From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 8 07:51:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BD437B401 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 07:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-89.apple.com [17.250.248.89]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97C443FAF for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomion@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h48EpcUh024673 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac.com ([67.98.154.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h48ERpGI013676; Thu, 8 May 2003 07:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:28:09 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Narvi From: Larry Sica In-Reply-To: <20030507211528.M40030-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> Message-Id: <4AC876C5-8161-11D7-86C4-000393A335A2@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) cc: Pete Ehlke cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 14:51:39 -0000 On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Narvi wrote: > > On Tue, 6 May 2003, Pete Ehlke wrote: > >> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:23:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> >>> "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual >>> sex >>> within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the >>> right to >>> polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to >>> adultery. >>> You have the right to anything." >>> >>> You can find more context here: >>> http://www.ncsfreedom.org/news/bigotedsen.htm >>> >>> The annoying thing about what he said from the standpoint of the gay >>> rights folks is that he's right. It really is a slippery legal slope. >> >> I know I'm going to regret this, but... >> >> Please explain the slippery slope that lies between consensual sex >> among >> adults who are not married to one another and bigamy and polygamy, >> which are marriage to multiple partners. I really, really don't follow >> that one at all. >> > > This would mean you first have to explain why bi- or polygamy are > or should be illegal. Its even trickier in the US, where 'unmarried > cohabitation' is still a crime in many states... > Well it comes down to, i think, legal and economic issues. From a taxation issue i can see it, imagine a guy claiming 3 wives and 2 kids from each as exemptions. Or dealing with the implications of the whole family breaking up from a legal, economic and social standpoint. I for one would not want to be married to more than one woman, I don't think I would survive it ;). Also there was the fact that a woman could not have multiple husbands, so I guess it becomes an equality issue as well? --Larry