Why won't the government legalize polygamy in marriage?

[Pwent]

I get that you're arguing something you don't believe it for fun, and because you really want to push this half-baked slippery slope argument, but we're just running back into the legal analysis of immutability.

But my answer to both questions would more or less be "yes," begrudgingly on the second.

you need someone to explain how monogamous marriage doesnt allow people to marry who they love? they love more than one person and now they face the same "oppression" that gay people faced when they couldnt be married to the person they love

 

[HomerThompson]

the argument for same sex marriage is that "marrying the person you love" should be covered under "pursuit of happiness"

there absolutely is a basis for the inference of immutability

the most obvious cultural basis is many people have sex outside of marriage
the most obvious scientific basis is that people can be attracted to more than one person

Marrying the person you love who also happens to be an individual consenting adult. You've been a real spaz lately man.

 

[Pwent]

Marrying the person you love who also happens to be an individual consenting adult. You've been a real spaz lately man.

why is "individual" important? or less important than the previous distinction of "of the opposite sex"

 

[HomerThompson]

why is "individual" important? or less important than the previous distinction of "of the opposite sex"

Because marriage is a contract. A contract between 2 individuals is what the marriage contract is. Anything else is a total mess, and has no place in a modern society.

 

[Pwent]

Because marriage is a contract. A contract between 2 individuals is what the marriage contract is. Anything else is a total mess, and has no place in a modern society.

marriage used to be a religious contract between 2 individuals of opposite sex, now that its not based off religion and doesnt have to be the opposite sex, why cant it be 3 or 4 individuals?

 

[HomerThompson]

marriage used to be a religious contract between 2 individuals of opposite sex, now that its not based off religion and doesnt have to be the opposite sex, why cant it be 3 or 4 individuals?

The sex of the individual isn't important for entering the contract. What is important, is that it is an individual of sound mind, and of age to enter into legal contracts. Those are the necessary factors for entering into this kind of contract.

 

[Pwent]

The sex of the individual isn't important for entering the contract. What is important, is that it is an individual of sound mind, and of age to enter into legal contracts. Those are the necessary factors for entering into this kind of contract.

there can also be more than 2 parties to a contract, so whats your point

 

[HomerThompson]

there can also be more than 2 parties to a contract, so whats your point

Not this type of contract, dummy.

 

[Pwent]

Not this type of contract, dummy.

and marriage contracts also required people to be of 2 different genders. so it was also "not this type of contract" before it was changed

 

[Mondo Freaks]

hey, if a man can support multiples wives and kids then I dont see why not.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I hate to nitpick, but isn't that a sheep? And a male one?

 

[Wally Brando]

1-lol at making 2 separate replies without being replied to

2-it doesnt have the same positive effect as traditional marriage because it doesnt produce future tax payers

I knew you'd try to duck so I had to get in you face.

That's the lamest justification for robbing people of their human rights I've ever heard. Should barren people be banned from marrying because they can't produce future tax payers?

and lol. Like you pay taxes.

 

[Jim Bob]

I hate to nitpick, but isn't that a sheep? And a male one?

You got me on this one! Lol

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

if more gay men married each other then there would be less men available for women to marry, or the reverse

and why does it matter if rich men have harems

1) Lesbians would also marry each other so there would be less woman in the marrying pool to offset less men.

2) Because there will be less women in the marrying pool for average men.

 

[Trotsky]

you need someone to explain how monogamous marriage doesnt allow people to marry who they love? they love more than one person and now they face the same "oppression" that gay people faced when they couldnt be married to the person they love

You can keep acting like your argument is constitutionally self-explanatory, but that won't make it so. Whatever the argument, polyamorous persons still receive the same rights as everyone else, which was not the case for gay persons. So equal protection is fulfilled.

I do like how you put "oppression" in quotation marks to remind readers that you're a asshole as well as a dummy.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

But will it just be men who can have multiple wives, and can those same wives then have multiple husbands?

I want multiple wives, but will never permit my wives to have multiple husbands. There is some kind of inequality there.

 

[oldshadow]

There is no intelligent argument against it as long as they are consenting adults.

Consenting adults was the cry for as marriage.

 

[Wally Brando]

Eh I'm for people doing what they want. If works for them fine. I personally haven't seen it work out but I come from a cultural where the standard is a monogamous relationship.

My buddy films music festivals and he acts like ravers have discovered a new thing because even people in "committed" relationship sleep around and I'm like "no that's just called being high all the time in your twenties." But whatever floats people's boats I don't really give a fuck so long as everyone is a consenting adult.

 

[no fat chicks]

Pretty indifferent.

 

[Abortedone]

Because most men can't put up with one woman's shit let alone any more