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.
When marriage between multiple partners or even close relatives has the same consequences for a society in general, then you might have an argument. But their are issues of both that do have ramifications for the larger society, whereas marriage between two unrelated adults has no such ramifications.
The goal of those who support same-sex marriage is that adults all be treated alike when it comes to whom they choose to marry. No more, no less.
Five seconds ago it wasn't anyone else's business what people did in their own marriage.
Now that the subject is polygamy and incest, we have to look at the "consequences for society".
"The goal of those who support same-sex marriage is that adults all be treated alike when it comes to whom they choose to marry. No more, no less."
So same-sex marriage between two men is OK as long as they are not brothers?
For what purpose would you deny the right of marriage to two adult men simply because they are brothers?
If Woody Allen can marry his daughter, then the same right of marriage must be available to brothers, right?
When marriage laws were written, common sense was still common so the simple fact that marriages between a man and a woman were in harmony with nature's design (see penis and vagina) was the only rationale needed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
Having tossed common sense out the window to facilitate arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, we cannot now pretend it is still in play when we take up questions like the legitimacy of traditional marriage.
If we are to change the rules about marriage, then consistent logic should dictate who may or may not wed.
If those who support same-sex marriage believe they have the right to marry the person they love without a restriction on sex, then I shouldn't see the very same posters opposing polygamy.
If we are to live by a lie, then we should all live by the same lie equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
What does polygamy have to do with homosexuality? They are not the same, where as heterosexuality, polygamy and incest bear the same sex preferences, so heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy and incest, not homosexuality. YOU FAIL AGAIN. F
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Thanks for showing up to make my point!
Same-sex marriage supporters don't want "equal marriage" for everyone.
They just want "equal marriage" for homosexuals.
That's because same-sex marriage is based on the lie that it is not an attempt to use the power of the state to force normalized homosexuality on otherwise right-thinking people.
When marriage between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman is no more respectable than a marriage between multiple partners or even close relatives, the exclusive state-implied equality of homosexuality to heterosexuality that has always been the true goal of same-sex marriage advocates will mean nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Nothing I said supports your narrow point. If multiple people want to go for polygamy, then they need to show the state their need for it and how it would work. Same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage deal with the same factors; two adults. Try and figure out how polygamy would work. Would the multiple wives only be married to the one husband, or are they also married to each other. Who collects who's social security and who pays the taxes? Homosexuality is normal and has been for ever and no one is trying to force it on anyone. The only ones destroying the respectability of heterosexual marriage is you heterosexuals. You cannot even take the blame for your failed attempt at marriages and blame it on gay people. Typical cop out. And again, polygamy is more like heterosexual marriage then gay marriage is, so if anything would lead to polygamy, it would be straight marriage.
"Same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage deal with the same factors; two adults."
So the number of participants matters, but the very nature of the union does not?
If I am a business partner in a bakery, why can I not also be a business partner in a bait shop with a different person?
Why can't an entrepreneur start a business with his or her sibling or parent?
Again, I'm looking for consistent principles that makes sense in every case, so why would marriage between two brothers or a father and daughter be taboo if marriage, as you have asserted, need only be between "two adults"?
Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriages was struck down as unconstitutional today by the 10th circuit court of appeals. They ruled it violated the equal protection of the U.S. Constitution.
"Same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage deal with the same factors; two adults."
So the number of participants matters, but the very nature of the union does not?
If I am a business partner in a bakery, why can I not also be a business partner in a bait shop with a different person?
Why can't an entrepreneur start a business with his or her sibling or parent?
Again, I'm looking for consistent principles that makes sense in every case, so why would marriage between two brothers or a father and daughter be taboo if marriage, as you have asserted, need only be between "two adults"?
It is the law that makes it two adults. Current law does not cover multiple partners, figure out how it would work and initiate a plan to get polygamy legal, but polygamy is not the same as just two. Also, why would two brothers want to marrry or two sisters, or a daughter and father, what is the purpose, they are already related and do not need the protections granted with marriage. You can be in business with as many as you want, no law says you can only operate or be part of one business. You are just shooting in the dark for any reason to be against same sex marriage.
How are straight people getting the shaft because of same sex marriage? And it is not a false institution, same sex marriages are just as real as straight marriages. If that is what you mean. You do realize that it is gay people getting the shaft, we pay taxes just like straight people, yet are denied full marriage equality, it is straight people getting special treatment and special rights.
Straight people aren't getting the shaft because of SSM (unless you're a religious zealot). What I am saying is that millions of heterosexual (along with homosexuals) are dealing with far more pressing issues than SSM. People really need to be disillusioned to the idea that we are so far along that SSM is one of the final loose ends that need to be tied up.
Why is there such a massive gridlock on the issue? How many states are we up to? 19? 23? I don't even know. But once the precedent has been set, it NEVER rolls back. So WHY is it still such a war? Every state will allow it. As long as we're still intact to see it.
Because it's a racket and a distraction. More rent seeking so your rulers can push a bigger and much more looming agenda.
The homosexuals are just as bad as the religious nutjobs. They are both enablers.
Five seconds ago it wasn't anyone else's business what people did in their own marriage.
Now that the subject is polygamy and incest, we have to look at the "consequences for society".
"The goal of those who support same-sex marriage is that adults all be treated alike when it comes to whom they choose to marry. No more, no less."
So same-sex marriage between two men is OK as long as they are not brothers?
For what purpose would you deny the right of marriage to two adult men simply because they are brothers?
If Woody Allen can marry his daughter, then the same right of marriage must be available to brothers, right?
I wouldn't deny the right of marriage to two adult men simply because they were brothers. I wouldn't deny the right of marriage to two adults who happened to be siblings, as long as procreation were not on the table. In the cases where procreation is on the table, given the fact that incest ALWAYS exists in subcultures and not the mainstream culture, and that a family pattern of incest has genetic consequences, I think society has an interest in preventing those genetic consequences.
As for Woody Allen marrying his daughter, couldn't care less, because she's not his genetic daughter. The interest the state has in incest relates to genetic consequences.
The homosexuals are just as bad as the religious nutjobs. They are both enablers.
SSM has ZERO personal affect or consequence to religious people. They're just silly little busy bodies pretending to be god warriors and vanguards of morality.... the problem is they have outsized influence.
But for gay people? Issues like SSM are priorities that gay people and their families DIRECTLY -- in very real and personal and financial ways.
You really have no right to prioritize gay people's issues for them, and insist they should instead pay more attention to your amorphous "real masters behind the curtain using the issue as a distraction agenda" boogeyman instead. People CAN do more than one thing at a time, you know.
Why is there such a massive gridlock on the issue? How many states are we up to? 19? 23? I don't even know. But once the precedent has been set, it NEVER rolls back. So WHY is it still such a war?
It's sort of a big deal for those who want to get married. Too bad if it's an inconvenience for your personal political goals.
Another ignorant poster who did not google same sex marriage before spouting off nonsense. In most states that have banned same sex marriage or marriage equality, they also banned civil unions, domestic partnerships and have wording that any legal bond that same sex couples get will not be recognized, YOU CALL THAT ACCEPTING and FAIRNESS?
Indeed.
And this very week, we have Indiana moving to codify its statutory ban on same-sex marriage into its state constitution.
And just for good measure, the bill includes a ban on civil unions.
Quote:
House Speaker Brian Bosma rescued the gay marriage amendment Tuesday by moving it to a friendlier committee.
He moved House Joint Resolution 3 – the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions – and a companion bill to the House Elections Committee.
The incessant claim that gays should have just settled for the second-class status of civil unions and the insinuation that no one would have opposed it is monumentally ignorant at best, at worst a flat-out lie. Where civil unions have been legalized, they have been opposed. And some of the factor in support for civil unions has always included those who don't like it, but see civil unions as staving off same-sex marriage and so being a 'lesser evil'. In many cases, absent the possibility of same-sex marriage, there simply would not have been sufficient support for civil unions.
At any rate, the subtext of civil unions is "Shut up and quit complaining that you have to sit at the back of the bus - just be happy you're even allowed on the bus!". Some people go to great ends to pretend that their animus towards gays is really just an opposition to the attitude of gays (the word they're looking for is 'uppity', but most of them are smart enough not to go there), but in the end it is still a hostility to gays themselves, not some faux opposition to attitudes or the process.
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.
