Same Sex marriage across the land

And those sects are not Mormon. They are their own offshoot of mixed beliefs, it doesn't matter that some - like the Jeffs clan - have changed their name in recent years to "sound" like they are Mormons. They aren't.

Even the "Sister Wives" clan that had to move to Nevada to avoid prosecution likes to claim they are an offshoot of Mormonism. But the fact is, they aren't. However, at least they are all consenting adults that aren't related to each other unlike the Jeffs clan freaks.
And in my opinion, those consenting adults should be just as free to marry under civil law as same-sex consenting adults.

 

Really? Where else has the man/woman requirement not been an issue?
I haven't been able to find any civilisations that had the institution of marriage that was between anything other than a man and a woman. Maybe your search skills are better than mine.

 

I would but I don't want to risk sounding "fustrated."

 

I'm good friends with Brian Jeffs (we ride bikes together) and the stories are crazy. Another friend escaped when she was 16...and about to be married off to a 59 year old.

 

The religious part is the part that hasn't been a requirement in the legal definition of marriage for a long time. That's why I don't understand Hawk's contention that the ruling is a jab at religion, and he is unwilling to explain his contention.

 

Yeah, that group is totally effed up. I used to work with one of the "Lost Boys" a long while back (like 25 or so years ago), and his stories would just piss me off.
Hilldale/Colorado City needs to be gutted and bulldozed. All those walls everywhere, the corruption in the city and police forces. Just not good what happens to the young girls and boys. Any of them.

 

Lost boys is really sad, can you imagine how terrible that would be?? talk about f#cked up.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html

 

It seems like largely a dead issue in this thread at this point but the defining difference between two adult homos being allowed to fool around with each other, and one adult and one child (homo or not) being allowed to fool around with each other, is that the two adults are peers and are each able to make informed, mature, consenting decisions on what they do and do not want to do. The child in the second situation is not.

Thus, the "inherent wrong" in the second situation is that there is a high possibility that one party is overpowering and coercing, either physically, mentally or emotionally, the other into doing something they don't want to do. The "inherent wrong" in the first situation used to be simply that most people thought it was gross.

 

Well for that to happen you'd have to then repeal/ammend statutory rape laws as well no?

 

That's why I just laugh at all the fools that post "news" stories about pedos demanding marriage rights. It's so ridiculous that it's not even worth a comment.

 

Actually it was about a polygamist. Though I am sure. You were not calling me a fool for a link you had no idea what the content was

 

While I have no issues with those in poly relationships where all parties freely consent and make up an adult family, I don't think the country's laws or political system is anywhere near ready to make the change to legally recognize those relationships.

I know of several adult poly families, and they each seem to have worked out a system that works for them. Good on them.

Honestly, political / legal recognition of poly relationships may not happen in my lifetime.

 

Do you have examples in mind of things that couldn't be worked out? Not having given it any thought yet, my initial feeling is that it might not be more complicated than some of the adjustments made for same-sex couples.

 

No, I didn't click on the link. Sorry. I don't see the issue with polygamy either to be honest though. I really just see marriage, in the eyes of a government, as the equivalent of a business partnership. The basic idea is the same, two or more people forming a legal bond and agreeing to share wealth and liability on a predetermined basis. I'm sure there are already policies in place to combat abuse of such arrangements, and even if there weren't, I can't see the practice being so widespread that effects it would have on tax collection or gov't benefits crippling our economy

In the end, I just don't care.

 

I'm curious where this issue will land with regards to military personnel.

While I was in, we went from "No gays allowed" to "Don't ask, don't tell". I seem to recall hearing that DADT went away, but I never really paid attention to what, if anything, took its place. No really an issue I care much about one way or the other. Some of the best peeps I served with were gay. I didn't really give much of a damn what they did to or with one another off duty.

The military I recall couldn't tie its shoelaces without a handbook denoting right over left, around the loop, etc, etc... so I can't imagine that there's not going to be at least some policy clarification in order.

Anybody (preferably actual current enlisted) can sound off on what's going on?

 

I guess it's a good thing Jodie is a unisex name

 

I don't think the technical issues are the barrier. More about society wrapping their collective mind around poly relationships, and the inheritance, community property, and custody issues which arise when these relationships end.

If the society took some 50 years to get around to being in favor of allowing two gay folks to marry, my read on things today is that poly relationships will make their heads explode. (figuratively).

 

Sorry... I don't get the reference.

 

Jodie is who's keeping your S/O warm while you're away at bootcamp.