It is one thing to leave people alone to do what they want in their own homes. It is another for the state to give its official recognition to what they do, and to issue its imprimatur on it in the form of an official document.I do not think that the state government should recognize just any and all contracts, regardless of how irrational or unnatural.

Hey, Thor, ya gotta get it right! It's LGBTQ... easy to remember when you start with the phrase "Let's Get Biden To Quit".

Maybe just CSC for Church of the Sexually Confused would simplify the matter.

I believe that there actually is a pending case attempting to overthrow federal law declaring polygamist or polyamorous marrage illegal, primarily based on the ruling which legitimized homosexual unions. The federal law in question was most famous as being targeted at the early followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons) and to my knowledge has not been repealed even though its enforcement has been almost non-existent except in the case of early adherents to that sect. The lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal law was brought by one of the polygamist sects not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

"Why not, if all adults consent?"

The first major question which must be raised concerns the two implied conditions - "adult" and "consent" - each of which should be recognized and independently tested. Consent as an inherent condition for such activity is founded upon the idea that individuals "own" themselves and their bodies and have priority use and determination in what . This is decidedly a Western notion to which the United States is the primary and original signatory with the Declaration of Independence. Such a theory stipulates that individuals hold the ultimate say over the use of their bodies and that any use contrary to that which is expressly consented constitutes a harm and a moral wrong. This theory also states that this legal authority may not be superceded by government officials.

Traditional theories - especially those in antiquity, however - held that the ruling sovereign in many cases held ultimate authority. Chinese Emperors, Egyptian Pharoahs, Babylonian kings, and many other monarchs were acknowledged as having power over life and liberty - including sexual autonomy - on a whim. Many sovereigns even had the ability to take a woman despite existing marital arrangements, such as the story of Abraham going to Egypt in the Old Testament. Traditional warfaring rules also gave as "spoils" women and children to the males in the conquering armies. These practices were used in antiquity and are only more recently being called into question due to the international influence of western traditions and moral codes.

The term "adult" is particularly problematic, as it may refer to the maturity of an individual in either biological or age-based criteria. Both are critically flawed in independent application. The current notion that reaching 18 years of age denotes a certain level of personal responsibility is an arbitrary legal notion as we see ample evidence of immature behavior by those even much older and "mature" behavior in a minority of those even younger. Physical/biological maturity is a more obvious indicator of readiness for physical intimacy, but is also extremely problematic - especially for females - as there are records of girls as young as ten years of age giving birth.

There is the further issue involving guardianship: at what point do adolescents/young adults adopt complete responsibility for their actions? The notion is definitionally the epitome of the slippery slope argument further compounded by the individuality of the individual!

Last of all come the moral arguments weighing the potential outcomes of the act itself against the rest of society, and it is here that I believe can be found the strongest arguments for societal limits. One of the hidden implications in the posed question is that these outcomes are trivial in nature while nothing could be further from the truth. Human intimacy ultimately involves the very relationships that form society itself, as well as the potential for the introduction into society of new members. Many seek to trivialize or discount the emotional bonds which form with intimacy but which are nonetheless very real. We also have some arguing in the court system that such trivialized relationships can retroactively be declared a violation of consent - even months later.

Regardless whether you want to bring into the matter a Judeo-Christian viewpoint which declares that God set forth the rules for marriage, one can not argue with the reality that a formal marriage between a man and a woman is inarguably the best arrangement not only for the two participants but for any progeny as well. The question is whether or not one is going to found a society based on a long-term approach with solid, unchanging moral laws or found a society based on the whims of personal pleasure.

Laughing...Romneyians they are...

I like it. And, given where the left has lead us this is a valid argument. Silly, of course. But, who am I to decide?

I think if the Dems want to throw money around they not give it to illegal immigrants but rather they should reward young mothers for having babies! I'd surely would have given it a 2nd thought when I was doing it and I wasn't facing what we are now.