With gay marriage, all you had to do was adapt existing laws to apply to same-sex couples. On the other hand, polygamy would be a legal nightmare, because there are a lot of difficult questions. Is everybody married to each other? What happens in the event of divorce? How is custody determined? And what if one of the breadwinners dies?
As far as I can tell there is no protected class that is being discriminated against by limiting marriage to two people.
What about incest? That involves 2 consenting adults, so it is a better parallel to Gay marriage.
As far as I can tell there is no protected class that is being discriminated against by limiting marriage to two people.
The gay marriage opponents raised a similar point a while back. It was something along the lines of, "We're not discriminating against gay people! They have as much of a right as anyone else to marry a spouse of the opposite sex."
Saying that polygamous partners have just as much of a right as anyone else to restrict their marriage to, at most, serial monogamy is likewise duplicitous.
What about incest? That involves 2 consenting adults, so it is a better parallel to Gay marriage.
Two consenting adults that happen to be closely related can already marry. That's not an issue.
What about incest? That involves 2 consenting adults, so it is a better parallel to Gay marriage.
Two consenting adults that happen to be closely related can already marry. That's not an issue.
Not true. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States)
As far as I can tell there is no protected class that is being discriminated against by limiting marriage to two people.
The gay marriage opponents raised a similar point a while back. It was something along the lines of, "We're not discriminating against gay people! They have as much of a right as anyone else to marry a spouse of the opposite sex."
Saying that polygamous partners have just as much of a right as anyone else to restrict their marriage to, at most, serial monogamy is likewise duplicitous.
It's not duplicitous if marriage is in fact strictly the union of two people; it's simply the definition
In this case it means it is the legal and constitutional thing to do. You need to figure an end-run around that little problem first.What about incest? That involves 2 consenting adults, so it is a better parallel to Gay marriage.
Two consenting adults that happen to be closely related can already marry. That's not an issue.
Not true. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States)
It's as if they think marriage is only about having kids and that preventing marriage will stop consenting adults from having kids...As far as I can tell there is no protected class that is being discriminated against by limiting marriage to two people.
The gay marriage opponents raised a similar point a while back. It was something along the lines of, "We're not discriminating against gay people! They have as much of a right as anyone else to marry a spouse of the opposite sex."
Saying that polygamous partners have just as much of a right as anyone else to restrict their marriage to, at most, serial monogamy is likewise duplicitous.
It's not duplicitous if marriage is in fact strictly the union of two people; it's simply the definition
The definition of marriage in several states used to be the union of a man and a woman. Just because a restriction is to the letter doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Personally, if Jaime and Cersei love each other and consent to the relationship, why should they be barred from partaking in sex, even if they're relate----
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140130193838/gameofthrones/images/thumb/a/ad/Jack-Gleeson-as-Joffrey-Baratheon_photo-Macall-B.-Polay_HBO.jpg/640px-Jack-Gleeson-as-Joffrey-Baratheon_photo-Macall-B.-Polay_HBO.jpg)
Oh.
There's actually a fan theory that none of the current Lannister flock are actually Lannisters. In the books, it's strongly implied that the Targaryens would regularly consort with the wives of their nobles, and Jaime, Cersei and Tyrion are described as having platinum hair, only a few shades darker than the Targaryen white. Add in the mental instabilities, propensity for incest and some remarks Tywin makes to Tyrion about not being able to prove that Tywin isn't the father, and it starts to look like not a one of Tywin Lannister's kids might be his own.
This would also explain why Cersei and Jaime are relatively normal aside from the paranoia (which is also attributable to their environment) and incest, while Joffrey got hit with the insanity stick so bad...an infusion of fresh blood diluted the genetic causes of their mental issues, but going right back to family lovin' compounded them again. It's likely that their other children will start manifesting similar symptoms as they grow older.
There's actually a fan theory that none of the current Lannister flock are actually Lannisters. In the books, it's strongly implied that the Targaryens would regularly consort with the wives of their nobles, and Jaime, Cersei and Tyrion are described as having platinum hair, only a few shades darker than the Targaryen white. Add in the mental instabilities, propensity for incest and some remarks Tywin makes to Tyrion about not being able to prove that Tywin isn't the father, and it starts to look like not a one of Tywin Lannister's kids might be his own.
On the one hand, yeah, it's canon that Aerys was infatuated with Joanna (Tywin's wife) and not terribly fond of his own wife/sister Rhaella, and there's a rumour that he had sex with her at some point, before she married Tywin. On the other, Tywin Lannister does not suffer insults gladly, not even from Aerys, and and much less anything having to do with his wife. Iif Tywin had the slightest inkling that Aerys had fathered his children he'd probably have jumped to join Robert's Rebellion at the first chance he got. Instead, he waited around to see who had the upper hand.