Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2013, 11:52:17 AM
-
Is he right?
SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
Monday, 25 Mar 2013
By David A. Patten
With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.
“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?
“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”
Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”
Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”
The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.
Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.
Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.
“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”
Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.
“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”
If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”
Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”
Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.
Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.
“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.
“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/land-gay-marriage-polygamy/2013/03/25/id/496264
-
No.
-
Is he right?
SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
Monday, 25 Mar 2013
By David A. Patten
With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.
“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?
“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”
Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”
Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”
The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.
Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.
Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.
“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”
Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.
“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”
If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”
Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”
Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.
Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.
“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.
“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/land-gay-marriage-polygamy/2013/03/25/id/496264
They just played some clips from the oral arguments on Hannity's show. Sotomayor brought up that slippery slope routine you just mentioned. She asked what state limits on marriage wouldn't be subjet to removal, if the gender one goes away.
I believe Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ and Tamara Holder are up next on the show. I'm sure they're going to bring these arguments up.
Chief Justice John Roberts compared legalizing gay "marriage" to kids being forced to call other kids friends and redefining what the definition of "friend".
-
typical slippery slope argument.
In time we will all be married to each other, all 7 billion.
-
Why shouldn't it? ???
Same deal right?
-
As long as everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I'm perfectly fine with it... Adults who are mentally sound can decide to marry each other ALL DAY LONG.
WHO CARES?!
-
As long as everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I'm perfectly fine with it... Adults who are mentally sound can decide to marry each other ALL DAY LONG.
WHO CARES?!
The Tax man
-
Why shouldn't it? ???
Same deal right?
most libtards disagree
-
The Tax man
Get rid of the loop hole on married couples and boom... done.
-
Land is absolutely correct.
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and nine U.S. states allow same-sex marriages. If you go to any of these places, the effects of their stance toward gay marriage is apparent: everybody is fucking everybody, raping animals is commonplace, family members are pounding each others' asses and eating each others' pussies -- it's really ghastly.
-
Land is absolutely correct.
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and nine U.S. states allow same-sex marriages. If you go to any of these places, the effects of their stance toward gay marriage is apparent: everybody is fucking everybody, raping animals is commonplace, family members are pounding each others asses and eating each others pussies -- it's really ghastly.
Thumpers shouldn't worry anyway......regardless of Gay Marriage or not, those Homo's are still all going to hell. :D
-
Land is absolutely correct.
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and nine U.S. states allow same-sex marriages. If you go to any of these places, the effects of their stance toward gay marriage is apparent: everybody is fucking everybody, raping animals is commonplace, family members are pounding each others asses and eating each others pussies -- it's really ghastly.
Sounds like Tbombz little slice of heaven.
-
FAGS and Twinks getting married is good for lawyers - more divorce cases.
-
FAGS and Twinks getting married is good for lawyers - more divorce cases.
Imagine Divorce Court on tv with a gay couple. Ratings overload.
-
Imagine Divorce Court on tv with a gay couple. Ratings overload.
Correct - if we on GB can get that going we will be bilionaires!
-
Imagine Divorce Court on tv with a gay couple. Ratings overload.
LOL two emotional fairies crying and babbling on...that would make for good tv
I bet that woman would stop liking the skinny jean wearing, no weight lifting metro sexuals in a heart beat after watching that.
-
As long as everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I'm perfectly fine with it... Adults who are mentally sound can decide to marry each other ALL DAY LONG.
WHO CARES?!
But, what happens when "love" goes beyond the adults? Isn't that "bigotry"? After all, in certain states, minor girls can get abortions without their parents' permission. Who's to say that adult-child marriage is off the table?
-
Gay divorce court is going to be Epic!!!!
-
But, what happens when "love" goes beyond the adults? Isn't that "bigotry"? After all, in certain states, minor girls can get abortions without their parents' permission. Who's to say that adult-child marriage is off the table?
absolutely it is, afterall if the argument is that b/c they are genetically predisposed to attraction to the same sex it should be allowed. How do you split hairs and say that a person genetically predisposed to attraction to young children is wrong?
-
absolutely it is, afterall if the argument is that b/c they are genetically predisposed to attraction to the same sex it should be allowed. How do you split hairs and say that a person genetically predisposed to attraction to young children is wrong?
Homosexuality is not considered by medical science and mental health experts to be a disease or a mental disorder. Such is not the case with pedophilia. Thus at this point in time there is no evidence to support your theory that pedophiles are genetically disposed to their attraction to young children. Your argument is overreaching and based on false assumptions, thank goodness.
-
But, what happens when "love" goes beyond the adults? Isn't that "bigotry"? After all, in certain states, minor girls can get abortions without their parents' permission. Who's to say that adult-child marriage is off the table?
I see where you are going, but most laws have some cut off... They look at ages and they determine that people of certain ages can make decisions and certain ages can not.
You can drink at 21, not before... Vote at 18, not before... Choose to sleep with someone of a certain age at a certain age.
So obviously if you are old enough to choose to get married without any parental supervision, you can choose to marry or be in a marriage with one or more.
This "slippery slope" does not truly exist.
People just try to use it to have a talking point, but it's truly very silly.
-
Do what feels good
-
I see where you are going, but most laws have some cut off... They look at ages and they determine that people of certain ages can make decisions and certain ages can not.
You can drink at 21, not before... Vote at 18, not before... Choose to sleep with someone of a certain age at a certain age.
So obviously if you are old enough to choose to get married without any parental supervision, you can choose to marry or be in a marriage with one or more.
This "slippery slope" does not truly exist.
People just try to use it to have a talking point, but it's truly very silly.
The slippery slope seems to be the only thing left.
-
Get rid of the loop hole on married couples and boom... done.
its a toss up actually. some couples see a benefit some don't. it depends on a bunch of different factors but generally the couples who benefit from filing MFJ are the ones who have one spouse earning a significant amount more than the other. for the most part if you have two people with similar taxable incomes they usually would be better off if they filed single. but you can't...if you're married.
i've had to amend a bunch if returns where people prepared them themselves and thought that they could just file single even though they were married because their refund was bigger that way.
-
i think the underlying argument in this article is that polygamy is somehow worse then homosexuality or heterosexuality and the argument is "look at the monster we have created!!!"
it's funny but if you lash out and disagree that "just because we allow homosexual marriages doesn't mean it will lead to something as disgusting as polygamy" you're just as bigoted as the author.
what's wrong with polygamy? they're people just like you and me. they can't control who they love.
it just goes to show that both sides are bigoted. they have just mutually agreed that being bigoted towards polygamy is acceptable but still disagree that being bigoted against homosexuality is OK. if you agree with homosexual marriages then it should stand to reason that you accept polygamous marriages as well. if you don't you're being hypocritical. period.
-
Give these Libs an inch....
-
i think the underlying argument in this article is that polygamy is somehow worse then homosexuality or heterosexuality and the argument is "look at the monster we have created!!!"
it's funny but if you lash out and disagree that "just because we allow homosexual marriages doesn't mean it will lead to something as disgusting as polygamy" you're just as bigoted as the author.
what's wrong with polygamy? they're people just like you and me. they can't control who they love.
it just goes to show that both sides are bigoted. they have just mutually agreed that being bigoted towards polygamy is acceptable but still disagree that being bigoted against homosexuality is OK. if you agree with homosexual marriages then it should stand to reason that you accept polygamous marriages as well. if you don't you're being hypocritical. period.
That's my point, especially if you're basing gay "marriage", primarily on the emotion of love.
-
Homosexuality is not considered by medical science and mental health experts to be a disease or a mental disorder. Such is not the case with pedophilia. Thus at this point in time there is no evidence to support your theory that pedophiles are genetically disposed to their attraction to young children. Your argument is overreaching and based on false assumptions, thank goodness.
I see where you are going, but most laws have some cut off... They look at ages and they determine that people of certain ages can make decisions and certain ages can not.
You can drink at 21, not before... Vote at 18, not before... Choose to sleep with someone of a certain age at a certain age.
So obviously if you are old enough to choose to get married without any parental supervision, you can choose to marry or be in a marriage with one or more.
This "slippery slope" does not truly exist.
People just try to use it to have a talking point, but it's truly very silly.
Both excellent points.
-
Gay divorce court is going to be Epic!!!!
yeah, you're definitely not a closet case
::)
-
I see where you are going, but most laws have some cut off... They look at ages and they determine that people of certain ages can make decisions and certain ages can not.
You can drink at 21, not before... Vote at 18, not before... Choose to sleep with someone of a certain age at a certain age.
So obviously if you are old enough to choose to get married without any parental supervision, you can choose to marry or be in a marriage with one or more.
This "slippery slope" does not truly exist.
People just try to use it to have a talking point, but it's truly very silly.
Actually it does. Ask Justice Sotomayor, if you don't believe me. What' the difference between a dude, "marrying" another dude vs. a dude marrying two women?
What about the religious aspect, specifically religious discrimination? In Islam, a man can marry up to 4 women. Isn't banning polygamy infringing on his religous rights?
-
Actually it does. Ask Justice Sotomayor, if you don't believe me. What' the difference between a dude, "marrying" another dude vs. a dude marrying two women?
What about the religious aspect, specifically religious discrimination? In Islam, a man can marry up to 4 women. Isn't banning polygamy infringing on his religous rights?
No... it doesn't.
Do you think I agree with everything every Justice thinks?
Hell no... They are politicians too.
Again, if you are an adult and choose to get into a marriage with OTHER adults, and you all make the choice to do so and you're all adults and capable of making your own decisions... even if they are stupid ones, then you should be allowed to do it.
I don't frankly care to be in ANYONE'S business like that.
Maybe you do?
-
Actually it does. Ask Justice Sotomayor, if you don't believe me. What' the difference between a dude, "marrying" another dude vs. a dude marrying two women?
What about the religious aspect, specifically religious discrimination? In Islam, a man can marry up to 4 women. Isn't banning polygamy infringing on his religous rights?
is some part of that supposed to be a quote from Sotomayer
I don't see any harm in two people of the same sex getting married nor any harm in multiple people getting married
Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only
-
gay marriage is here to stay,all they're trying to do is muddy the waters. if my neighbors were gay i could care less,get over it and mind your own fucking business
-
the whole idea of marriage seems retarded to me now. why do you need other people to recognize you're "together" so that you can have sex? just fuck her already. jesus.
-
Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only
"Most people"? Where, in your neighborhood? In the US? In the West? In the whole world?
-
"Most people"? Where, in your neighborhood? In the US? In the West? In the whole world?
I'd say you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see a marriage as involving only two people and they will tell you yes
that's just my opinion though it you exclusively talk to people of the Saudi royal family you may get a different answer
I personally couldn't give less of a shit if two people or three or ten want to get married.
It doesn't harm me in any way at all so why would I give a shit?
-
I'd say you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see a marriage as involving only two people and they will tell you yes
that's just my opinion though it you exclusively talk to people of the Saudi royal family you may get a different answer
I personally couldn't give less of a shit if two people or three or ten want to get married.
It doesn't harm me in any way at all so why would I give a shit?
If you were in the middle east it would not be this way... It's about your perspective.
-
I'd say you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see a marriage as involving only two people and they will tell you yes
Likewise, you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see marriage as involving two people of the same gender and they will tell you No. Didn't most people vote that way in California in 2008? In fact, go in the deepest jungle in the Amazon and you'll find natives who have never seen civilization and you'll see that they too marry, but they don't marry people of the same gender.
-
Likewise, you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see marriage as involving two people of the same gender and they will tell you No. Didn't most people vote that way in California in 2008? In fact, go in the deepest jungle in the Amazon and you'll find natives who have never seen civilization and you'll see that they too marry, but they don't marry people of the same gender.
Actually since neither you nor I can go do the survey I guess we can just rely on current polls which show that "most people" are fine with gay marriage...i.e if asked if they see marriage as involving two people of the same gender they will tell you YES.
unlike your statement this is not just me assigning my personal opinion to "most people"
Also, support for gay marriage in CA has shifted since Prop 8 passed and it would most likely not pass today (a moot point since it was overturned as being unconstitutional)
-
unlike your statement this is not just me assigning my personal opinion to "most people"
Unlike my statement? It's your statement. You are the one who started with the "most people."
Also, support for gay marriage in CA has shifted since Prop 8 passed and it would most likely not pass today (a moot point since it was overturned as being unconstitutional)
The fact is that people voted and it passed. None of what you posted is fact until there is another vote.
I am not arguing whether or not it's constitutional. I know that truth, facts and righteousness are not a democracy. If that's what you are saying too, then why even start your argument with "most people"?
Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only
-
If you were in the middle east it would not be this way... It's about your perspective.
that's why I mentioned the Saudi Royal family but then again we don't use the middle east as our benchmark in this country for civil rights
-
Unlike my statement? It's your statement. You are the one who started with the "most people."
The fact is that people voted and it passed. None of what you posted is fact until there is another vote.
I am not arguing whether or not it's constitutional. I know that truth, facts and righteousness are not a democracy. If that's what you are saying too, then why even start your argument with "most people"?
yes, my statement is not just my opinion and is supported by current polls UNLIKE your statement which is contrary to current polls
-
yes, my statement is not just my opinion and is supported by current polls UNLIKE your statement which is contrary to current polls
Yes, because polls accurately measure who will vote and how they will vote. ::)
And what was my statement again?
-
Yes, because polls accurately measure who will vote and how they will vote. ::)
And what was my statement again?
your statement is below and it is not supported by current polls
Likewise, you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see marriage as involving two people of the same gender and they will tell you No. Didn't most people vote that way in California in 2008? In fact, go in the deepest jungle in the Amazon and you'll find natives who have never seen civilization and you'll see that they too marry, but they don't marry people of the same gender.
-
your statement is below and it is not supported by current polls
::)
My statement was based on your statement. And your statement is not supported by polls either.
Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only
-
::)
My statement was based on your statement. And your statement is not supported by polls either.
I posted the summary of current polls that absolutely support my statement
-
I posted the summary of current polls that absolutely support my statement
"That Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only"?
No you did not. There is no such poll.
-
Homosexuality is not considered by medical science and mental health experts to be a disease or a mental disorder. Such is not the case with pedophilia. Thus at this point in time there is no evidence to support your theory that pedophiles are genetically disposed to their attraction to young children. Your argument is overreaching and based on false assumptions, thank goodness.
Actually until not to long ago homosexuality was a mental disorder.
If you're stance is that sexual attraction is biological then how can you condemn someone for their pedophilia?
It is sexual attraction to the same extent simple manifested in a different manner
-
"That Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only"?
No you did not. There is no such poll.
fair enough
I see your point however the polls I posted include the presumption of "2 people" only but I see your point
-
"That Most people (gay or straight) think of marriage as two people only"?
No you did not. There is no such poll.
There is a summary of Gallup polls that ask a number of questions one of which is whether polygamy is morally wrong. Since the numbers show that 90% + of people that that polygamy is morally wrong do you think it's reasonable to infer that "most people" think of marriage as between only two people?
-
fair enough
I see your point however the polls I posted include the presumption of "2 people" only but I see your point
There is a poll that asks a number of questions one of which is whether polygamy is morally wrong. Since the numbers show that 90% + of people that that polygamy is morally wrong do you think it's reasonable to infer that "most people" think of marriage as between only two people?
LOL...you couldn't let it go, could you? You had to go on a mad hunt for a poll that would support your original statement, even though you knew nothing of such a poll before you made the statement. ;D
Sure, I believe if you asked everyone in the west if polygamy is immoral, most people might say it is immoral. If you asked the whole world, most people might say polygamy is not immoral.
-
LOL...you couldn't let it go, could you? You had to go on a mad hunt for a poll that would support your original statement, even though you knew nothing of such a poll before you made the statement. ;D
Sure, I believe if you asked everyone in the west if polygamy is immoral, most people might say it is immoral. If you asked the whole world, most people might say polygamy is not immoral.
More to the point, should such numbers start to switch, does that mean that polygamy is a "civil right"?
-
LOL...you couldn't let it go, could you? You had to go on a mad hunt for a poll that would support your original statement, even though you knew nothing of such a poll before you made the statement. ;D
Sure, I believe if you asked everyone in the west if polygamy is immoral, most people might say it is immoral. If you asked the whole world, most people might say polygamy is not immoral.
hardly a mad hunt - took about 2 seconds on google
I conceded your semantic point but I didn't need a poll to make my original statement and in fact wrote in that post "that's just my opinion"
as it turns out the current polling data in the US confirms that most people are fine with gay marriage i.e. see marriage as between 2 people of either the same or opposite gender. That is an indisputable fact.
polling data also supports my "two person" opinion by showing that over 90% of people polled believe that polygamy is morally wrong (fyi - I am personally NOT in that 90%)
-
More to the point, should such numbers start to switch, does that mean that polygamy is a "civil right"?
it very well could be though I doubt it
but give it 50+ years and check back
that's how these things work
-
More to the point, should such numbers start to switch, does that mean that polygamy is a "civil right"?
Eggxactly!
-
hardly a mad hunt - took about 2 seconds on google
2 seconds, uh? Why did you not post the link? Is it not legit?
-
2 seconds, uh? Why did you not post the link? Is it not legit?
here you go: http://www.pollingreport.com/values.htm
let's do a quick review.
1. my first statement was about whether most people would see marriage as between 2 people and I said it was my opinion that they would
2. your response to this was "Likewise, you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see marriage as involving two people of the same gender and they will tell you No"
3. I responded that this was not true and showed you recent polling data to support that statement. Here is that link to the poll which I snipped and posted and it's also the source of the data about changing opinion in CA as well.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/
-
it very well could be though I doubt it
but give it 50+ years and check back
that's how these things work
Not necessarily!! Polygamous civil unions started in the Netherlands in a fairly short time after gay "marriage" was legalized.
The Dutch have effectively legalized it, by allowing polygamy from other countries to stand in their borders.
And, as predicted......
A former Dutch MP has admitted that polygamous marriage is the "next logical step" following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.
Speaking to the French online magazine, Yagg, Boris Dittrich said there was now a movement in the Netherlands to introduce multi-partner marriages.
Campaign
Mr Dittrich, who led the campaign that resulted in the introduction of same-sex ‘marriages’ in the Netherlands in 2001, explained how he had pushed for a change in the law.
He admitted that he had started by campaigning for civil partnerships to get members of the public “used to the idea” that same-sex relationships were recognised by the law.
“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”, he said.
“It appeared to be a good decision because people got used to the idea that two men or two women had their relationships recognised by the law and people called it a gay marriage”.
He said that the next logical step was to introduce full same-sex ‘marriages’, and that there was now a “discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more”.
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/family/polygamy-is-next-logical-step-says-dutch-same-sex-marriage-campaigner
-
If it feels good, do it.
-
Not necessarily!! Polygamous civil unions started in the Netherlands in a fairly short time after gay "marriage" was legalized.
The Dutch have effectively legalized it, by allowing polygamy from other countries to stand in their borders.
And, as predicted......
A former Dutch MP has admitted that polygamous marriage is the "next logical step" following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.
Speaking to the French online magazine, Yagg, Boris Dittrich said there was now a movement in the Netherlands to introduce multi-partner marriages.
Campaign
Mr Dittrich, who led the campaign that resulted in the introduction of same-sex ‘marriages’ in the Netherlands in 2001, explained how he had pushed for a change in the law.
He admitted that he had started by campaigning for civil partnerships to get members of the public “used to the idea” that same-sex relationships were recognised by the law.
“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”, he said.
“It appeared to be a good decision because people got used to the idea that two men or two women had their relationships recognised by the law and people called it a gay marriage”.
He said that the next logical step was to introduce full same-sex ‘marriages’, and that there was now a “discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more”.
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/family/polygamy-is-next-logical-step-says-dutch-same-sex-marriage-campaigner
fine by me
I might decide to go Old Testament someday
-
fine by me
I might decide to go Old Testament someday
You might want to hold up on that. You have to cough up a lot of dough or livestock. And you don't get to touch your future Mrs. for at least a year.
;D
-
You might want to hold up on that. You have to cough up a lot of dough or livestock. And you don't get to touch your future Mrs. for at least a year.
;D
are those the rules in your church?
-
are those the rules in your church?
Not the last time I checked. But, you're the one who mentioned the Old Testament. Those are among the Levitical laws, regarding marriage.
-
Not the last time I checked. But, you're the one who mentioned the Old Testament. Those are among the Levitical laws, regarding marriage.
only in reference to polygamy
not to the specific nutty rules of such in the book of ancient jewish fairy tales
-
only in reference to polygamy
not to the specific nutty rules of such in the book of ancient jewish fairy tales
Nutty!?
''Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
"Thou shalt not murder"
"Honor thy father and thy mother"
"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"
-
only in reference to polygamy
not to the specific nutty rules of such in the book of ancient jewish fairy tales
Lol. Rules for Radicals is a much better guidebook right?
-
Nutty!?
''Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
"Thou shalt not murder"
"Honor thy father and thy mother"
"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"
Actually it specifically says thy neighbor's wife... Doesn't say anything about his daughter or anything.
-
Actually it specifically says thy neighbor's wife... Doesn't say anything about his daughter or anything.
It says more than that. I just posted the tail end of the 10th commandment that sums it up.
And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.’
-
Nutty!?
''Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
"Thou shalt not murder"
"Honor thy father and thy mother"
"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"
your forgot Graven Images and not working on the sabbath (Saturday)
you follow those two to the letter right?
-
What's the Bible got to do with marriage? Marriage isn't a religious right, it is a civil right. Otherwise atheists or other non Christians wouldn't be able to get married.
-
your forgot Graven Images and not working on the sabbath (Saturday)
you follow those two to the letter right?
I didn't forget them. I made my list, to make the point about what you claim to be "nutty"
The Graven Images thing? No, falling prostrate towards any of those (unlike some Obama worshippers I know).
As for the Sabbath, while I am an SDA, I haven't always been meticulous about my Sabbath keeping.
What my keeping or not keeping those laws to the letter have to do with the laws being "nutty" I've love to know, aside from your usual deflection from the issue at hand.
-
What's the Bible got to do with marriage? Marriage isn't a religious right, it is a civil right. Otherwise atheists or other non Christians wouldn't be able to get married.
Who says it's a civil right? And, marriage has many components, among them a religious one.
-
Why shouldn't it? ???
Same deal right?
no its not.
marriage the institution is between two people.
it's not the same discussion as polygamy. That involves more than two.
-
no its not.
marriage the institution is between two people.
it's not the same discussion as polygamy. That involves more than two.
That's the point. Who decides that the limit is two? Why can't polygamist change the numbers laws, if gays can change the gender laws?
Both undermine the definition of marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.
-
That's the point. Who decides that the limit is two? Why can't polygamist change the numbers laws, if gays can change the gender laws?
Both undermine the definition of marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.
That's a stupid definition anyway.
If 10 people want to get married, who gives a shit... Let them. As long as they are all adults and in sound mind, let it fucking go.
Why do people care?
-
That's a stupid definition anyway.
If 10 people want to get married, who gives a shit... Let them. As long as they are all adults and in sound mind, let it fucking go.
Why do people care?
yeah I basically feel the same,
I think it is a slippery slope, claiming it's not is an absurd argument to me.
But why would anybody care. Marry 20 people for all I give a fuck.
-
the whole idea of marriage seems retarded to me now. why do you need other people to recognize you're "together" so that you can have sex? just fuck her already. jesus.
I would agree with you, but unfortunately, there are some legal advantages afforded married people which are not available to unmarried couples.
In Germany, where my son married his wife, there are two marriage ceremonies. There is the civil marriage and the "church" wedding a few days later. It makes for a wild several day ongoing celebration.
It seems to me if folks in the U.S. could envision separating the civil marriage from the religious one, it would simplify things somewhat for gay marriages. The civil marriage legally joins two people in a marriage contract which affords them all the benefits of marriage. The church marriage is like the icing on the cake, it is simply a religious celebration of marriage, but has no legal implications.
My wife is Catholic and I am not. Back in the early 60's when we got married, the priest we were working with refused to marry us because we were already living together, thus living in sin in his eyes....go figure. Catholic church doctrine dictates that if someone marries in another church, they can never be remarried in the Catholic church. However, if the couple gets married by a justice of the peace they can later be married in the Catholic church. My honey and I were married by a justice of the peace in Las Vegas, Nevada. A year later, after my going through yet another Catholic conversion class (my term for this process) a Paulist Priest agreed to marry us in the chapel (not the main church). Frankly speaking, I could have cared less about being married in the eyes of the Catholic church, but it was important to my bride.
As a side note, I am not Catholic. I never converted, which I am convinced was the goal of the priests we dealt with back then. Both of our children went to parochial schools for the primary grades and were definitely exposed to the Catholic church. In fact, our son was not only an altar boy, he sang in the church choir and was head of the youth group. He married a Catholic woman and they both still are heavily involved in the church.
On the other hand, our daughter who also had a Catholic wedding with her husband who was raised Catholic, classifies herself as an atheist. Well, she was always a bit of a rebel and definitely daddy's girl.
Anyway the point of my digression is that church doctrine may prohibit gay marriage and that is their right. However, there are valid reasons why all people should be afforded the opportunity to be legally married and this doesn't need to fly in the face of any religious beliefs.
-
Who says it's a civil right? And, marriage has many components, among them a religious one.
Do you need a church's permission to get married or a state's permission?
-
Do you need a church's permission to get married or a state's permission?
I said there are many components, including a religious one. Not all are required to get married (i.e. the religious one), per state law.
Again, who says marriage is a civil right?
-
Again, I said marriage is not a religious right but a civil one. You saw the word "religious" and immediately went into fundie mode trying to split hairs and talk about something different. The only religious component to a marriage is the one that people opt to include. It is not mandatory. It is not necessary. Reading scripture from the Bible does not empower or validate a marriage.
If you don't think it is a civil right, then by no means would the states have any power over it as a whole because it would not be a civil issue. As I said, you don't need permission of the church or a church involved at any point to get married... but let's see someone try that without a state's permission and a state being involved.
-
Again, I said marriage is not a religious right but a civil one. You saw the word "religious" and immediately went into fundie mode trying to split hairs and talk about something different. The only religious component to a marriage is the one that people opt to include. It is not mandatory. It is not necessary. Reading scripture from the Bible does not empower or validate a marriage.
If you don't think it is a civil right, then by no means would the states have any power over it as a whole because it would not be a civil issue. As I said, you don't need permission of the church or a church involved at any point to get married... but let's see someone try that without a state's permission and a state being involved.
Again, WHO says it's a civil right?
You saw a few commandments, based on a sidebar conversation I was having with Straw, and immediately went into anti-religious libbie mode.
-
Again, WHO says it's a civil right?
You saw a few commandments, based on a sidebar conversation I was having with Straw, and immediately went into anti-religious libbie mode.
WHO says it isn't? I didn't quote, address or direct my original post towards you, Straw or anyone else. What makes you think that? Again, you see the word "religious" and immediately go into defense mode. And as far as the "libbie" thing.... I mentioned absolutely nothing about politics or political inclination. You just had to include that in a (failed) attempt to give your rant substance. Which it has none.
Civil Right
Right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
-
WHO says it isn't? I didn't quote, address or direct my original post towards you, Straw or anyone else. What makes you think that? Again, you see the word "religious" and immediately go into defense mode. And as far as the "libbie" thing.... I mentioned absolutely nothing about politics or political inclination. You just had to include that in a (failed) attempt to give your rant substance. Which it has none.
Civil Right
Right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
But, I directed my question towards you, one you seem to be having a tough time answering.
Hence, we have your failed attempt to answer a question with a question.
-
But, I directed my question towards you, one you seem to be having a tough time answering.
So your attempt to interject my comment with a conversation you were having with someone else failed and now you want to pretend otherwise. Ok. If you need to do that.
Furthermore, I answered it. You just seem to have a problem understanding it. Again, who says it ISN'T a civil right? I just posted the definition of civil right.
Now your turn. Continue to talk in circles or tell us why it isn't a civil right and said it wasn't.
-
So your attempt to interject my comment with a conversation you were having with someone else failed and now you want to pretend otherwise. Ok. If you need to do that.
Furthermore, I answered it. You just seem to have a problem understanding it. Again, who says it ISN'T a civil right? I just posted the definition of civil right.
Now your turn. Continue to talk in circles or tell us why it isn't a civil right and said it wasn't.
You posted a definition. I didn't ask you about the definition a civil right is. I asked WHO says marriage is a civil right.
Yet, you duck and dodge that simple question, opting instead to sidestep with this gibberish.
-
The definition pretty much says what a civil right is. If you want to argue semantics and try to split hairs in your back pedaling, then you need to find someone else to argue with. Relying on the other person to make your argument for you just isn't going to cut it with me.
If you are hell bent on making a fool out of yourself, then you can post why it isn't a civil right? ::)
-
Do you need a church's permission to get married or a state's permission?
Both. Any church can refuse to marry anyone for any reason they chose. The state has fewer options. They are obligated to marry any people who qualify under current law. The arguments for or against gay marriage apply primarily to a civil marriage. It leaves open the right of any church or religious order to refuse to marry folks for any reason they wish to invoke.
-
Both. Any church can refuse to marry anyone for any reason they chose. The state has fewer options. They are obligated to marry any people who qualify under current law. The arguments for or against gay marriage apply primarily to a civil marriage. It leaves open the right of any church or religious order to refuse to marry folks for any reason they wish to invoke.
You don't need a church's permission to get married. You can go to the courthouse.
But let's see a church marry someone without state approval.
-
The definition pretty much says what a civil right is. If you want to argue semantics and try to split hairs in your back pedaling, then you need to find someone else to argue with. Relying on the other person to make your argument for you just isn't going to cut it with me.
If you are hell bent on making a fool out of yourself, then you can post why it isn't a civil right? ::)
There's no back-pedaling on my part, just dodging on yours. You have yet to answer WHO proclaimed marriage a civil right.
I'm not relying on anyone to make my argument for me, LEAST OF ALL you.
-
"Wife Swap" on ABC has a polyamorous group, being featured.
http://drginaloudon.com/2013/03/celebrity-wife-swap-spoilers-a-tea-party-activist-a-mother-in-the-middle-of-a-polyamorous-relationship-swap/
NOPE! Polygamy wil never come here, as a result of gay "marriage".
-
the jesus people don't like it when they can't control everyone,here's an idea mind your own fu@king business
-
the jesus people don't like it when they can't control everyone,here's an idea mind your own fu@king business
Look who's talking: One of the Obama worshippers, who want to control what/how people:
- Eat
- Drink
- Drive
- Shoot
- Educate kids
- How many kids per family
- Use energy
- Spend their own money (how much money they keep)
And that's just the short list.
Try taking your own advice.
-
your the one on here worrying about what people do in their personal lfe jesus freak :D :D :D :D :D
-
your the one on here worrying about what people do in their personal lfe jesus freak :D :D :D :D :D
You're projecting again. Virtually everything on that list are items in people's personal lives that YOU and your fellow TKers want to control.
Obama freak!!
-
your the one that started this post,you jesus freaks are the worst at worrying about what other people are doing in their personal lives,and most of the time you are the biggest hypocrites
-
your the one that started this post,you jesus freaks are the worst at worrying about what other people are doing in their personal lives,and most of the time you are the biggest hypocrites
Who started this thread again? OH!! Beach Bum!! And, since my comments fit the topic, I added them.
Again, you're projecting here, putting your Obama-worshipping tendencies on others because you and your buddies are all about what other people do in their personal lives, as it relates to the aforementioned topics.
-
the jesus freaks always worried about other peoples live,specially if it has to do with sex,just worry about what's going on in your own bedroom
-
Civil Right
Right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
::)
Instead of arguing semantics on the above statement, tell us why it isn't a civil right?
-
the jesus freaks always worried about other peoples live,specially if it has to do with sex,just worry about what's going on in your own bedroom
And the Obama freraks are always worried about other people's lives, specifically if it has to do with what/how you:
- Eat
- Drink
- Drive
- Shoot
- Educate your kids and how many you have
- Use energy
- Spend their own money (how much money they keep)
-
::)
Instead of arguing semantics on the above statement, tell us why it isn't a civil right?
Instead of reposting something I didn't ask you, try answering the question I DID ask you, namely WHO says marriage is a civil right.
-
Who says it isn't?
I never said anything regarding WHO, I gave the definition of WHAT. Your religious defense mode is what got you off on a side track about something I am not even discussing.
Your question, much like your smoke and mirrors makes no sense to what I originally posted. But if making an ASS out of YOURSELF is your GOAL, this I guess you SUCCEEDED.
(Got to love the random all caps gig for emphasis)
-
Who says it isn't?
I never said anything regarding WHO, I gave the definition of WHAT. Your religious defense mode is what got you off on a side track about something I am not even discussing.
Your question, much like your smoke and mirrors makes no sense to what I originally posted. But if making an ASS out of YOURSELF is your GOAL, this I guess you SUCCEEDED.
(Got to love the random all caps gig for emphasis)
I asked you a direct question, regardless of whether you said anything regarding "who" or not. The simple fact remains you keep ducking that question, especially by deflecting and countering a question with a question.
The caps aren't random; they are for emphasis, especially for folks like you with their simple comprehension switch on the fritz.
-
Who = Webster.
Then again, my statement had nothing to do with WHO since I already supplied the definition, it was about WHAT.
You want to have a discussion on something *I* said then you are going to have to stick to what I am discussing. Or else you CAN just find another PERSON to indulge in A side TRACK conversation WITH where you talk about ABSOLUTELY everything but what EACH other POSTED.
-
do really need any more proof this is the stupid party :D :D :D :D :D
-
You don't need a church's permission to get married. You can go to the courthouse.
But let's see a church marry someone without state approval.
I believe people have often gotten married without the benefit of legality. These marriages are symbolic. They afford them none of the benefits of a civil marriage. I would suggest that it is these benefits that gay couples seek from legalizing same sex marriages.
-
You don't need a church's permission to get married. You can go to the courthouse.
But let's see a church marry someone without state approval.
You do need a church's permission to get married in the church.
-
Is he right?
SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
Monday, 25 Mar 2013
By David A. Patten
With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.
“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?
“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”
Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”
Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”
The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.
Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.
Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.
“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”
Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.
“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”
If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”
Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”
Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.
Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.
“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.
“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/land-gay-marriage-polygamy/2013/03/25/id/496264
El Profeta what do you call Canada? America's retarded little cousin or something like that? lol ;D In any event, here is my annual post about anything Canadian. How long before this reaches our shores?
Three adults in polyamorous relationship declared legal parents of child
A legal first in Canada.
The Canadian Press
ST. JOHN’S, N.L. — In what is believed to be a legal first in Canada, a court in Newfoundland and Labrador has recognized three unmarried adults as the legal parents of a child born within their “polyamorous” family.
Polyamorous relationships are legal in Canada, unlike bigamy and polygamy, which involve people in two or more marriages.
Justice Robert Fowler of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court’s family division issued a decision saying the St. John’s family includes two men in a relationship with the mother of a child born in 2017.
The April 4 decision says the unconventional family has been together for three years, but the biological father of the child is unknown. The family members are not identified in the decision, which was released Thursday by the court.
The three adults turned to the courts after the province said only two parents could be listed on the child’s birth certificate.
In his decision, Fowler says the child was born into a stable family that is providing a nurturing environment, and he stressed that the court must consider what is in the child’s best interest.
“I can find nothing to disparage that relationship from the best interests of the child’s point of view,” the decision says. “To deny this child the dual paternal parentage would not be in his best interests.”
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/three-adults-in-polyamorous-relationship-declared-legal-parents-of-child/
-
People will want to marry their pets.
-
I secretly wanted to marry Coach.
He turned me down and Yamcha offered to step in.
But, I turned Yamcha down because he's got a small penis.
I can't wait for your ban