So Colorado is more progressive than California.... ?
Darn Liberals all moved to Colorado I guess :biggrin:
Its a good thing. the more states that acknowledge equality the sooner the Fed will step in and mandate equality for all states.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
I wish they'd make it legal everywhere. What should it matter who you love and want to marry? All kinds of combinations can be a family but the law doesn't agree and so those people that want different families end up not getting the things other families get if one of them gets hurt or dies just because maybe they want to be two husbands or a husband and two wives or whatever.
•
^^
I'd like to see it treated as a contract with all religious implications removed. That would help shut many up over "people will be marrying animals, children, and corpses next!" After all, those "people" can't legally sign contracts and thus can't consent to marry anymore than they can consent to a business contract. (And for the record, I believe "age of consent" should be adult, minimum, and I'd consider supporting a ban on marriage for people 25 and under).
Plenty of people get married without religion anyway. And a religious ceremony is certainly still available to those who want it, it would just be separate from the civil contract.
And I'm not against legalized polygamy (and figure it won't ever get that popular anyway, barring some radical shift in the world which would make the legal implications of marriage irrelevant anyway), but I do wonder how things like obligation for child support would be handled (and suspect lawyers might be a necessity), but if everyone involved can agree on something reasonable then I wouldn't care. (However, I would be very much about someone marrying a bunch of dependents and using them and their kids to get on welfare.)
•
I'd think things like mothers marrying sons would be extremely rare at most, because just imagine trying to explain family relations (especially if any children were conceived!), not to mention the talk ("Dude, you married your MOM!?" or even, "So how long have you been diddling the daughter, kindergarten?").
Here in California, and in many of the most anti-gay states in the nation, I can legally marry my first cousin. I love him, I really do. But I can't imagine marrying him. And even if he were female, I STILL couldn't imagine it (though I could imagine us telling his 'rents we were just to troll them). It just seems weird, and I can't imagine calling my aunt & uncle the in-laws.
Hmm, just curious, anyone know how prevalent cousins marrying each other is in the states that legally allow it? I mean today, not like over a century ago when towns were a lot smaller, prejudice a lot more comprehensive (like many white families in North Carolina hating Irish, Jews and Catholics) and powerful, and family feuds more significant. :confused:
Still, there are legite arguments to be made against incestuous marriage...unlike gay & interracial.
•
I think people SHOULD be allowed to marry corpses actually. There would be so much less arguing and heartbreak that way. No misunderstanding, you both get that "Hey I'm alive, you're dead and are absolutely incapable of giving a shit! Everyone wins!"
Polis you'd better do your work right.
•
Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want.
One of the things people throw up is if we allow the gays to marry then polygamy will take place. If three women want to share a man and nag him to death, they should be allowed to do that. If a man wants to have three women nagging him to death, that is his choice.
While I personally don't get group marriages - I being so hardwired for monogamy, I do not see why its not allowed if every individual involved consents to it.
These other arguments like marrying children, marrying animals, marrying corpses all boils down to one individual in that marriage not being able to consent in a reasonable, mature manner to such marriage.
I think we need to really look at this whole marriage thing. All of it is currently set to an impossible length (until death do us part) and not a single murder law allows one to part with their spouse in that manner. Perhaps its time we set reasonable contracts of 5, 10 and 20 years with options to extend the contract after it expires. yeah I know, that will suck for divorce lawyers, but it would make this whole 'marriage' idea more reasonable and suitable for the majority who can't seem to stick with their partner for life.
I'm also all for the idea that marriage should be more than vows. I think all individuals involved should have their left pinky whacked off and allowed to bleed for a minute. I bet there would be far fewer 'accidental' rushed marriages if it cost a finger and lots of pain, and there would be far less individuals being tricked into an affair with a married person.
Seriously, if you love someone so much that you willingly sacrifice a finger for them, you most likely will love them enough and long enough to put up with their crap for a whole life.
•
now its on to the House.
