Report: "Massachusetts Town Legalizes Polygamy Using Same Arguments For Gay Marriage,"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
40.png
fredystairs:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
adamhovey1988:
Wait a minute, though. Is polygamy legal in the commonwealth of Massachusetts? If not, would not the state government have the right to overturn the town’s law? (Keep in mind, I am not an expert in Massachusetts law)
Click to expand...
A domestic partnership does not equate to a marriage.
Click to expand...
And how long do you think it will be before someone sues to have this changed to having three or more people getting married? That’s how homosexual marriage came about. And I don’t the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will overturn this.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a federal matter. Domestic partnerships do not equate to marriage and are a local matter.

The sky is not falling.
Click to expand...
Same-sex “marriage” was legal in Massachusetts years before it became legal at the Federal level. While the Feds didn’t recognize it for things like tax purposes, the Commonwealth did. Much marriage law is state, not federal.
 
Pitcairn17 said:
Same-sex “marriage” was legal in Massachusetts years before it became legal at the Federal level. While the Feds didn’t recognize it for things like tax purposes, the Commonwealth did. Much marriage law is state, not federal.
Click to expand...
If someone wants to use this article as a call to arms to protect ‘marriage’ (I can use scare quotes as well) then go for it.

Personally speaking, if some people want to live together in some three way relationship then it ain’t going to affect me in any way whatsoever. I really could care less.
 
fredystairs said:
And how long do you think it will be before someone sues to have this changed to having three or more people getting married?
Click to expand...
There may be no logical reason to stop the state’s legal definition of marriage at 2 persons, however I suspect the “poly” crowd are way too small to be taken much notice of…
 
RuthAnne said:
Government needs to stay out of the marriage business altogether.
Click to expand...
I agree and I think long term that’s where things are headed. The irony though is that articles such the this one that people are upset about need to happen for that to occur. That is if we no longer have laws about who can visit in the hospital or make medical decisions based on marriage or any of the other assumed benefits that marriage confers, we need a suitable replacements to allow people to designate such people.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Personally speaking, if some people want to live together in some three way relationship then it ain’t going to affect me in any way whatsoever. I really could care less.
Click to expand...
This is very untrue. We are all part of One Body and each part affects other parts. In a non religious response, every action has an impact and while 5 people in a sexual relationship may not impact you directly on a daily basis there is still an impact which ripples through every other action even if very small.
 
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
as we say in these parts, a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
Click to expand...
Is that similar to “as thick as 2 short planks”?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. That would imply being pretty stupid. Whereas a couple of sarnies short of a picnic suggests that something’s not quite right. A couple of loose screws. A few sheep loose in the top paddock. Not playing with a full deck. The lights are on but there’s no-one home. Not the full quid.
 
Rau said:
40.png
fredystairs:
And how long do you think it will be before someone sues to have this changed to having three or more people getting married?
Click to expand...
There may be no logical reason to stop the state’s legal definition of marriage at 2 persons, however I suspect the “poly” crowd are way too small to be taken much notice of…
Click to expand...
“Way too small?” Just look at the transgender movement and the new “sin” of “transphobia.” I would think there are far more people potentially “poly” than “trans.” Plus, once someone coins a new “social sin” - say, “polyphobia,” in our Social Media world, the movement gains instant credibility and seriousness.
 
JoeFreedom said:
40.png
Freddy:
Personally speaking, if some people want to live together in some three way relationship then it ain’t going to affect me in any way whatsoever. I really could care less.
Click to expand...
This is very untrue. We are all part of One Body and each part affects other parts. In a non religious response, every action has an impact and while 5 people in a sexual relationship may not impact you directly on a daily basis there is still an impact which ripples through every other action even if very small.
Click to expand...
If three people want to live together then it will literally have no effect on me. I’m sure there are lots of threesomes living together already and they literally have no effect on me. What people do in their own homes literally doesn’t effect me.

It may effect you somehow. Maybe if you worry about it. It doesn’t effect me.
 
JoeFreedom said:
In a non religious response, every action has an impact and while 5 people in a sexual relationship may not impact you directly on a daily basis there is still an impact which ripples through every other action even if very small.
Click to expand...
Is there any action you couldn’t propose making illegal based on this logic?

“Sure on a day to day basis you being Muslim doesn’t affect me, but we’re all part of One body and each part affects other parts.”

“Sure on a day to day basis you eating meat doesn’t affect me, but we’re all part of One body and each part affects other parts.”
 
I don’t feel like going down a rabbit hole trying to understand your leap from how actions have downstream impacts to me wanting every and any action illegal? Please, fill me in, because you inferred something that I had not implied, directly or indirectly.
 
I agree. I see no reason why polygamy should not be legalized. One might have moral or religious objections to it just as one has toward gay marriage. But we do not live in a theocracy. So if the love is mutual, all parties consent, and no one is being harmed, it should be legal. Apart from this, if it was good enough for Abraham, David, Solomon and other biblical patriarchs, it’s good enough for us. The Mormons had it right.

Not the same as incest (biological and psychological harm) or bestiality (lack of consent as well as physical harm).
 
Melterboy2. I realize that you are Jewish and thus you are making your assessment based solely on the old testament. But even in the OT it was clear that God tolerated some bad behaviors or immorality because these bad behaviors had become ingrained as part of the culture but as He led and taught his children and chosen people, he had to do so over time, gradually bringing them to a fuller understanding of the Truth. So while some actions were tolerated for that purpose, God is still displeased with them and they go against our morality. Divorce for example.
 
mdgspencer said:
Somerville’s legal recognition of polyamory came about on June 25 while the city council was changing its domestic partnership application"…
Click to expand...
I’m going to get sacked for saying this on CAF, but I go Libertarian on this one. The law shouldn’t step in to regulate all sin, the state shouldn’t be sticking its nose into the business of marriage, and I’m not going to stop somebody who’s stupid enough to enter into a polygamous relationship. (One husband is enough for me, and I can’t imagine living around a bunch of women in this set-up).
 
I am not making my assessment based on my religion or any other religion. My point is that if there is no harm being done and there is mutual consent and transparency, the relationship should be legal. Period. As stated, we do not live in a theocracy with regard to any religious belief. The moral values of do no harm and live and let live do apply, however, because we live in a society in which we are interdependent, like it or not. So long as I, you, and everyone else is permitted to practice our own religion and live our own lives, and we are not being harmed or harming others by doing so, we have no right to interfere with the lives and happiness of others.
 
Last edited:
JoeFreedom said:
I don’t feel like going down a rabbit hole trying to understand your leap from how actions have downstream impacts to me wanting every and any action illegal? Please, fill me in, because you inferred something that I had not implied, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t saying you were making those arguments, I was asking if there was an argument someone couldn’t apply that standard to. Merely ‘affecting’ someone can’t be the standard. If needs to be a proximate cause and the ill effects must outweigh the limitation of personal freedoms. Ergo why eating meat isn’t illegal even though you can make the case there are ills to the environment caused by it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top