a goat?

Yes!

Is not it written:

"A woman for children"
"A boy for pleasure"
"A goat for necessity"

Colonel Cross of the Gurkhas - The Atlantic

But that is flawed through gender specificity. I'm rather at a loss to rewrite it to be properly inclusive. But we could append: "the terms 'woman' and "boy' are by way of example, not by way of limitation".

Can you have a serious discussion? Otherwise, this is just a waste of your time and mine.

We are all here to waste time. You can't build a spaceship while you are jabbering on a message board.

The objective of this website is to help us all waste time. Be honest. Your schedule really isn't that right. You can fit HenryBHough into your non-busy schedule for four or five hours a day.

I was told a by a mod that this not a discussion board, but an entertainment board..

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . you are serious in saying that you think a person should be able to marry a goat?

Yes!

Is not it written:

"A woman for children"
"A boy for pleasure"
"A goat for necessity"

Colonel Cross of the Gurkhas - The Atlantic

But that is flawed through gender specificity. I'm rather at a loss to rewrite it to be properly inclusive. But we could append: "the terms 'woman' and "boy' are by way of example, not by way of limitation".

Can you have a serious discussion? Otherwise, this is just a waste of your time and mine.

We are all here to waste time. You can't build a spaceship while you are jabbering on a message board.

The objective of this website is to help us all waste time. Be honest. Your schedule really isn't that right. You can fit HenryBHough into your non-busy schedule for four or five hours a day.

I don't know what your reason for being here is, but mine is to talk about issues that concern me.