In other words, the social harm was introducing a practice perceived to be characteristic of non-European people—or non-white races—into white American society.28 “The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.” Late Corp., 136 U.S. at 49.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?
Or, marrying a dog?
The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.
But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?
Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.
Dogs and animals in general are agnostic. The point is if one says it is part of his/her religion why would republican support a government prohibition against it? Mormons(use to) and other religions do allow polygamy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.
However, it should not be done.
I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.
The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.
With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.
So, you're saying it's not a concern because they can abort?
aborting is only one option. They can have eggs/sperm tested in advance and artificially inseminate. This occurs today with people that have known genetically inheritable diseases that want children but don't want to chance passing the disease along to their child.
Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone opposed to further expanding marriage equality? Why the hate?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?
Or, marrying a dog?
The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.
But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?
Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.
However, it should not be done.
I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.
The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.
With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.
So, you're saying it's not a concern because they can abort?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.
However, it should not be done.
I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.
The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.
That assumes biological reproduction. If that is the danger, put a ban on incestuous reproduction. But extend marriage equality to incestuous couples. It's only fair.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.
However, it should not be done.
I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.
The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.
However, it should not be done.
I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.
The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.
With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.
However, it should not be done.
I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.
The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.