Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Watching Up and they are talking about marriage equality, that two people in love should be allowed to be married.  Does this mean that cousins, brothers and sisters, polygamists all deserve marriage equality.

by on May. 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM
Replies (341-350):
kansasmom1978
by Bronze Member on Jun. 28, 2013 at 10:41 PM

I think that marriage is between a man and a woman.

LilyofPhilly
by Gold Member on Jun. 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Exactly, where and when, because it's not existed in this country in our 237 year history.

Quoting JTROX:

That is not what your question asked.  Here was your question:  "When and where was SSM commonplace?"

SSM has been addressed by US courts before.  I know it was in the 70's.  (Baker v. Nelson in MN for example)

SSM is being rejected by some states still today.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

I said OUR society. Cousin marriage and polygamy both existed in the US before. And in the scenarios you mentioned, Outsiders, such as Christians interfered in the existing society.



Quoting JTROX:

I don't think I would use the term "commonplace" but ssm were written about in pre-christian times, 18th century London, some American Indians, and there are more.  Google same-sex unions throughout history.  There are many sources where this info is available.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

When and where was SSM commonplace?





Quoting JTROX:

Same-sex marriage has also already existed and it has/had been rejected by society.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sure, because it's a non-issue that keeps being dragged up. Polygamy and inbreeding have already existed and been rejected by our society. SSM has not.




JTROX
by Gold Member on Jun. 28, 2013 at 11:30 PM

The issue and court cases involving ssm have existed.  I've already answered the question.  See answer below.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Exactly, where and when, because it's not existed in this country in our 237 year history.

Quoting JTROX:

That is not what your question asked.  Here was your question:  "When and where was SSM commonplace?"

SSM has been addressed by US courts before.  I know it was in the 70's.  (Baker v. Nelson in MN for example)

SSM is being rejected by some states still today.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

I said OUR society. Cousin marriage and polygamy both existed in the US before. And in the scenarios you mentioned, Outsiders, such as Christians interfered in the existing society.



Quoting JTROX:

I don't think I would use the term "commonplace" but ssm were written about in pre-christian times, 18th century London, some American Indians, and there are more.  Google same-sex unions throughout history.  There are many sources where this info is available.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

When and where was SSM commonplace?





Quoting JTROX:

Same-sex marriage has also already existed and it has/had been rejected by society.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sure, because it's a non-issue that keeps being dragged up. Polygamy and inbreeding have already existed and been rejected by our society. SSM has not.





LilyofPhilly
by Gold Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 12:52 AM
You seem to be confused about the point I'm making. I'm talking about rejection from the potential parties involved, not society stopping people from doing what they want. Most people have decided that they don't want to be in polygamous marriages. Therefore, I don't see a slew of people coming forward to demand the legaization of polygamy. Likewise, there aren't a whole lot of people wanting to marry their siblings or cousins.

Quoting JTROX:

The issue and court cases involving ssm have existed.  I've already answered the question.  See answer below.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Exactly, where and when, because it's not existed in this country in our 237 year history.



Quoting JTROX:

That is not what your question asked.  Here was your question:  "When and where was SSM commonplace?"

SSM has been addressed by US courts before.  I know it was in the 70's.  (Baker v. Nelson in MN for example)

SSM is being rejected by some states still today.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

I said OUR society. Cousin marriage and polygamy both existed in the US before. And in the scenarios you mentioned, Outsiders, such as Christians interfered in the existing society.





Quoting JTROX:

I don't think I would use the term "commonplace" but ssm were written about in pre-christian times, 18th century London, some American Indians, and there are more.  Google same-sex unions throughout history.  There are many sources where this info is available.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

When and where was SSM commonplace?







Quoting JTROX:

Same-sex marriage has also already existed and it has/had been rejected by society.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sure, because it's a non-issue that keeps being dragged up. Polygamy and inbreeding have already existed and been rejected by our society. SSM has not.





JTROX
by Gold Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:22 AM

You said, "...rejected by our society."  I didn't realize that meant, you were talking about individual choices.  A society is a community or group.

OK.  If two consenting adults want to get married, should we stop them, because not many want to get involved in the same type of relationship.?  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

You seem to be confused about the point I'm making. I'm talking about rejection from the potential parties involved, not society stopping people from doing what they want. Most people have decided that they don't want to be in polygamous marriages. Therefore, I don't see a slew of people coming forward to demand the legaization of polygamy. Likewise, there aren't a whole lot of people wanting to marry their siblings or cousins.

Quoting JTROX:

The issue and court cases involving ssm have existed.  I've already answered the question.  See answer below.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Exactly, where and when, because it's not existed in this country in our 237 year history.



Quoting JTROX:

That is not what your question asked.  Here was your question:  "When and where was SSM commonplace?"

SSM has been addressed by US courts before.  I know it was in the 70's.  (Baker v. Nelson in MN for example)

SSM is being rejected by some states still today.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

I said OUR society. Cousin marriage and polygamy both existed in the US before. And in the scenarios you mentioned, Outsiders, such as Christians interfered in the existing society.





Quoting JTROX:

I don't think I would use the term "commonplace" but ssm were written about in pre-christian times, 18th century London, some American Indians, and there are more.  Google same-sex unions throughout history.  There are many sources where this info is available.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

When and where was SSM commonplace?







Quoting JTROX:

Same-sex marriage has also already existed and it has/had been rejected by society.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sure, because it's a non-issue that keeps being dragged up. Polygamy and inbreeding have already existed and been rejected by our society. SSM has not.






LilyofPhilly
by Gold Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Sorry, I meant our society rejecting these unions for themselves, in general, not a majority bullying others out of any relationship. It is not our business what consenting adults want to do with their lives.

Quoting JTROX:

You said, "...rejected by our society."  I didn't realize that meant, you were talking about individual choices.  A society is a community or group.

OK.  If two consenting adults want to get married, should we stop them, because not many want to get involved in the same type of relationship.?  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

You seem to be confused about the point I'm making. I'm talking about rejection from the potential parties involved, not society stopping people from doing what they want. Most people have decided that they don't want to be in polygamous marriages. Therefore, I don't see a slew of people coming forward to demand the legaization of polygamy. Likewise, there aren't a whole lot of people wanting to marry their siblings or cousins.



Quoting JTROX:

The issue and court cases involving ssm have existed.  I've already answered the question.  See answer below.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Exactly, where and when, because it's not existed in this country in our 237 year history.





Quoting JTROX:

That is not what your question asked.  Here was your question:  "When and where was SSM commonplace?"

SSM has been addressed by US courts before.  I know it was in the 70's.  (Baker v. Nelson in MN for example)

SSM is being rejected by some states still today.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

I said OUR society. Cousin marriage and polygamy both existed in the US before. And in the scenarios you mentioned, Outsiders, such as Christians interfered in the existing society.







Quoting JTROX:

I don't think I would use the term "commonplace" but ssm were written about in pre-christian times, 18th century London, some American Indians, and there are more.  Google same-sex unions throughout history.  There are many sources where this info is available.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

When and where was SSM commonplace?









Quoting JTROX:

Same-sex marriage has also already existed and it has/had been rejected by society.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sure, because it's a non-issue that keeps being dragged up. Polygamy and inbreeding have already existed and been rejected by our society. SSM has not.






JTROX
by Gold Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 9:20 AM

I agree.  Everyone should be able to decide for themselves who they want to marry (consenting adult, of course), whether it be gay, straight, polygamous, or incestual.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sorry, I meant our society rejecting these unions for themselves, in general, not a majority bullying others out of any relationship. It is not our business what consenting adults want to do with their lives.

Quoting JTROX:

You said, "...rejected by our society."  I didn't realize that meant, you were talking about individual choices.  A society is a community or group.

OK.  If two consenting adults want to get married, should we stop them, because not many want to get involved in the same type of relationship.?  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

You seem to be confused about the point I'm making. I'm talking about rejection from the potential parties involved, not society stopping people from doing what they want. Most people have decided that they don't want to be in polygamous marriages. Therefore, I don't see a slew of people coming forward to demand the legaization of polygamy. Likewise, there aren't a whole lot of people wanting to marry their siblings or cousins.



Quoting JTROX:

The issue and court cases involving ssm have existed.  I've already answered the question.  See answer below.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Exactly, where and when, because it's not existed in this country in our 237 year history.





Quoting JTROX:

That is not what your question asked.  Here was your question:  "When and where was SSM commonplace?"

SSM has been addressed by US courts before.  I know it was in the 70's.  (Baker v. Nelson in MN for example)

SSM is being rejected by some states still today.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

I said OUR society. Cousin marriage and polygamy both existed in the US before. And in the scenarios you mentioned, Outsiders, such as Christians interfered in the existing society.







Quoting JTROX:

I don't think I would use the term "commonplace" but ssm were written about in pre-christian times, 18th century London, some American Indians, and there are more.  Google same-sex unions throughout history.  There are many sources where this info is available.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

When and where was SSM commonplace?









Quoting JTROX:

Same-sex marriage has also already existed and it has/had been rejected by society.  

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Sure, because it's a non-issue that keeps being dragged up. Polygamy and inbreeding have already existed and been rejected by our society. SSM has not.







mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Gay marriage is not a slippery slope into depravity and yes I think Polygammy should be legal, Not just one man many women - but all different combinations - The relative thing to me has always been weird, but that is purely a cultural thing. The marrying your first cousin, happens alot in the area of Kansas that I grew up in.

Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Jun. 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting mikiemom:

Gay marriage is not a slippery slope into depravity and yes I think Polygammy should be legal, Not just one man many women - but all different combinations - The relative thing to me has always been weird, but that is purely a cultural thing. The marrying your first cousin, happens alot in the area of Kansas that I grew up in.

I agree.. other than the Kansas part... I try to avoid Kansas.. lol 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM
If so, then so are the demands for ssm. But neither are dismissable, imo, and both can be addressed outside the institution of marriage.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting Meadowchik:

 


Quoting romalove:




Quoting Meadowchik:


 


Quoting romalove:




Quoting Meadowchik:


 "Marriage equality" is an oxymoron.  Plenty of GLBT activists will admit this, and go even further by saying that the institution of marriage needs to be deconstructed, whether from the inside or outside in order to give equal rights to all, because someone is always denied rights because of marriage laws.


As for me, "equality" is about comparing like groups the same.  From a moral perspective, equating heterosexual relationships with homosexual relationships is one of two things; unfair to gays because it attributes moral responsibilities that don't exist to gay sex, or dangerous because it minimizes the responsibilities of heterosexual sex.


There are many types of families, for some perspective, there are about 22 million shared households between platonic adults in the US.  Compare that to the aproximately 650 thousand gay couples in the US. Even with gay marriage accross the US, many, many families would be alienated because of all the rights and priveleges given to married couples only. 


So, it doesn't make sense to assume that ALL families have to fit under the marriage umbrella.  It isn't necessary in order to provide families with legal kinship status, nor is it enough to do so for all families.


 


::looking for the hue and cry of roommates around the country for marriage rights::


Look, if those platonic relationships are heterosexual they can already get married everywhere, if they are same sex they can get married in various places around the country, if they are incestual it's illegal.


I don't know what prevents "most" people in those households from getting married, unless it's that marriage implies sex and they don't want to have sex implied in their relationships.




 And if they not incestual, but are close-blood relatives, they are restricted because marriage brings with it the legal presumption of being sexual in nature. And anyone in a platonic relationship is alienated from marriage if they do not want to live under false pretenses.


OK.  So marriage is about having a legal sexual relationship.


I don't see the problem.


 The problem is that there are more types of families than those connected by sex, which also need legal protections, rights, and priveleges.  I started a thread on it a couple weeks ago, here, based on a book called Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage by GLBT family rights lawyer Nancy Polikoff.

I saw it.

I don't know what "protections" those other families need.

I think this is all a tempest in a teapot.  

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)