It still amazes me that in California if someone donates to anti-gay marriage initiative they can be openly called "absolute scumbag" and people just roll with it. It's called having political views.
Is opposing polygamy denying the humanity of polygamists/polyamorists?
Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is later this week.)
Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
I mean the distinction is pretty obvious. Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits, and nobody has the motivation to carve out a legal distinction for them. Though I personally don't care if they do.
Gay spouses were not looking for preferential treatment or special consideration. They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
> Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
Yes? Potentially even more so? I think most people supporting same sex marriage would see a ban on interfaith marriage as abhorrent. That's overly militant religious persecution.
> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?
Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
karol · · focus · HN ↗
kakuri · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
bigstrat2003 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Capricorn2481 · · focus · HN ↗
How so?
skissane · · focus · HN ↗
Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is later this week.)
Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
Capricorn2481 · · focus · HN ↗
Gay spouses were not looking for preferential treatment or special consideration. They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
> Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
Yes? Potentially even more so? I think most people supporting same sex marriage would see a ban on interfaith marriage as abhorrent. That's overly militant religious persecution.
skissane · · focus · HN ↗
I don't agree it is obvious
> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?
Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-oppose-same-sex-marriage/8871118" rel="nofollow">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-op...