CDZ Do you support polygamy?

[quorthon]

Powerful and beautiful men should take on multiple wives, or a wife and numerous concubines. Or multiple husbands. Powerful and beautiful women should do the same but with men. Or other women.
​

Like your point. But I don't like same-sex polygamy.
Same-sex polygamy is laughable even to imagine, I don't think there would be many marriages like that.​

 

[pauls]

People need to be who they truly are and let others do the same. I don't see polygamy as viable except in the rarest of occasions or within a context where it is a social norm.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

 

[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.

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

Then I guess you lost 35 seconds of your life that you'll never get back. You lost another 35 seconds by reading this post. Maybe you should log off. You are already 1 minute and 10 seconds in the hole.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

Not sure why, but my understanding is that they do. I see no reasonable legal reasoning for the gay couple to wait, and that would be the gay couples sucessful legal argument.

Laws still do have to meet certain criteria afterall.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

A rational basis is not the test it must pass but a smaller part of the test. The actual test is if the state has a compelling interest in denying access to marriage law.

If we accept that procreation is not a fundamental part of marriage (and we have) then it follows that there is no compelling reason at all.

 

[Steinlight]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

A rational basis is not the test it must pass but a smaller part of the test. The actual test is if the state has a compelling interest in denying access to marriage law.

If we accept that procreation is not a fundamental part of marriage (and we have) then it follows that there is no compelling reason at all.

It would depend on the level of scrutiny afforded the issue and the group that is petitioning the court

 

[Pop23]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

 

[Preacher]

For 1 man multiple women. I am for it mostly because its mostly white mormons that are polygamous which means more white babies. I am all for more white folks!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

I'm not really arguing anything . We're just kicking this around here. It's a very interesting twist indeed. Those opposed to same sex marriage claim that it is legitimate to do so because gays allegedly do not procreate. Wisconsin is saying that certain couples can marry only if they can't procreate. The difference is that in the case of gays, there is no legitimate reason to deny them marriage on the basis of their ability to procreate since -among other things -many heterosexuals cannot or do not either. With cousins, if you buy into the genetic defect theory, there may be a legitimate concern about their ability to procreate.

 

[Pop23]

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

I'm not really arguing anything . We're just kicking this around here. It's a very interesting twist indeed. Those opposed to same sex marriage claim that it is legitimate to do so because gays allegedly do not procreate. Wisconsin is saying that certain couples can marry only if they can't procreate. The difference is that in the case of gays, there is no legitimate reason to deny them marriage on the basis of their ability to procreate since -among other things -many heterosexuals cannot or do not either. With cousins, if you buy into the genetic defect theory, there may be a legitimate concern about their ability to procreate.

Heterosexuals that marry and do not procreate do fall into demographic groups:

1. Are reproductively disabled.
2. Fear the birth and the physical problems it can present
3. The elderly
4. And I think this is interesting. It's none of our business because Roe v Wade protects reproductive privacy

Now, same sex coupling do not produce children, so #1 nor #2 or #3 seem at all applicable, and #4? Would a gay couple plead protection because they have a right to reproductive privacy?

There simply seems no reasonable legal way to stop a same sex 1st cousin from marrying whether they are sterile or not, older then 55 or not.

 

[presonorek]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

When was this law passed in Wisconsin? Was it recently? This sounds like an 150 year old law. If that is the case then it won't come up in reference to Scott Walker.

 

[Pop23]

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

When was this law passed in Wisconsin? Was it recently? This sounds like an 150 year old law. If that is the case then it won't come up in reference to Scott Walker.

Interesting, the age of the law, or the tradition, makes a difference?

Well, I think we can count on many new laws since same sex siblings can't procreate.

 

[presonorek]

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?

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

Was Scott Walker the one who signed this into law?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Is the base legal reasoning the same, or the moral reasoning? That's an important distinction.

Certainly I can see similarities in arguments for polygamous marriage and same sex marriage. However, a same sex marriage of 2 adults fits into already existing marriage law while a polygamous marriage does not. There are many details of a polygamous marriage which current marriage law does not cover.

I'm not trying to argue against polygamous marriages, I honestly have no problem with the idea. However, using the precedent of same sex marriage as a legal argument to legitimize polygamous marriage does not work IMO. A same sex couple was being denied access to existing marriage law (at least that was the gist of the ruling as I understand it, agree or disagree) while a polygamous marriage cannot exist under existing marriage law, new law would need to be created.

I think this would be far less of an issue if marriages were simply contracts taken out by the individuals involved rather than a set of predetermined rules set up by the state. That would require much more effort and likely money on the part of those entering marriages, and quite possibly would lead to even more contentious divorces than we already have, though.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

I'm not saying that there is. As I said, just kicking it around. This thread has gotten very strange.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

I'm not really arguing anything . We're just kicking this around here. It's a very interesting twist indeed. Those opposed to same sex marriage claim that it is legitimate to do so because gays allegedly do not procreate. Wisconsin is saying that certain couples can marry only if they can't procreate. The difference is that in the case of gays, there is no legitimate reason to deny them marriage on the basis of their ability to procreate since -among other things -many heterosexuals cannot or do not either. With cousins, if you buy into the genetic defect theory, there may be a legitimate concern about their ability to procreate.

Heterosexuals that marry and do not procreate do fall into demographic groups:

1. Are reproductively disabled.
2. Fear the birth and the physical problems it can present
3. The elderly
4. And I think this is interesting. It's none of our business because Roe v Wade protects reproductive privacy

Now, same sex coupling do not produce children, so #1 nor #2 or #3 seem at all applicable, and #4? Would a gay couple plead protection because they have a right to reproductive privacy?

There simply seems no reasonable legal way to stop a same sex 1st cousin from marrying whether they are sterile or not, older then 55 or not.