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.
Third, it is not possible to have civil unions with the same rights. The federal government defines marriage as an institution between a man and woman and grants benefits/rights based on that definition. The fed will grant rights to a hetero married couple from NY, but not a homo married couple from NY.
Maybe your agenda should be to change those laws that grant benefits and rights to married people.
I would LOVE to know how you came up with the notion that polygamy has anything to do with this thread.
I just want to see how your mind works, so maybe we can better communicate.
Thread title: "A Serious, Respectful Question to Those Who Are Against Marriage Equality:"
Equality means allowing everyone to choose who and how many they will marry. If you restrict me to marrying only one person, that's not equality. That's playing by your rules which is YOUR revised definition of marriage.
You restricting me to one partner is no different than me restricting you to one opposite sex partner. Both actions force others to comply with your definition of marriage.
Equality does not mean redefining marriage to fit your new rules.
Thread title: "A Serious, Respectful Question to Those Who Are Against Marriage Equality:"
Equality means allowing everyone to choose who and how many they will marry. If you restrict me to marrying only one person, that's not equality. That's playing by your rules which is YOUR revised definition of marriage.
You restricting me to one partner is no different than me restricting you to one opposite sex partner. Both actions force others to comply with your definition of marriage.
Equality does not mean redefining marriage to fit your new rules.
Come up with a way to have the rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract between more than 1+1 parties, and you will have a valid argument that marriage equality necessarily subsumes the concept of plural marriage.
Then, you can take your argument through the courts and legislatures, and make your argument for equality there.
Until then, your argument is moot and irrelevant for the discussion of same sex marriage, and it is not an argument against expanding marriage to same sex couples.
Your argument is instead an argument FOR expanding marriage to multiple parties --- assuming, again, you get past the hurdle of making it feasible. NO ONE has ever come up with a workable plan, so good luck with that one.
Maybe your agenda should be to change those laws that grant benefits and rights to married people.
Maybe that should be YOUR agenda.
Benefits accrue to people who, for example, buy a home. If we restricted home purchasing to only people with green eyes, then we are not affording equality to all citizens.
If you choose not to marry (or choose not to buy a home), that is YOUR FAULT for not doing that which would grant you access to the laws and benefits attendant with same.
Where your argument falls apart is that it is possible to have civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage while not calling it marriage and altering a tradition that is thousands of years old.
That of course is not what you want. You want to denigrate the institution of marriage. That is your real agenda, not rights. If rights were your agenda, you would not really care what your union was labeled.
Why would gay and lesbian couples want to 'denigrate the institution of marriage' by getting married? That doesn't any make sense.
Where your argument falls apart is that it is possible to have civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage while not calling it marriage and altering a tradition that is thousands of years old.
That of course is not what you want. You want to denigrate the institution of marriage. That is your real agenda, not rights. If rights were your agenda, you would not really care what your union was labeled.
You lack vital information, civil unions are denied us to because of the defense of straight marriage act. I do not want to denigrate marriage, how dumb, I want my marriage to have the same protections and rights, not separate or different rights, the same rights. I pay taxes in this country too, I deserve the same rights too. If you were secure with your marriage, my getting married should not affect or matter to your marriage. It is the church that wants to trump secular law and force their beliefs down everyones throats. That is the churches real agenda.
Thread title: "A Serious, Respectful Question to Those Who Are Against Marriage Equality:"
Equality means allowing everyone to choose who and how many they will marry. If you restrict me to marrying only one person, that's not equality. That's playing by your rules which is YOUR revised definition of marriage.
You restricting me to one partner is no different than me restricting you to one opposite sex partner. Both actions force others to comply with your definition of marriage.
Equality does not mean redefining marriage to fit your new rules.
I see.
I was--you know--kinda figuring that people would keep it topical and current. As far as I know, there are no debates regarding polygamy going on right now, other than with someone who apparently wants to create confusion. BAD, Roadking!
By your apparent definition (at least Right Now) of "equality," I am surprised you didn't point out that the notion of Grapes marrying Shoes should be included in the conversation--but more importantly, How Many Shoes that Grapes Should Be Allowed to Marry.
Snap out of it.
Anyone who can read knows that I am Not, in your words, "revising the definition of marriage," with "rules" or anything else. Anyone with any sense at all, knows that this thread regards same-sex marriage, and those who do not understand that would probably be better off starting another thread with that concept in the subject line. I really didn't think I had to EXPLAIN it to anyone.
Having said all of that--Would YOU support a law that banned divorce?
After all, THAT is the actual subject of this thread.
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.
