If you're okay with homosexual marriage would you support..

My own reasons would have only to do with their ability to care for the child. If they are competent to care for the child, and are not a danger to the child, they should be permitted to adopt.

 

The problem is that what you are suggesting has never been done anywhere as far as I'm aware. There has never been truly gender-neutral muliti-spouse marriage.

If we lived in a patriarchal society and you were advocating for traditional one-man, multiple-women polygamy I would say that yes, in theory, it could be done. In those circumstances the template for limiting the number of partners is essentially how ever many the man wants and can afford. Divorce is: "because I said so", alimony is: "if you're lucky" and custody is either "no way" or "take the brat and never darken my door."

In the west we value gender equality so if a man can have ten wives, those wives have to be free to have ten husbands. That sets up the potential for endless "string marriages" the like of which have never been encountered before anywhere on the planet. I don't think anyone's saying that it shouldn't be done, just that we have zero legal framework on which to base its administration. Like I say, some have alluded to corporate law as a starting place and the sharing of a finite pie of benefits as as additional approach.

If you want to have that discussion then let's do it. Once again what on earth from a legal and logistical standpoint does that have to do with same sex couples marrying? Nothing as far as I can see.

 

The media and politicians do not operate in a vacuum. Those politicians are elected by a majority. Obama did not elect himself into office.

You seem to be implying some kind of conspiracy keeping the "real" majority from exercising it's will. That is simply not possible under our system. If the majority really wanted to stop this stuff, it is in their power to do so. If 90%+ of Americans really do not want gay marriage legalized, it would not be legalized anywhere.

So what? According to you that is a tiny fraction of the population...I believe you said 1-3%. That is NOT enough to force any issue at all. No amount of vocalizations is going to trump votes. Either they are convincing the majority of their point of view, or the majority is indifferent on it (and thus not as opposed to it as you'd like to think). Or both.

Again, so what? Are you saying the majority of straight people are just robots programmed by the media? Do you honestly believe they would vote slavery back in if the media wanted them to? Gimme a break. The media reflects public opinion...they don't make it.

Even if the media DID program them, again, so what? The fact would remain that no one is forcing them to vote in a way they do not want. The final decision on who to vote for is still theirs, regardless of what influenced it.

 

Marriage is a contract, based on property rights, and expected responsibilities. Since consenting adults can only enter an agreement with contractual obligations, why not.

Adoptions? Well just like any adoption, parents (2 each) would be designated for the agreement, also a contract, so all other parties would also have to agree since there is a partnership, but those other partners would have no responsibility unless the designated parents could no longer fulfill their obligation, such as an illness or death.

Bringing in more partners doesn't complicate anything as long as the active parties know and understand their responsibilities within the partnership.

 

It is more than close to true. It is true. Under our system the majority does have all the power.

And if it is NOT true, then you've already lost anyway, and this discussion is pointless. If you really believe the majority supports you, and even with this support (power) you STILL cannot enact your will, then you are already done. There is nowhere to go from there.

Homosexuals can get a woman pregnant just as easily as you can. Homosexuality does not mean the same thing as infertility.

 

Why not just allow any number of consenting adults to enter into a mass group marriage, irrespective of the numbers or what has been done where before?

 

So you are advocating restricting the right to have children or legally marry only to non-poor people?

 

That is a very clinical definition.

It would not mean merely that to me.

Or even that first.

 

I'm guessing you're not a divorce lawyer, social worker or family court judge?

 

Ok

Please tell me which of those definitions do not apply to the US.

 

No.

I am saying that those who want to adopt would have to demonstrate they could support the child they wanted to adopt.

Unless you want to let people too poor to look after themselves, adopt a child?

 

What it means to you isn't even in question. Gay couples used to have "weddings" that meant a lot to them but nothing to the law. We're discussing legal marriage, anything else is an irrelevance and a personal choice. 50 people can live together and "call" themselves married right now. That's not in dispute.

 

Why not? You cited drug use as a reason to deny marriage or adoption...why are you making an exception for poor people? Poor people are statistically far more likely to engage in drug use, right?

Your criteria are not consistent.

Gays are statistically more likely to have money. If anything this should bias you in favor of homos adopting. Unless you have other criteria?

 

I assume you mean the US as it is today, since things are not a static, whether the mass notice them alter is another matter.

For one thing you have never been a democracy.

You were a Republic.

There is a difference, or at least there was, but since you have neither now it is moot.

However....




. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Please do not say you still believe this? Come on man, what you have is Gov of the oligarchs, and every few years, you get to decide which of two puppets will serve their interests, and those of a certain little state from afar, for the next 4yrs.


2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

The US was set up as a republic, not a democracy. It is now what I would call a plutocracy. This is good for them and bad for you.



3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

Exists in theory v much not in practice.


4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

Lost that decades ago.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power

Neat idea. You don't have that either now. Nor do we.

 

It is not hard.

If someone wants to adopt I believe they already need to show they can support themselves, let alone the child. If I am calling for anything it is merely for that to be augmented. Doing anything other than this would be the height of being irresponsible.

If someone is a drug user and wants to adopt children, then of course they should not be permitted. Who would choose to put a child into that? You take children out of that, you do not place them in it.

Why is that so hard to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

Says who?

 

Where it belongs. In Israel. Many Israelis disagree with the system that originated under the Ottoman Empire.

I did not aver that equality in marriage was accepted everywhere but the most conservative of Muslim nations, merely that it did not get folks in a dither elsewhere. A number of political parties in Israel, as well as members of parliament and government officials, have come out in support of ending gender discrimination, but the confessional communities still oppose it. Equality has not yet been achived in several predominantly Christian nations either.

That's in sharp contrast to Islamic theocracies where same-sex marriage is soundly condemned and is not even a matter for public debate.


.

 

I have no bias against people that would want to enter into a poly-whatever relationship. I would hope it's willingly, as those types of relationships more often than not tend to be sexist and sometimes involve children too young to consent. But if the relationship involves consenting adults, I have no objections. However, those looking for government recognition of those relationships have a much harder fight on their hands because there is no existing system in which poly marriages take place, something that creates a big distinction between those types of relationships and traditional/same-sex marriages. Having additional spouses means new laws and new guidelines, something I'm not against, but simply recognize is a much bigger proposal than allowing same-sex couples to marry under current marriage laws.

So, not opposed, just stressing that this is not the same legal undertaking as same-sex marriage.

 

You said Islamic.

We were talking about matters pertaining to marriage.

Again, Israel's marriage policies are ethnic based, since you must be a Jew to marry a Jew. A Jew would no be allowed to marry a Catholic or, heaven forbid, an Arab there. Nor a Protestant. So that is a clear religious and ethnic bigotry. If it is bigotry in the rest of the Western World, it is bigotry there.

That was my point.

And no one seethes at them in the media.

 

I don't see that there "fight" would be any harder than that of the homosexual marriage, because that did not just happen easy and overnight.

If anything, by virtue of that, it will have made their fight easier, on many levels.

 

Says the law. What you feel about your marriage in no way prevents or entitles you to obtain a marriage license.

 

Yes, no Islamic nation is even considering eliminating gender discrimination in their marriage contracts.

Many western nations have already done so, or are considering doing so.

Neither has anything to do with Israel.

And I agree that it is discriminatory, and hope that Israelis who are advocating for progress will succeed.

 

Possibly. I think it tends to be easier to amend the law than to pass new ones that create an entirely new framework. Just look at Obamacare.

 

Yes.

But we have fit the definition of a democracy for a while now. This is not something that is recent.

We currently fit all of the definitions above IMO.

You say that as if the definitions are mutually exclusive. They are not. We fit both definitions. As is evidenced above.

You have failed to demonstrate that neither definition applies to us.

You have failed to demonstrate that the majority has not elected our government. Your personal prejudices and biases are not acceptable evidence IMO.

So? The definition is not saying how the US was originally "set up"...it is defining how it is right now.

Your response is basically "I don't believe the people of the US would really vote for the government they have right now". While you are certainly entitled to an opinion, it is not objective proof of anything. If I say I do not believe the sun is really up there, that does not mean it ceases to exist.

And if the US is really not democratically ruled, then the rest of your arguments are pointless, since there is no way for you to ever get what you are wanting.

 

I know three gay men that lived together for many years. Who gets left out if there is no polygamy?

 

You think "menage a trois" are exclusive to gays?