Same Sex Marriage

[Scroats]

While I don't see what it has to do with same sex marriage, I'll have a go. Traditionally where polygamy happens or has happened, it is one man with multiple wives, not one wife with multiple husbands. This could lead to problems where there are laws regarding equality of the genders on the books. Can one of multiple wives have the same rights as one husband?

Also, if men of "higher status" can have 2, 4 or 10 wives, and given in most populations male/female ratios are around 50/50, who do "lower status" men marry? As older men take on younger wives as second, third and sixth wives, suddenly there is a disproportionate amount of young, unmarried men. This can and has caused problems. China and india are having problems already with inequality in gender numbers. That can and does "harm society".

If you feel strongly enough about it and that men and women should have the same rights regarding multiple spouses well then start a campaign, go out and do something for your rights and best of luck!

It has nothing to do with allowing same sex marriage though.

One of many spouses should have the same rights as any human. But the idea that polygamy has historically between one man and many women has no bearing on modern life, just as marriage historically was just between a man and a woman. This could be 3 men or possibly 2 men and 2 women or any combination you can come up with.

As for society concerning themselves with who marries whom, I think that the latest actions have blown that apart. It is of no concern to the government who marries whom.

Women are not to be assigned to men like property redistribution to ensure low status men receive a wife. To suggest it is the governments role to make sure everyone gets a wife is either crazy or a serious abuse of both governmental power and human rights.

As far as me feeling strongly about the topic, I don't. Just with *** marriage, I support freedom. I support freedom even at a cost to society. Don't confuse my questions with my position on a topic.

Interestingly, unlike *** marriage, polygamy was a significant part of marriage in historical times.

If I can accept that 2 men could. Live each other and should be entitled to the benefits of marriage, then I must accept that 3 people of any sexual makeup can also live each other and be entitled to the benefits of marriage.

In essence it's not a question of desire or wanting to fight for it. It's me exploring my beliefs and convictions and coming to the conclusion that if I do support freedom and a person's right to do as they please without causing harm to another, then I must support both *** marriage and polygamy. Neither rise anywhere near the level of "harm to society".

And while I feel I must support it, I will not be calling it normal. It is not.

[Orion21]

The issue from my point of view has nothing to due with if men should marry other men etc. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a complete bigot that *** people have the same feelings as straight. We all love, live, laugh and just want to be happy (most of us at least). The issue I see is that because government became involved with the institution of marriage they had to write laws to define what it is and is not. That is what has caused the issues we see today.

From a legal point of view, and I am not a professional attorney, because the government has defined marriage for centuries as between a man and a woman changing that definition could have drastic unintended legal consequences. Once you go down a slippery slope of defining something as A, then B the argument will be made about C, D E and F. My objection to changing the legal definition has nothing to do with not liking *** people, but everything to do with that slope. What other long held legal definitions should now be changed? What other "rights" are being denied all sorts of people that should now, with a popular movement backing it, being provided? What about my "right" to love whom I want? What if that were my sister, or my dad? Who's to judge me and approve or disapprove of who I love and can have the right to marry? What if that "love" were nothing but a ploy to avoid taxes or receive benefits? I could go on and on.

God love my *** friends, because I know I do, but the marriage debate is not about marriage. We could pass laws allowing same sex partners all the rights of married hetro couples without changing a centuries old legal definition and creating legal chaos. Yes, legal chaos is very well what this will create. I wish I could support this action of changing the definition so same sex people were exactly the same as us all, but I can't - because we're not. What makes us different is what makes us special. My *** friends, and family, are different and the law has viewed them that way for eons. It's our job to recognize those differences and embrace them. So marriage is for men and woman, so what? Legal union, whatever you want to call it, can be exactly the same if you aren't caught up in a word/label. I could care less if *** people marry, but the law doesn't. That's the issue.

[Ken Gargett]

leaving aside bigamy, polygamy, drug use and so on - love how threads just bounce everywhere - i see that the leader of our opposition has announced he'll introduce a private members bill to legalise same sex marriage.

while one applauds the act in principle, is there a single australian who believes shorten's sudden conversion to the cause is anything other than a cheap political stunt.

if we could keep politics and religion out of as much of our lives as possible, this would be a far better world.

[Ryan]

One of many spouses should have the same rights as any human. But the idea that polygamy has historically between one man and many women has no bearing on modern life, just as marriage historically was just between a man and a woman. This could be 3 men or possibly 2 men and 2 women or any combination you can come up with.

What if one of the wives wants to marry another man. Would the first husband have a say in it? Do you not see how this would lead to complications that no legislation would ever be able to manage. The only people who would benefit would be lawyers.

As for society concerning themselves with who marries whom, I think that the latest actions have blown that apart. It is of no concern to the government who marries whom.

It is in the interest of every government, and every country, to encourage people to have children. And have them in stable relationships. Governments did this traditionally by providing benefits to married people. It turns out that people (straight and ***) want to get married for reasons other than making babies. People want to get married because they love each other, form a new family unit as a couple and have the access to the same rights as other married people. The elderly and infertile cannot have children yet no government bans them from marrying.

Women are not to be assigned to men like property redistribution to ensure low status men receive a wife. To suggest it is the governments role to make sure everyone gets a wife is either crazy or a serious abuse of both governmental power and human rights.

I never suggested it is the governments role to make sure everyone gets a wife. What I said was when governments introduce policies that create a disparity between the numbers of single men and single women, problems arise.

As far as me feeling strongly about the topic, I don't. Just with *** marriage, I support freedom. I support freedom even at a cost to society. Don't confuse my questions with my position on a topic.

To be honest , I never thought you felt strongly about the subject of polygamy but you do seem to be interested in making a case for it. Is it because of the "*** marriage is a slippery slope" argument?

Interestingly, unlike *** marriage, polygamy was a significant part of marriage in historical times.

Homosexuality has been around much longer than marriage, religious or otherwise.

Polygamy was not a significant part of marriage in historical times. Polygyny was. Other than a few very rare exceptions, show me a time or a place in history where women had the same rights as men in having multiple spouses. The tradition of men having more than one wife was inextricably linked to men having more rights than women. Which they have had for most of history, usually enabled by religious beliefs. In a civil context, women are now, finally, gaining the same rights as men.

If I can accept that 2 men could. Live each other and should be entitled to the benefits of marriage, then I must accept that 3 people of any sexual makeup can also live each other and be entitled to the benefits of marriage.

You don't have to accept that at all, because it is a different, more complex, issue. Civil marriage is still a contract between two people, that hasn't changed. When people want that to change, let them ask for it.

In essence it's not a question of desire or wanting to fight for it. It's me exploring my beliefs and convictions and coming to the conclusion that if I do support freedom and a person's right to do as they please without causing harm to another, then I must support both *** marriage and polygamy. Neither rise anywhere near the level of "harm to society".

And while I feel I must support it, I will not be calling it normal. It is not.

How would you define normal?

[bugg4672]

Love is love. Never trust people who hate on love.

I agree, if there is love it should not matter about race or color. Like MLK Jr. said people should be only judged by the content of their character. It's 2015 not 1915, it's time for the world to catch up and stop all the racism, fighting over religious beliefs or lifestyle choices. As Rodney King once said..."WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!."

[Ryan]

The issue from my point of view has nothing to due with if men should marry other men etc. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a complete bigot that *** people have the same feelings as straight. We all love, live, laugh and just want to be happy (most of us at least). The issue I see is that because government became involved with the institution of marriage they had to write laws to define what it is and is not. That is what has caused the issues we see today.

From a legal point of view, and I am not a professional attorney, because the government has defined marriage for centuries as between a man and a woman changing that definition could have drastic unintended legal consequences. Once you go down a slippery slope of defining something as A, then B the argument will be made about C, D E and F. My objection to changing the legal definition has nothing to do with not liking *** people, but everything to do with that slope. What other long held legal definitions should now be changed? What other "rights" are being denied all sorts of people that should now, with a popular movement backing it, being provided? What about my "right" to love whom I want? What if that were my sister, or my dad? Who's to judge me and approve or disapprove of who I love and can have the right to marry? What if that "love" were nothing but a ploy to avoid taxes or receive benefits? I could go on and on.

God love my *** friends, because I know I do, but the marriage debate is not about marriage. We could pass laws allowing same sex partners all the rights of married hetro couples without changing a centuries old legal definition and creating legal chaos. Yes, legal chaos is very well what this will create. I wish I could support this action of changing the definition so same sex people were exactly the same as us all, but I can't - because we're not. What makes us different is what makes us special. My *** friends, and family, are different and the law has viewed them that way for eons. It's our job to recognize those differences and embrace them. So marriage is for men and woman, so what? Legal union, whatever you want to call it, can be exactly the same if you aren't caught up in a word/label. I could care less if *** people marry, but the law doesn't. That's the issue.

There was a time when everyone's marriage was "til death do you part". Then divorce became legalised and everyone's marriage went from being a permanently binding legal contract to a temporary one. I'm talking about civil marriage.

The fact is, divorce redefined marriage.

If you are against the notion of redefining marriage then you must be anti-divorce. If you are, that's fine but you must accept that most people are not against it.

Same-sex marriage has not created legal chaos in the countries where it has been legalised. It is true that same sex couples cannot have children naturally (together I mean) but neither can the elderly(or others beyond reproductive age) or infertile, as I said above.

Allowing the elderly and infertile to marry has not created legal chaos.

[Orion21]

Our legal systems are different. So these similar laws will have different impacts.

[Ryan]

leaving aside bigamy, polygamy, drug use and so on - love how threads just bounce everywhere - i see that the leader of our opposition has announced he'll introduce a private members bill to legalise same sex marriage.

while one applauds the act in principle, is there a single australian who believes shorten's sudden conversion to the cause is anything other than a cheap political stunt.

if we could keep politics and religion out of as much of our lives as possible, this would be a far better world.

I was talking to a government adviser here on Saturday night after the results came in. While the government started off backing the "Yes" campaign they were very worried until recently that it would be a "No" vote. Only when the polls showed a strong "Yes" did they start an ad campaign in favour of it.

Politicians like being popular. They know they'd have to get real jobs when they're not.

[Ryan]

Our legal systems are different. So these similar laws will have different impacts.

I honestly don't see what legal chaos would be created by extending the right to marry to same sex couples.

[Orion21]

I honestly don't see what legal chaos would be created by extending the right to marry to same sex couples.

I wish it was as simple as just "extending" the same right. There is no "right" to marry as rights are laid out in our Constitution and it's amendments. Marriage is a legally sanctioned union by the government. Since it is a legal status the law defined what it meant to be married. Traditionally the law has been very clear that one man and one woman may marry and receive it's benefits. The legal chaos I describe it not created by gays being able to marry, but the legal slippery slope changing the definition will create. It damn well is time to allow gays all of the same legal protections as hetro couples. Marriage just happens to be the most symbolic "difference" between the two, so logically it would make sense to make everyone equal. However, it's not that simple and my opinion is by changing the definition it will open the door for countless sub-challenges based on the legal precedent this would create. Having said that, there are many other options that would afford *** couples the same protections as married couples, but that's not good for the activist. Believe me I am empathetic to their frustrations, but I believe they are being shortsighted going for the Holy Grail all at once.

[...]

No law is designed to be relevant until the end of times. I say change is good; the slippery slope argument is futile as society evolved on its own, whether we're comfortable with the changes or not.

[Orion21]

No law is designed to be relevant until the end of times. I say change is good; the slippery slope argument is futile as society evolved on its own, whether we're comfortable with the changes or not.

You bring up another issue of changing legal precedent based on public opinion and polls. The Supreme Court is weighing the idea of changing long standing legal precedent, not only law, because public opinion is now in favor of *** marriage. And if that 's the issue how can the court justify legislating public opinion? In our system that is for the States to decide using the ballot box. However, these legal challenges have come from the court's invalidating the results of the ballot box . . .

It's truly a mess and it will basically come down to your personal opinion, however I have tried to eliminate that from my writing (Pro *** Marriage) to address the bigger issue. You bring up the idea of changing laws based on the whim of the public, but what happens if that opinion changes 2, 5, 10 or 20 years from now? Especially on major issues that are basically split 50/50. . .

[Ryan]

For those who don't agree with same-sex marriage, and I'm sure there are plenty because I know plenty of people against it, I understand some of the reasons.

I understand because I was there. I was raised in a traditional catholic Irish family. Queers were strange, not to be talked about or spoken to. It was accepted that they existed but they were wrong, sinful, degenerate, immoral, probably paedophiles and to be kept away from normal society. As kids we laughed at the idea and called each other names.

I remember the conversation that changed my mind on this. It was 20 years ago, I was living in Chicago and a friend of mine did charity work in a retirement home. Five evenings a week she read the newspaper to an old man who had gone blind.

His story was, he was ***, in a relationship for 40 years until his partner died. When the partner died, the family who had disowned the man for being ***, came out of the woodwork and got the house and the business, leaving the surviving partner destitute. With no legal relationship, no will and no joint ownership (in hindsight of course not a good idea), the man was left with nothing.

I just don't think that's right and I don't think most people would think that's right.

The exceptions being people who dislike *** people simply for being ***. If that's the case, well that's how people feel. I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'm certainly not calling out anybody on this forum but I know that's the reason that at least some people voted No here last friday, while hiding behind a dishonest "what about the children" argument.

Civil partnerships came in here in 2011 as did ,more recently, the right for *** people to apply to adopt. It is an application process here as there are far more couples who want to adopt than there are children for adoption.

An example of a gap in the legislation is as follows. A woman has a child or children through a previous relationship. Her partner dies or leaves her and she comes to the realisation that she is lesbian. She meets a woman and they are together for 10 years. Adoption is not possible here without marriage while there is an existing and present parent. If the natural mother dies, the other parent of the children, the woman and partner who has helped to raise them, had no right to claim guardianship. Those children could be split up by different family members and taken from the woman they regard as their mother. I just don't see how that can be right.

Finally, there's this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/alice-dubes-vivian-boyack-iowa-72-years-marriage

Who would deny happiness to those two people after so long.

[...]

Orion, strawman arguments sound actually worse than slippery slope ones. I am confident I will not change your opinion on this (nor was I applying myself to it) but know that standing one's ground is useless when it is the ground itself that is moving. No harm intended, cheers!

[Ryan]

You bring up another issue of changing legal precedent based on public opinion and polls. The Supreme Court is weighing the idea of changing long standing legal precedent, not only law, because public opinion is now in favor of *** marriage. And if that 's the issue how can the court justify legislating public opinion? In our system that is for the States to decide using the ballot box. However, these legal challenges have come from the court's invalidating the results of the ballot box . . .

It's truly a mess and it will basically come down to your personal opinion, however I have tried to eliminate that from my writing (Pro *** Marriage) to address the bigger issue. You bring up the idea of changing laws based on the whim of the public, but what happens if that opinion changes 2, 5, 10 or 20 years from now? Especially on major issues that are basically split 50/50. . .

Of course I'm not as familiar with US law as you but weren't there anti-miscegany laws on the books in some US states until the 1960s, until a Supreme court ruling in "Loving vs Virginia" ruled them unconstitutional.

Marriage in those states was redefined overnight. I don't think legal chaos ensued.

"You bring up the idea of changing laws based on the whim of the public, but what happens if that opinion changes 2, 5, 10 or 20 years from now? Especially on major issues that are basically split 50/50. . ."

I wouldn't call it a whim, it has taken years here to get it to referendum. Divorce was legalised here in 1996 on a vote of 50.2% Yes to 49.8% No. That didn't cause social breakdown or mass emigration.

[Orion21]

Orion, strawman arguments sound actually worse than slippery slope ones. I am confident I will not change your opinion on this (nor was I applying myself to it) but know that standing one's ground is useless when it is the ground itself that is moving. No harm intended, cheers!

Cheers to you too mate. Your "evolution" wording was very clear in my interpretation. I wasn't trying to create a straw man argument to make you seem wrong. If my interpretation was incorrect, my apologies.

[Ryan]

I'm going to leave it here for tonight. I don't expect to change people's minds on the issue, I just wanted to give my side. I'm around long enough to know that internet debates rarely end in agreement and I'm not a fan of making enemies of people who don't know me well enough to dislike me for good reason.

[Jeremy Festa]

Some weird and interesting tangents, as always. I would like to add a quick note on 'normal.' This ideal is the most concerning part and the basis of a lot of uneducated opinions when it comes to same sex marriage. Normal is confused with 'majority.'

I will tell you what is fast becoming normal.... The understanding and acceptance of same sex marriage.

So, if you disagree with same sex marriage, that's cool. Whatever. But you're the one who is no longer normal.

Sent from my iPhone

[Ken Gargett]

You bring up another issue of changing legal precedent based on public opinion and polls. The Supreme Court is weighing the idea of changing long standing legal precedent, not only law, because public opinion is now in favor of *** marriage. And if that 's the issue how can the court justify legislating public opinion? In our system that is for the States to decide using the ballot box. However, these legal challenges have come from the court's invalidating the results of the ballot box . . .

It's truly a mess and it will basically come down to your personal opinion, however I have tried to eliminate that from my writing (Pro *** Marriage) to address the bigger issue. You bring up the idea of changing laws based on the whim of the public, but what happens if that opinion changes 2, 5, 10 or 20 years from now? Especially on major issues that are basically split 50/50. . .

first up, i do note you are on the side of same rights for all. that said...

i think you have this around the wrong way. the changes by way of the whim of the public are far more likely to be reflected in changes enabled by governments rather than courts. which is exactly what we are now seeing here. the opposition is suddenly pushing for same sex marriage when they have largely opposed it for ages. what has changed? public opinion and hence more votes for them. simple as that. courts (we don't have elected courts here and i know that the more senior courts in the states are also not elected) are far less likely to be swayed by public opinion. they don't need to take any notice of it at all.

also, no idea why this bit went all grey background??? or how to get rid of it.

what you are talking about is what is sometimes called 'judicial legislation' here and it is far less common than most think. it gets publicity because it can be dramatic/important. usually happens when there are gaps. the vast majority of time, courts go with interpreting legislation and/or following precedent.

separation of the judiciary and legislature is critical. that is very different from invalidating the results of the ballot box.

trust me, laws will be changed on public whims for centuries to come, but these will be changes by governments rather than courts.

"The legal chaos I describe it not created by gays being able to marry, but the legal slippery slope changing the definition will create. It damn well is time to allow gays all of the same legal protections as hetro couples. Marriage just happens to be the most symbolic "difference" between the two, so logically it would make sense to make everyone equal. However, it's not that simple and my opinion is by changing the definition it will open the door for countless sub-challenges based on the legal precedent this would create. Having said that, there are many other options that would afford *** couples the same protections as married couples, but that's not good for the activist. Believe me I am empathetic to their frustrations, but I believe they are being shortsighted going for the Holy Grail all at once."

i don't buy this 'other options' idea. in respect of this topic, i am as far from an activist as you'll find but the other options idea is certainly not good enough for me, and for almost every person keen to see equal rights. i just don't accept the 'we can't do it now because it is difficult argument'. JFK would be horrified - "we do this, not because it is easy but because it is hard" or something like that. aside from the fact that i suspect it will create far less challenges than you think, so what. deal with them.

you say that you are pro *** marriage but then claim they are shortsighted by wanting equal rights (and with respect, it seems you are referring to gays/lesbians alone whereas 'they' should include a much larger % of the population, or 1.4% if our friend can find the figures - also, i have no idea who or what CDC is).

how the hell can a human being be shortsighted in wanting the same rights as others?

[Orion21]

first up, i do note you are on the side of same rights for all. that said...

i think you have this around the wrong way. the changes by way of the whim of the public are far more likely to be reflected in changes enabled by governments rather than courts. which is exactly what we are now seeing here. the opposition is suddenly pushing for same sex marriage when they have largely opposed it for ages. what has changed? public opinion and hence more votes for them. simple as that. courts (we don't have elected courts here and i know that the more senior courts in the states are also not elected) are far less likely to be swayed by public opinion. they don't need to take any notice of it at all.

also, no idea why this bit went all grey background??? or how to get rid of it.

what you are talking about is what is sometimes called 'judicial legislation' here and it is far less common than most think. it gets publicity because it can be dramatic/important. usually happens when there are gaps. the vast majority of time, courts go with interpreting legislation and/or following precedent.

separation of the judiciary and legislature is critical. that is very different from invalidating the results of the ballot box.

trust me, laws will be changed on public whims for centuries to come, but these will be changes by governments rather than courts.

"The legal chaos I describe it not created by gays being able to marry, but the legal slippery slope changing the definition will create. It damn well is time to allow gays all of the same legal protections as hetro couples. Marriage just happens to be the most symbolic "difference" between the two, so logically it would make sense to make everyone equal. However, it's not that simple and my opinion is by changing the definition it will open the door for countless sub-challenges based on the legal precedent this would create. Having said that, there are many other options that would afford *** couples the same protections as married couples, but that's not good for the activist. Believe me I am empathetic to their frustrations, but I believe they are being shortsighted going for the Holy Grail all at once."

i don't buy this 'other options' idea. in respect of this topic, i am as far from an activist as you'll find but the other options idea is certainly not good enough for me, and for almost every person keen to see equal rights. i just don't accept the 'we can't do it now because it is difficult argument'. JFK would be horrified - "we do this, not because it is easy but because it is hard" or something like that. aside from the fact that i suspect it will create far less challenges than you think, so what. deal with them.

you say that you are pro *** marriage but then claim they are shortsighted by wanting equal rights (and with respect, it seems you are referring to gays/lesbians alone whereas 'they' should include a much larger % of the population, or 1.4% if our friend can find the figures - also, i have no idea who or what CDC is).

how the hell can a human being be shortsighted in wanting the same rights as others?

All your points are great and I agree with them in many respects. Where I differ is I don't think marriage is a human right in the USA. I view marriage as a legal contract. You can't get married without the permission of your State here in the USA. That means getting a license. I believe the law could be considered discriminatory because it is not inclusive. But it is the law and changing what the law says will have consequences that many are not considering because it's an emotional issue. If the Supreme Court were to rule that marriage cannot be limited and same sex couples can be legally married in every state, there will be Freedom of Religion issues. Not all people believe the way we do Ken ( it's roughly a 50/50 issue here). All of a sudden with a written opinion a handful of appointed judges (split on opinion as well) would create a situation where anyone unwilling to marry same sex couples would be breaking the law. That is a big deal because in the US Freedom of Religion is written into the constitution. How can you reconcile the two?

This is why I believe the Supreme Court should leave it to the States to pass their own legislation to allow or disallow *** marriage. If popular opinion is on our side, like we believe, there should be legalization bills flying through the ballot box during the next few elections. If we truly believe this is an inevitable evolution of society let the democratic process work and let the populace decide. Ireland has set a precedent for the rest of the world and they didn't use the courts to decide. The people voted and the majority made the right decision. Shouldn't we trust our own to do the same?

[DrunkenMonkey]

All of a sudden with a written opinion a handful of appointed judges (split on opinion as well) would create a situation where anyone unwilling to marry same sex couples would be breaking the law.

This is a recurring straw man. Just because people have the right to get married and the state issues a marriage license that doesn't obligate any church to sanction or perform any marriage, and no one is suggesting that it should. As it is now, heterosexual couples have the right to obtain a marriage license, and different churches may or may not choose to perform any individual marriage. It would be no different for *** couples. No church would be or has been forced by law to perform any marriage, or any other religious function. This is just something people keep bringing up to frighten the ignorant.

[Orion21]

From the USA Today on May 13th:

"Justice Alito posed a predictable, but revealing question to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., in the recent Supreme Court same-sex marriage oral argument: "In the Bob Jones case, the court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?"

Alito's question was premised on the Bob Jones University case from 1983 in which the IRS revoked the school's tax exempt status because of its policies on interracial dating and marriage. BJU defended on the basis of the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court rejected their defense holding that the government's goal of eradicating racial discrimination in marriage was more important than BJU's religious rights. So, the follow-up question from Alito's question is obvious: If the court rules in favor of same sex marriage, how can religious colleges that refuse to acknowledge such unions avoid BJU's fate?" "

This is an example of the fallout a case like this could create if the will of the States is invalidated and the Courts legislate. I'm for *** marriage 110%, but the States need to decide this issue.

[DrunkenMonkey]

Again, no one, to my knowledge, is advocating that churches should be forced to perform any marriage ceremony. Many churches have very specific requirements regarding who they will and will not perform marriages for. For example, requiring that the people getting married must be members, undergo counseling, promise to raise kids in the church, not be divorced, etc. If these have ever been challenged, they have been upheld, because they still do it. And I've not heard of anyone suggesting that it should be otherwise. A straw man is a straw man, even if it's brought up as a hypothetical by a conservative supreme court justice.

[Scroats]

In response to @ryan without quoting the whole thing:

"What if one of the wives wants to marry another man. Would the first husband have a say in it? "

Other spouses would have to consent. If not, they can divorce and seek their own marriage(s).

"It is in the interest of every government, and every country, to encourage people to have children."

China disagrees. I think it's a poor excuse to unnecessarily wield the powers of government.

"Is it because of the "*** marriage is a slippery slope" argument?"

I don't believe in slippery slope arguments. Issues should be argued on their own merits and not in the merits of something else.

"How would you define normal?"

The Merriam Webster dictionary has the following definiton that I feel applies: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.

Also of note, Polygyny is a type of polygamy. To say "Polygamy was not a significant part of marriage in historical times. Polygyny was. " misleads in assuming they are distinct activities and one is not a subset of the other. Both polyandry and polygyny were practiced is prehistoric and historic times.

[OZCUBAN]

Good on you Ireland I think we are heading to the same end here in OZ with a proposed conscience vote in parliament ,then a future referendum Equality for all I say and the same legal rights ,enough said the way *** people were treated in the not so recent past is totally abhorrent

Bravo again Ireland for taking the