This thread isn’t for gay marriage debate. Gay marriage gets too much ‘me’ time, while other arrangements get little discussion. This is a thread about ending (or not) discrimination against bisexual, polygamous, and incestous relationships. The forgetten groups of consenting adults, basically.
If the marital arrangement benefits the people, their children, and society why would you not support it?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If the marital arrangement benefits the people, their children, and society why would you not support it?[/quote]
Exactly! Every adult should recieve marriage benefits!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Exactly! Every adult should recieve marriage benefits![/quote]
Sure, as long as the relationship isn’t inherently harmful and benefits the couple, their children and society in some way.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Exactly! Every adult should recieve marriage benefits!
Sure, as long as the relationship is between consenting adults and benefits the couple, their children and society.
[/quote]
Well, you said couple, and we’re trying to avoid that. And of course they may not have children, so that shouldn’t be a factor.
If they do have children though, the arrangement should benefit rather than hurt the children.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If they do have children though, the arrangement should benefit rather than hurt the children.[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m talking about consenting ADULTS, related or not, of whatever number, having sex or not, recieving marriage benefits.
The age of consent needs to be done away with. Mohammed married a six year old, and it would be descriminatory not to allow Muslims to follow his example, as they do under shari’ah law.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The age of consent needs to be done away with. Mohammed married a six year old, and it would be descriminatory not to allow Muslims to follow his example, as they do under shari’ah law. [/quote]
Not only that, if a six years old is old enough to consent, he/she must be old enough to vote, too. And to get a drivers license. And buy liquor.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m talking about consenting ADULTS, related or not, of whatever number, having sex or not, recieving marriage benefits. [/quote]
What I mean is that IF the consenting adults have children, the marriage should not be harmful to their children.
For example, if it can be reliably demonstrated that polygamy is damaging to children then polygamy should not be legal.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The age of consent needs to be done away with. Mohammed married a six year old, and it would be descriminatory not to allow Muslims to follow his example, as they do under shari’ah law.
Not only that, if a six years old is old enough to consent, he/she must be old enough to vote, too. And to get a drivers license. And buy liquor.[/quote]
We’ll let the imams settle those questions for us. Clearly, a woman should not be allowed outside without a male escort. Alcohol will have to be forbidden. Oh well. Values and norms change with the times!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The age of consent needs to be done away with. Mohammed married a six year old, and it would be descriminatory not to allow Muslims to follow his example, as they do under shari’ah law. [/quote]
Historical precedence doesn’t justify a practice, despite all the hyperventilating about traditional marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The age of consent needs to be done away with. Mohammed married a six year old, and it would be descriminatory not to allow Muslims to follow his example, as they do under shari’ah law.
Historical precedence doesn’t justify a practice, despite all the hyperventilating about traditional marriage.[/quote]
Right. That’s why I’m arguing FOR the government to stop discriminating against Muslim marriages. Try to keep up.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m talking about consenting ADULTS, related or not, of whatever number, having sex or not, recieving marriage benefits.
What I mean is that IF the consenting adults have children, the marriage should not be harmful to their children.
For example, if it can be reliably demonstrated that polygamy is damaging to children then polygamy should not be legal.[/quote]
Polygamy has been practiced throughout history. I don’t see how a polygamous marriage between consenting adults would be damaging in a tolerant society. Maybe instead of just teaching Heather has Two Mommies, we could teach that Heather has 4 mommies and one dad. Or whatever arrangement one prefers to teach.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Right. That’s why I’m arguing FOR the government to stop discriminating against Muslim marriages. Try to keep up. [/quote]
You’re arguing FOR the government to sanction Muslim marriages on the basis of historical precedence. Get it yet?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Polygamy has been practiced throughout history. I don’t see how a polygamous marriage between consenting adults would be damaging in a tolerant society. Maybe instead of just teaching Heather has Two Mommies, we could teach that Heather has 4 mommies and one dad. Or whatever arrangement one prefers to teach.[/quote]
Just because something has been practiced throughout history doesn’t mean it is inherently beneficial to the family and society.
Not that I’m constitutionally opposed to polygamy, I think it should be evaluated on its own merits to determine whether or not it meets the standard we’ve been discussing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Right. That’s why I’m arguing FOR the government to stop discriminating against Muslim marriages. Try to keep up.
You’re arguing FOR the government to sanction Muslim marriages on the basis of historical precedence. Get it yet?[/quote]
Uh, no I’m not. I’m arguing for it based on the principle of governmental non-discrimination. Get it yet?
Beneficial to the family? We’re talking about people consenting to the arrangement. As far as children, I’m still confused. Are you saying those with polygamy orientation might be prone to child abuse/molestation?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, no I’m not. I’m arguing for it based on the principle of governmental non-discrimination. Get it yet?[/quote]
You said:
If the historical precedent of Mohammed’s marriage is irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beneficial to the family? We’re talking about people consenting to the arrangement. As far as children, I’m still confused. Are you saying those with polygamy orientation might be prone to child abuse/molestation?[/quote]
I’m going to take it a step further and argue that the age of consent and the age of majority are both historical constructs and need to be done away with. Values change with the times.