"Gay Marriages Have Personally Affected Me,.."

[TastesLikeChicken]

But the point is, just because something doesn't personally affect you, doesn't make it right or harmless. A point which makes the OP's post pointless.

If true that for one person's POV it might not be right or harmless. However, when it is true to the POV of the majority it carries an intrinsic truth with it in the process. It also becomes democratic, and commonly becomes law in the process.

 

[Vaux]

If true that for one person's POV it might not be right or harmless. However, when it is true to the POV of the majority it carries an intrinsic truth with it in the process. It also becomes democratic, and commonly becomes law in the process.

The POV of the majority can be pointless as well. Back in the 90's, it was an overwhelming majority against gay marriage.

So were they right then or are they right now? Change isn't always for the better.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It becomes what the majority supports to make law. Unfortunately some people get hung up on right or wrong as if all must be one way or the other forever and ever. Things change. Deal with it.

 

[Vaux]

It becomes what the majority supports to make law. Unfortunately some people get hung up on right or wrong as if all must be one way or the other forever and ever. Things change. Deal with it.

Way to totally avoid your discrepancy and dodge the question.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Way to totally avoid your discrepancy and dodge the question.

In what way did I avoid anything?

Look, over 100 years ago women couldn't vote. When the laws were changed there was much dissent at the time. Do you still believe that particular change of law was incorrect?

As I said previously, things change in the court of public opinion. Deal with it.

 

[Vaux]

In what way did I avoid anything?

Look, over 100 years ago women couldn't vote. When the laws were changed there was much dissent at the time. Do you still believe that particular change of law was incorrect?

As I said previously, things change in the court of public opinion. Deal with it.

No I don't believe it was incorrect. But you are contradicting yourself if you are saying that public opinion matters, and then disregarding previous public opinion, which you admit may or may not have been wrong.

Hell maybe 20 years from now they reverse gay marriage or make drugs legal or outlaw abortion, or perhaps, maybe even something you disagree with! You're going to tell me more about public opinion? I guess you will feel "deal with it" is an appropriate response then too?

 

[DrDoug]

It becomes what the majority supports to make law. Unfortunately some people get hung up on right or wrong as if all must be one way or the other forever and ever. Things change. Deal with it.

In politically expedient cases, the majority usually gets what it wants regarding the law. But in the end what really matters, majority opinion or not, is what is Constitutionally right.

That's what the courts are for.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No I don't believe it was incorrect. But you are contradicting yourself if you are saying that public opinion matters, and then disregarding previous public opinion, which you admit may or may not have been wrong.

Hell maybe 20 years from now they reverse gay marriage or make drugs legal or outlaw abortion, or perhaps, maybe even something you disagree with! You're going to tell me more about public opinion? I guess you will feel "deal with it" is an appropriate response then too?

I'm not disregarding previous public opinion. You are trying to make it about right or wrong and that is neither here nor there.

There are already things I disagree about regarding public opinion. I believe drugs should be legalized. The majority is slowly changing their stance on that issue but still isn't quite there...yet. I deal with it. If they reverse gay marriage or abortion, which is highly unlikely, I will deal with that as well. I certainly won't get all bent out of shape about it like a certain minority are about gay marriage.

 

[her209]

The toaster can consent?

A toaster cannot consent. Why is polygamy illegal if all parties involved consent?

 

[Greenman]

A toaster cannot consent. Why is polygamy illegal if all parties involved consent?

The reality is that it can't be illegal. Marriage has been redefined, and the new definition isn't broad enough. We're stuck at two consenting adults right now, there is no reason it can't be 4, 8, or even 16.

 

[nickqt]

A toaster cannot consent. Why is polygamy illegal if all parties involved consent?

The reality is that it can't be illegal. Marriage has been redefined, and the new definition isn't broad enough. We're stuck at two consenting adults right now, there is no reason it can't be 4, 8, or even 16.

The state either recognizes or doesn't recognize contracts between individual parties.

So, is the marriage contract including 3 individuals, or are there two separate marriage contracts including 3 individuals? To the state that does the recognizing, this could/would be a key factor.

Personally, I don't give a shit one way or the other, but I'd think that a state has an interest in not recognizing polygamy if there are two separate contracts, because you start getting into all sorts of tax and rights issues where the state literally has to choose one marriage contract over the other. Maybe it recognizes the first one and nullifies the newer one as void, or maybe it recongizes the newer one as voiding the older one, much as newer wills and codicils can modify or even nullify the older will.

A single marriage contract made between 3 people would be a lot easier for a state to recognize given most tax and rights laws, as all three individuals would/could be considered married to both other parties, although there would still need to be a lot of changes made to current laws to clarify what happens for taxes, births, deaths, dissolutions of the marriage contract, etc.

But, what is clear, is that allowing gay marriage in and of itself doesn't mean jack shit in terms of polygamy, as gay marriage is just like straight marriage, except that any two individuals who consent can enter into the contract, whereas before it had to be two individuals of the opposite sex. Or, to put it another way, existing laws don't really need to be changed to allow for gay marriage, but would need extensive changes for polygamy made up of one or two separate marriage contracts.

If you're for polygamy, first decide whether one contract or two contracts or more can be recognized, and then get out a long sheet of paper to figure out all of the laws that would require changing to make polygamy work with regards to all of the other laws that come into play with marriage.

Toasters, consent, straight marriage, gay marriage, and polygamy are all vastly different concepts in regards to marriage, because marriage is basically just a contract that establishes tax laws and rights for the individuals entering into the contract.

 

[Darwin333]

Ehh the few things that come up (being able to contribute to a spouse's IRA, estate taxes when I die, shorter time to count a house as a long term investment are all pretty slim compared to the additional taxes paid every year as a dual income household.

Being able to visit your lifelong lover on their deathbed since you are now family along with being able to make decisions for them if they are unable to do so is a pretty big issue for some people.

 

[Darwin333]

even those are not in the realm of reality.

Maybe we can get an astrophysicist to calculate the mass like they do with planets and stars?

 

[HeXen]

For anyone that's effected by gay marriage, sounds like a personal problem.

 

[Darwin333]

Sounds kind of dumb to expect an inanimate object to consent to anything, but you could try I suppose. One party consent should suffice just fine in these situations.

But the point is, just because something doesn't personally affect you, doesn't make it right or harmless. A point which makes the OP's post pointless.

You are right, the genocides in Africa have not personally affected me but they are most certainly not harmless. So the question then becomes, what harm has come, or may come, from gay marriage.

And the toaster bit is retarded, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. A toaster can not enter into any sort of contract regardless of ownership and since a contract by very definition requires at least two parties you and your toaster are out of luck.