toxicmedia
Gold Member
IMO.....So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
Mark
It's about treating all partnerships the same.
If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
Mark
I added to my post but you answered before I finished.
Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
a. Men can marry women.
b. Women can marry women.
c. Men can marry men.
All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.
If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.
Simply not true. If everyone is treated the same, there is no discrimination. If the law changed where a black could only marry a white, there would be no discrimination.
Everyone is treated equally.
Mark
Laws can be discriminatory in themselves - the example you gave above is one.
Laws should be as broad and inclusive as they can be without endangering people or the public. That's how I see it.
You can't allow adults to marry children - it's clearly damaging to children and children can not legally consent or understand the ramifications of what is happening to them. Incest is another area where there is potential damage if they choose to have children. But on the issue of gender there is no damage to society or to the individuals themselves.
Marriage should be between two consenting human adults - that's broad, inclusive and non-discrimminatory.
Who is being discrimminated against there? No one.
The next argument would be polygamy. I personally don't care if a someone chooses multiple spouses - to me, it's an individual choice between consenting adults. But I've heard reasonable arguments against it as well but that usually occurs in other countries.
Marriage between two adult humans shouldn't be prohibited unless it puts on or more of the particiapants in an inferior financial or emotional state.
Kind of like a formal legal version of ..."if there is anyone who can show just cause why the couple should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace"
So for plural marriage...the sister wives are put in a financial, as well as emotional inferior state, to the patriarch. Attention, and financial resources are divided. So in a plural marriage with 3 wives, and 1 husband, the wives only get 1/3 of the attention from the husband, and 1/3 of his financial support.
Children, horses, developmentally disabled people, and so on...cannot avoid being in an emotional inferior state to an adult human over 18.
I haven't found any drawbacks at all to what I've called the "inferior state" clause.
It's my baby. And my only real attempt at amatuerish legal stuff