Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yes, let's go back to banning interracial marriage.

I do not support your idea.

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I, for one, support the article and its plan to have all of the ugly people in one large polyamorous relationship where they will not interfere with us Adonises (Adonii?).

Good thought, but true Adonii know without asking. Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, FR. Perhaps you should give the lady a call.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I do not support your idea.

What's the difference?

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I'm in favor as long as it's multiple women and one dude - just like you see in nature.

Otherwise, it's unnatural.

You know, cats are not like that.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Shouldn't we all care about civil rights? Or do we only care about the civil rights of some people?

Who's civil rights are being violated here, exactly?

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Who's civil rights are being violated here, exactly?

The right to marry multiple partners??????

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The right to marry multiple partners??????

Show me one person who thinks that is a civil right. And no, conservatives using it as a strawman don't count.

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Show me one person who thinks that is a civil right. And no, conservatives using it as a strawman don't count.

I agree, but its amazing these days what is now considered a "right".

Is it the sentiment of this House that polymory is OK if three (or more) people love each other?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Who's civil rights are being violated here, exactly?

Ask all the folks around here who have been trumpeting civil rights for years. It's rife through this thread and others.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I agree, but its amazing these days what is now considered a "right".

Is it the sentiment of this House that polymory is OK if three (or more) people love each other?

Depends on your definition of "OK." Morally? Totally fine with it. Religiously? Well, I don't believe in anything supernatural, benign or otherwise, so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. Legally? I don't think 3 or more adults sharing a residence should be against the law (as in, they shouldn't be arrested for it). Civilly? Well, here's where it gets trickier, obviously. Does/should the 3rd adult have any priveleges (e.g. access to medical records) or responsbilities (e.g. paying child support) normally associated with a civil marriage? I think it's quite obvious that the "3rd man in" so to speak does not have any of those rights or responsibilities today - the 3rd person is just a mistress/mister who happens to share the residence. I'm 100% fine with maintaining this status quo indefinitely. If a couple decides to pick up a little something extra on the side, they do so knowing that there will be no responsibilities or priveleges enforceable by law with respect to the 3rd person.

[ericredaxe]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Depends on your definition of "OK." Morally? Totally fine with it. Religiously? Well, I don't believe in anything supernatural, benign or otherwise, so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. Legally? I don't think 3 or more adults sharing a residence should be against the law (as in, they shouldn't be arrested for it). Civilly? Well, here's where it gets trickier, obviously. Does/should the 3rd adult have any priveleges (e.g. access to medical records) or responsbilities (e.g. paying child support) normally associated with a civil marriage? I think it's quite obvious that the "3rd man in" so to speak does not have any of those rights or responsibilities today - the 3rd person is just a mistress/mister who happens to share the residence. I'm 100% fine with maintaining this status quo indefinitely. If a couple decides to pick up a little something extra on the side, they do so knowing that there will be no responsibilities or priveleges enforceable by law with respect to the 3rd person.

Pretty much sums it up for me....

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Depends on your definition of "OK." Morally? Totally fine with it. Religiously? Well, I don't believe in anything supernatural, benign or otherwise, so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. Legally? I don't think 3 or more adults sharing a residence should be against the law (as in, they shouldn't be arrested for it). Civilly? Well, here's where it gets trickier, obviously. Does/should the 3rd adult have any priveleges (e.g. access to medical records) or responsbilities (e.g. paying child support) normally associated with a civil marriage? I think it's quite obvious that the "3rd man in" so to speak does not have any of those rights or responsibilities today - the 3rd person is just a mistress/mister who happens to share the residence. I'm 100% fine with maintaining this status quo indefinitely. If a couple decides to pick up a little something extra on the side, they do so knowing that there will be no responsibilities or priveleges enforceable by law with respect to the 3rd person.

Inheritance Laws? Though a Last Will & Testament should take care of that. Intestate would be a different animal.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Inheritance Laws? Though a Last Will & Testament should take care of that. Intestate would be a different animal.

Not really any different from any other unmarried person with no legal descendents who dies without a will. My guess is that anyone with enough assets to make this an interesting question would have a will anyway, redering the question uninteresting again.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Depends on your definition of "OK." Morally? Totally fine with it. Religiously? Well, I don't believe in anything supernatural, benign or otherwise, so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. Legally? I don't think 3 or more adults sharing a residence should be against the law (as in, they shouldn't be arrested for it). Civilly? Well, here's where it gets trickier, obviously. Does/should the 3rd adult have any priveleges (e.g. access to medical records) or responsbilities (e.g. paying child support) normally associated with a civil marriage? I think it's quite obvious that the "3rd man in" so to speak does not have any of those rights or responsibilities today - the 3rd person is just a mistress/mister who happens to share the residence. I'm 100% fine with maintaining this status quo indefinitely. If a couple decides to pick up a little something extra on the side, they do so knowing that there will be no responsibilities or priveleges enforceable by law with respect to the 3rd person.

Rabble rabble rabble....

I agree

[walrus]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Why would anyone care if 3, 5 or 10 people want to be married? Whats it to you? What someone does in their home is up to them, Right?