Reply With Quote
What ever works for you.
I don't see how it would lead to a legalization of polygamy.
sexual marriage is a union between 2 people, just like any other marriage. If you define that as 2 people in a marriage, there is no legal grounds to say that any one person has it better or has other rights tha a person doesn't. A person could not argue that they should have a right to a multi person marriage because there a marriage is between 2 people.
However, to deny sexuals marriage is the denying of a right to a person because of their gender. That is a violation of civil rights acts and is blatently unequal. All of the court challenges to bans on gay marriage have been successful on this or simillar grounds. In the end - and I've maintained this from the get go - a challenge on those grounds is how the death of these bans will come.
What ever works for you.
If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is no legal grounds to say that a man can marry a man.If you define that as 2 people in a marriage, there is no legal grounds to say that any one person has it better or has other rights tha a person doesn't.
There is a pathway to polygamy by way of the 1st ammendment. If my religion states that I should marry 2 women, then not allowing me to do so is infringing on my first ammendment rights, if there are 2 women willing to marry me on their own volition.
Except that defining marriage between a man and a woman exclusively is a violation of gender discrimination laws.
I don't see how the first amendment would apply to that. If everyone were allowed to enter into a marriage contract with one other person, that is as equal as it gets. It is the same across the board.There is a pathway to polygamy by way of the 1st ammendment. If my religion states that I should marry 2 women, then not allowing me to do so is infringing on my first ammendment rights, if there are 2 women willing to marry me on their own volition.
Why should the government be allowed to restrict me to only 1 wife when my religion clearly states that I should have two?
Becasue government defined marriage is completely different from any religous marriage.
Then what stops government from defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
There is no violation of gender discrimination laws, sexual males and females are still en led to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Gender rights are not violated, sexual orientation rights are - but those have not been deemed protected.
The point is that limiting marriage to two people is as arbitrary as limiting it to being between a man and a woman.
Of course it's gender discrimination Scott. It's saying that I cannot enter into a marriage because of the sex of the person I choose to enter into it. Because of GENDER. And that is something that is forbidden by law!
The way I see it a gay man puts his socks on just like I do.
If 2 gay people got married.....and no one ever relized it...it just happend....how does that effect a hetro couple??
It doesn't......if a gay marriage affects a hetro marriage....then that couple has more problems that to worry about a gay marriage.
Because we are talking about a marriage between TWO people....not 200.
But if you really open your eyes....some of that stuff does happen gay people.
IMO....this is a cop-out "solution"
That creates a 2nd class type of society.
So if you have a single straight person who is not married...and for whatever reason doesn't want to get married....he has to pay for insurance and those who are married are "privileged" and get free insurance? So now you discrimmate against singles.Marriage legally defines a union as a "family". In my case as an employer, I voluntarily choose to pay 100% of medical insurance for employees AND familys. No law requires me to do so. I don't personally believe in same sex unions but I am tolerant and accepting of the rights of others to have them. If gay marriages were legalized, I and every other employer in the country that offers any kind of family benefits would be put in the position of not only tolerating gay marriage but actually personally subsidizing gay marriage.
So you discrimminate against them in an underhanded way by making them pay for insurance while others don't have to? That is like paying an employee less due to his/her lifestyle.I don't personally believe in same sex unions but I am tolerant and accepting of the rights of others to have them.
That is more de able than actually coming out saying you have gays.
Last edited by cherylsteele; 07-01-2005 at 07:08 PM.
im in favor
but if they dont want to call it marriage then give them sometihing equal to marriage and just call it some bull
you have to give people the right to marry
Guess you think that preferental treatment for minorites is wrong too.
Like set aside quota's, diverserity in college based on race instead of
grades.
IMHO, people's sex lives are nobody else's business and if they want to get married than let them do it and abide by the same laws as other married couples.
Enough already.
Because many times people in power will impose there will/beliefs on those very minorities we are discussing here. The laws need to be made to protect people who are of those minorities to help level the "playing field". If the 60's civil right movement didn't succeed as well as it did.... am glad it did.....we would still be knee deep in crapolla.
That is an EXTREMELY liberal stretch there. Gender discrimination refers to discriminating against YOU because of YOUR gender. Gay men aren't discriminated against, they have the same right to marry a woman as a straight man. Both gay and straight are granted the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Obviously I've defended gay marriage here, but that doesn't mean I can't be objective. This is not a gender discrimination issue, it is a sexual orientation discrimination issue.
And those who are against gay marriage are talking about marriage between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Marriage being limited to a bond between 2 people is completely arbitrary and is not grounding in any real arguement of the rights of man.
Look, I support gay marriage - but don't fight against an arbitrary establishment like the definition of "1 man and 1 woman" with another arbitrary definition.
But not to the extent of the 60's. Police officers etc arent pulling over gays and killing them. Its not the same thing!
You support gay marriage?
Why? You sure are trying to make a case against it.
Just like those against it....those for it should have a reason as well.
You brought up the point of polygamy.
I replied with my point of TWO people. Bringing up the polygamy thing is really grabbing at straws.
That just goes to show that people can bring up any absurd, far-fetched notion just to try to reinforce their POV for any issue.
Where do you draw the line?
I haven't heard of them killing them.....but they have created legal problems and lied about violations and other "illegal" things. There are other forms of persecution besides physical violence.
I haven't mad a case against, if you take the time to read the rest of my responses, I said that gay marriage does not open a slipperly slope to things like people claiming the have the right to marry their pet or an 8 year old.
My premise, rather, is that once you establish the much needed precident of eliminating arbitrary rules such as limiting marriage to one man and one woman, what is there to stop someone from arguing agianst arbitrary rules such as one man marrying two women?
Do I think polygomy should be legal? Not particularly, but I recognize the arbitrary nature of laws prohibiting it. Provide me with a strong, secular reason against polygomy, and I will change my mind.
No, it just goes to show that you didn't take the time to read the rest of this thread.That just goes to show that people can bring up any absurd, far-fetched notion just to try to reinforce their POV for any issue.
If you aren't trying to make a case against....then why do you keep bringing up polygamy.
I have read your posts
you say this:
And then you state thisI said that gay marriage does not open a slipperly slope
If it is not going to open up a can of worms then why keep bringing polygamy into it?My premise, rather, is that once you establish the much needed precident of eliminating arbitrary rules such as limiting marriage to one man and one woman, what is there to stop someone from arguing agianst arbitrary rules such as one man marrying two women?
This issue hit very close to home with me.
I also have more insight into many of the driving forces of the issue than you can imagine.
It shows that the above contradiction shows people can bring up stats and other information and other ideals to try to discredit anything they want.No, it just goes to show that you didn't take the time to read the rest of this thread.
Because it is a real factor in the equation that needs to be considered. I don't know what you do for a living, Cheryl, but in my business and in everything else in life - I always look at both sides to every story. Every detail, every contingency, every possible variable needs to be looked at and evaluated.If you aren't trying to make a case against....then why do you keep bringing up polygamy.
For reasons I have pointed out, I see polygamy as a variable that needs to be looked at. You may be willing to completely overlook it because maybe it is uncomfortable or maybe it doesn't support your case or maybe you just don't feel like thinking about it - but I can't.
I didn't say it wouldn't open the can of worms labels polygamy. I said it wouldn't open the cans of worms labeled beastiality or pedophilia. Then I immediately stated that there it sets precedent where one could make a case for polygamy. You've yet to provide any reason why it wouldn't.If it is not going to open up a can of worms then why keep bringing polygamy into it?
I don't know you, and you don't know me. I don't know what insights you have, you don't know what insights I have. If you have insight into issues, why not share them?This issue hit very close to home with me.
I also have more insight into many of the driving forces of the issue than you can imagine.
Also, I'd invite to read more of this thread (since you obviously have not) or maybe the countless other threads on this vary topic. You will see that I've supported gay marriage since the get go. Quit viewing my bringing up polygamy as a means to tear down gay marriage, because that isn't what it is.
I never contradicted myself. I stated those things which I feel allowing gay marriage will not open consideration of (marrying a dog or a child). I then stated the thing which I feel is opened to interpretation, because it is based on an equally as arbitrary rule.It shows that the above contradiction shows people can bring up stats and other information and other ideals to try to discredit anything they want.
So that I am clear, let me again state the premise why I believe polygamy could be open to review if gay marriage were allowed (which I believe it should be.)
1. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary, and based only on certain societal/cultural/religious norms which do not apply to the entire population.
2. As such, the aforementioned definition should be struck down as discrimintory and an attempt to deny a man/woman to her natural rights to make the conscious choice of who their partner shall be.
3. The definition of marriage as a union between only 2 people is also arbitrary, based on societal/cultural/religious norms that do not apply to the entire population.
4. We struck down (1), what is to stop the argument to strike down (3)?
I hope you take the time to address this issue rather than making quick assumptions.
Talk about jumping to conclusions....I have read the thread.....but you assume I didn't.Also, I'd invite to read more of this thread (since you obviously have not) or maybe the countless other threads on this vary topic.
Man and women....that is two people...I have also kept stating TWO people....that should rule out polygamy right there.....how about you going back and reread your OWN posts before you scold others.1. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary, and based only on certain societal/cultural/religious norms which do not apply to the entire population.
I can accept someone playing devil's advocate with no problem....but when someone keeps bringing up the same statement over and over again even after above sataements were made is not the way to do it.
What about a son marrying his mother? That's two people.
Or a brother and a sister. That's two people too.
If you would address the issue behind the same statement, then I would stop. You still haven't addressed the issues I brought up.I can accept someone playing devil's advocate with no problem....but when someone keeps bringing up the same statement over and over again even after above sataements were made is not the way to do it.
See my the chain of logic I laid out, and address it. If you can't, then just ignore me and I'll wait for someone willing to engage in some critical thinking.
Again just because YOU keep stating two people, doesn't really matter. Republics keep stating MAN AND WOMAN yet you and I keep harping on about a man and a man. The limitation of "two people," like I've stated is based on arbitrary social norms that do not apply to the population at large. Why should we keep one arbitrary social norm in favor of the other?Man and women....that is two people...I have also kept stating TWO people....that should rule out polygamy right there...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
