Yeah, the judges have been pretty active this week in utah . However, its not like they are allowing polygamy.  Utah has, or had, one these most restrictive laws against polygamy in the nation.  People were banned from cohabitating with more than one person to whom they identified as their spouse.  All they overturned was the part outlawing cohabitation, you still arent allowed to have more than one wife.

of course, they do anyway and then those extra wives just claim to be single moms and live off welfare... The government actually funds polygamy... Sometimes I think it would actually decrease the amount of polygamy going on if they legalized it, because then they would actually have to pay for all those extra kids and wives!

Do you think it will eventually be legalized?

I believe legallizing gay marriage will have many unintended consequences. I'm not offering an opinion one way or another, but most arguments for gay marriage could be used for many different lifestyles.

Very interesting times to be living.. I think we've just seen the "ball start rolling" as it were in regards to marriage equality in this country.

It will happen, the supreme court decision on prop 8 essentially says that all these state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.  So they are all going to be overturned here pretty soon as they get contended in court, just like utah here.

I still do not like the idea of "Marriage" of any kind being part of the governments purview. They should not be involved in this.

I know many people who refuse to get married, but want to be considered "Civil Unions" for things like child rearing, visitation rights, etc. They refuse to get married because of the religious context, but still want to tax breaks and other things that come with it. I agree with this.

"The ability to read is consent?  What are you talking about?  As for the age of consent, that has certainly been studied scientifically and while it will vary based on the individual, I'd like you to find anyone that would agree that 11 is a valid age of consent."

Who is anyone? In history, in science community, or society?  Historically many societies got married to children in 12-13 range hell even younger. You do realize there was points in society where people died around 22 on average,right? In Jewish tradition you become a man at 13 and believe women it was the same or younger (around 12). Why are they wrong? Because they didn't fit your personal classification? Why is it objectively wrong for men to marry kids at the age of constant at the age if it was perfectly ok then? You're being ageist. 

Scientifically if you can read and write you have ability to make rational decisions regardless of subjective norms. Many mental handicap people are at a lower intellect than a 12 year yet marry people of higher intelligence by far. Unless you want to claim that mental challenged people do not have consent than your arguing in a circle based on personal morals. If want to travel that road than your argument here is discrimination in the sense of intelligence. Children and mentally challenge deserve there basic human rights too. Could go into something deeper here if pushed but I highly doubt, unless will push it.

Let's ask some middle eastern, certain Asian countries, or certain South America countries if they agree with your terms on consent because they don't. Your argument about go ask people in Americas is an argument from society norm. Let's go ask nazis if Hitler was wrong at the time. Using social norms to prove something is wrong can't work because the society is already raised to believe certain things therefor arguing something is true from it is circular.

"I am absolutely not contradicting myself.  I am not forcing my belief on you at all.  You can continue to believe that gay marraige is wrong.  I feel that religion is harmful, but I'm not about to try to ban it."

Yes, you are contradicting yourself.  Anytime you affirm something, you at the same time have decline something. When you say want this to happen than you are saying I don't want this happen. When you say I want gay/beastily/pedophile marriages you are saying you can't ban this things and vise-versea therefor you are forcing your beliefs. Laws are made to force people to accept or reject things. I if I ban rape what am I saying? You must reject raping. If I unban rape I'm saying you must accept rape. Arguing oh it doesn't effect you. Doesn't work because if I made law that said kill every blonde child, well for a fact that will never affect me, but the avoids the more important question is it right? I could also make argument something affecting is a very subjective argument in the sense that you could not fully determine how or what affects based on any law. Secondly, are you claiming we make laws that only affect us personally? Would you like me to name some laws that we should get rid of that don't personally affect you. No because that would be silly. Thirdly, what makes your opinion on not effecting people valid beyond personal opinion. What objective moral law determines it true?

"Killing: lack of consent from the one being killed.

Pedophilia: lack of consent of a child.
Bestiality: lack of consent of an animal.
Slavery: lack of consent of the slave.
War: impact on innocent civilians. collateral damage.  impacts on far more individuals than just those that decide to go to war."

I hate do this because I was hoping not pull out my philosophy class on meta-ethics card, but this has been the elephant in the room. But why is not having constant objective at all and not your personal opinion? Pedophilie feels the child has consent or doesn't care, so why does it matter besides, you not liking it? Bestiality animals themselves don't follow consent laws nor care, why is your opinion objective that it wrong when they don't care. Slavery if the slave owner doesn't care why does your opinion matter more than him? Your opinion verse his, why are you more moral than him beside personal moral ideas in your head. Give proof that your opinion is more than just another opinion. Don't bother using bandwagon fallacy because we already proved why that is incoherent and could justify anything.War can also be highly profitable for certain countries like during the depression the war helped many from being unemployed. Why should I care objectively that others get hurt if I can come out better in the end? Maybe war is good because I can get more land for my people and money. Why is your opinion I'm wrong anymore valid than mine. You live where you because of war unless your going to give your land back to the natives. But you won't because it's not social advantageous,is it? Your home and life so you can play videos games was only possible because of War therefor unless you are willing to give it up,because of all the poor non-consent people who died for it, you are contradicting yourself for your own benefit and hiding behind it by simply by protect yourself and proclaiming it to be moral. Every argument you made is based on personal benefit and you yourself live by that way. So, why not just live in total self-benefit? 

Basically, why is your standard at all the more valid than anyone else? Apparently you have this black and white moral objective laws that I haven't seen but you keep on pushing onto me. If you can't prove that morally your right than what worth is your morals that you made up and why are pushing it on me? Why peach me your morals when you can't prove them true yourself? You can't even prove killing is wrong without contradicting yourself or showing why it is objectively wrong.

...

There are no words.

"I hate do this because I was hoping not pull out my philosophy class on meta-ethics card..."

So this tells me you will soon follow with incoherent babbling, and you certainly obliged.  I provide you with solid legal and moral reasons for why your scenarios don't apply, and you follow with nothing.  The pedophile "thinks" the child is consenting, that's a rational argument to you?  The slave owner doesn't care?  That's not what I was arguing, so it's irrelevant.  I was arguing that you don't have 2 consenting parties.  I guess that went over your head.

So let's see where we are.  I've argued that I should have no legal or moral say in what 2 consenting adults do in private, whether I agree with it or not.  No personal bias or emotion.  And you've argued, well..., you haven't argued anything.  You didn't answer my question about how 2 consenting adults, that you don't even know, getting married has any negative impact on you whatsoever.  Please don't bother responding unless you intend to answer.  Because if you can't answer this without any personal belief or emotion, then you have no basis for your opinion that gay marriage should be illegal.

Lol, I think that is one of the worst arguments I have ever seen somebody make on here. Incredible...

Hard to disagree with your statment.

How to lose an argument in one sentence and make the rest you said completely irrelevant

Not easy to do

Thanks for linking me this, saber