In the poll I will allow people to pick one of the options on what if any combos of marriage should be allowed between those of legal age to marry. I am morally against marriage that isn't between a man and a women but think people should have the right to make there own choices as it's not my life and there is no one being hurt by it. Honestly I think government should stay out of it all together when it comes to the personal relationship's of consenting adult's but that's just me. I got the tar beat out of me when I suggested this 3-4 years ago by gays because they said bisexuals, incest and more than two people getting married was gross. Honestly I think it is gross as well and that includes gays, but I don't want the government to force what I think is right upon other people. I wonder for those who claimed that gay's have the right to marriage, but not to more than one person or those closely related to themselves how they justify this stance beyond thinking it's gross or makes you feel uneasy.
I will say what I said before. I need to read/hear the arguments of the proponents of the regulation and also the rebuttals to see if there is a either a rational basis or a compelling state interest in regulating these marriages, assuming these scenarios are similar enough to precedent to even require that standard . the rationales to regulate will all be very very different from same sex or interracial marriage because folks claim the risks are different.. This is about weighing two competing interests and that means we ought to know what each side claims is theirs. If we don't know their arguments, we can't determine which are their strong arguments and which are their weak ones. I am not going to guess at them, and then take a stance.
Given the argument from the left regarding same sex marriage: No. Given that argument, there's no sound argument against 4 men and 4 women all being married to one another.
Correct. Including spousal benefits and protections - the fact you are married to someone should legally mean nothing.
Perhaps it would be better if there was more clarity on the ask here. Is the question, the legal conference of legal rights to multiple individuals, or is it a conversation about the ethicality of government creating reservations of rights?
Although I oppose gay marriage, it's here, it's queer, it will not disappear. So that's water under the bridge. However I also oppose first cousin marriage. Many states ban it but not all. We need to get the rest of those states on board to ban it.
The only limit should be adults and all consenting. If those two categories are met, I don't care who is involved.
That is basically what I am implying and when I said this years ago on a gaming forum talking about same sex marriage. I got blasted by all types but those claiming to be gay blasted me the hardest for stating this. More about a debate in what the government role in setting rights here should be more than anything.
That's how I feel about it at this point. When government got into it is was mostly to boost reproduction in a civilized way. Now I don't know why government is even in the marriage business.
