Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]I believe that would weaken the institution of marriage. There may be more marriages...but overall it would be watered down. You ever drink from Mom and Dad's whiskey bottle when you were a teenager and add water to make it look like you hadn't? Same thing.
How is it going to weaken it?
Last edited by seattlerain; 02-07-2011 at 04:16 PM..
I think if gays want to enjoy the hell that is divorce, then by all means, why not? Straight people been doing that **** for years. Time for them to get on that gravy train of love and despair.
Why should there be any prerequisites on state-sponsored civil unions (marriage) aside from the parties being consenting adults?
There is nothing special about one-man-one-woman relationships that make them better, more important, or superior to any other relationship style.
This discussion is about marriage, not civil unions.
As for your plan to have consenting adults do what ever they like, where does it end?
If a man may marry another man because they both agree and are of a certain age, by what moral and/or legal authority does the state disallow tree-way marriages between a consenting female, male and bisexual man or woman. Isn't the two person limit an arbitrary meaningless left-over from the heterosexual model?
The problem with redefining "normal" to suit your own fancy is that it doesn't necessarily suit someone else. With that in mind, who are you, or anyone else, to limit the number of consenting adults of either gender or sexuality who may marry one another?
Of course, if there is a non-arbitrary reason to maintain a two person limit, this principle also has to be consistent with not requiring these two people to be of opposite sexes.
You're right, it's not discrimination against the person.
However, it is discriminatory against the coupling.
What would be the special treatment of allowing any person of any gender to marry any person of any gender in order to receive the same rights, benefits, privileges, and protections for their relationship?
Everyone would still have the same rules.
NO!
You don't get to use fake motives for gays insisting on marriage while turning up their noses at civil unions. Civil unions could be structured to provide the same identical benefits and rights as marriage, but gays have no interest in civil unions because they don't address the real issue. Gays want desperately to rid themselves of the stigma of being gay. Civil unions, no matter the legal structure, will never make gays feel "normal". To do this, they will make the rest of us a little less normal by forcing us to associate ourselves with gay sex through the institution of marriage.
The only reason I'd want to get married is so that my wife can get my social security I worked my butt off for, can inherit from me without a big rigamarole, can make life/death decisions for me without a buttload of paperwork, etc, etc.
All legitimate concerns. Remember, she must be your wife for at least ten years to get survivor benefits, so don't delay too long. Good for you for taking those things into consideration and caring about her welfare after you're gone (if you precede her).
How is requiring EVERYONE to marry only people of the opposite gender discrimination?
Remember...EVERYONE has the same rules.
And everyone had the same rules when interracial marriage was illegal.
Everyone could marry someone of their own color, but not a different color.
I guess you would have been one of those people who would have said that interracial couples wanted "special rights" to get married and that they had the same rights you had- to marry someone of the same race.
Is there a valid reason to do away with the time-tested, proven institution of marriage to go with that?
Who said we would have to do away with it? Marriage between men and women won't change just because men and men and women and women can get married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
You might argue that the divorce rate indicates it's broken. Ok...I would agree. If anything, though, that suggest that we need to do more to strengthen it--not water it down. Marriage is a good thing for the stability of society.
If marriage is a good thing for the stability of society, then why stop gay couples from getting married? It will only strengthen the stability, especially for the many gay and lesbian couples raising children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
And a 14 year old not being able to get a driver's license while a 16 year old is age discrimination. But everyone has to deal with it.
Poor analogy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
