rickb wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
rickb wrote:
Seems like you've perhaps missed the whole point here, which is that "marriage" brings a tremendous number of legal benefits to the spouses - starting with medical consent and survivor Social Security. There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of laws that create benefits that exist solely between spouses. What SCOTUS has ruled is that denying these benefits to same sex couples is unconstitutional. This has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy or polyandry (or, since my guess is you'll bring these up next, bestiality or pedophilia). SCOTUS has not, and cannot, rule that your church must condone or recognize same sex marriages, but rather that every state must afford the same legal benefits to same sex couples (i.e "marriage") that they afford opposite sex couples. In this context "marriage" is a legal term, which basically has nothing to do with whatever your church calls "marriage". It is definitely confusing that the same term ("marriage") is used for both a religious union and a legal (civil) union - but what we're talking about here is the legal one, not the religious one.
The arguments against plural marriage are the same as those against same-sex marriage.
Neither of them has anything to do with bestiality or pedophilia, which lack the crucial element of consent. Of course, many "conservatives" (like Rick Santorum) seem to equate same-sex marriage (and plural marriage) with bestiality. Do you really want to be on the same side as him in this argument?
Actually, you're (intentionally?) confusing things here. The arguments FOR plural marriage have nothing to do with the arguments FOR same-sex marriage. Neither of them (pro or against) has anything to do with bestiality or pedophilia (so we agree on something), and many "conservatives" seem to equate same-sex marriage (and plural marriage) with bestiality. I assumed you were of the "conservative" persuasion (given your posts here) which is why I preemptively brought this up. How you can torture this into an assertion (phrased as a question) that I agree with Rick Santorum (about anything) seems like the kind of personal attack that gets people banned around here if they're expressing liberal opinions.
I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian.
Consequently, I believe that people should be free to marry whomever and however many they wish, whether male or female, so long as all participants are adult human beings.
This is actually a Ninth Amendment right, by the way, part of the freedom of association that (almost everyone agrees) is implied by the First Amendment:
'While the United States Constiution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[4]
Intimate association
A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. Depending on the jurisdiction it may also extend to abortion, birth control and private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual relationships.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... nstitution
