Under this train of thought, the laws against incestual marriage and beastiality must also be repealed. --- speculation noted
All of those individuals should be able to benefit from tax laws, (which is the only thing that Gays cannot benefit from, --- you get it. In essence, let's just get rid of all societal norms. --- what norms are you referring to? On Apr 18, 9:38 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Under this train of thought, the laws against incestual marriage and > beastiality must also be repealed. All of those individuals should be able > to benefit from tax laws, (which is the only thing that Gays cannot benefit > from, despite their claims of 1100 or 13oo laws that they are denied or > discriminated against) > > In essence, let's just get rid of all societal norms. > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:29 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > ... take a deep breath. > > and know that polygamy has existed for millennium and will continue, > > just like homosexuality. > > It's just a matter of time until the jews and catholics on the USSC > > see the light. > > > As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court > > who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of > > declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that > > such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy. > > When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters > > said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine > > Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous > > marriage. > > For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized > > three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting > > adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. > > Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve > > always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be > > touched. > > Slate believes, “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the > > constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.” > > They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for > > liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is > > never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right > > is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the > > American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, > > which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that > > there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is > > no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between > > different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional. > > Slate elaborates on their reasoning: > > The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage > > is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two > > consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than > > marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though > > polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no > > value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized > > groups among us. > > If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, > > and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still > > waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to > > explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage > > doesn’t extend to polygamists. > > This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed > > on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 > > years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a > > dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) > > nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on > > earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam. > > One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that > > could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men > > marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to > > enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be > > victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to > > redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices. > > Slate concludes: “All marriages deserve access to the support and > > resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many > > partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they > > admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex > > marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to > > polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people > > have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open > > Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do > > not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States. > > Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll > > write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the > > Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry. > > Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the > > American Civil Rights Union and on faculty at Liberty University > > School of Law. > > --- > > freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most > > marginalized groups among us. > > very good! > > > Polygamy exists in three specific forms: polygyny - wherein a man has > > multiple simultaneous wives; polyandry - wherein a woman has multiple > > simultaneous husbands; or group marriage - wherein the family unit > > consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives. > > Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by > > far the most common. Ambiguity arises when the broad term "polygamy" > > is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to. > > Additionally, different countries may or may not include all forms in > > their laws on polygamy. > > > Polyandry > > Polyandry is a practice wherein a woman has more than one husband at > > the same time. Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among > > nomadic Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, > > in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the > > wife having equal 'sexual access' to them. The Indian epic the > > Mahabharata includes the polyandrous marriage of Draupadi to the five > > Pandava brothers. Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies > > with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human > > population growth and enhance child survival. It is a rare form of > > marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite. > > > -- > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "PoliticalForum" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg > 397KViewDownload -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
