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.
If gay marriage does become legalized across the country (and in most states it probably will) then I have no doubt that polygamy and even incest marriages will too. I would even go so far as to say that people will even try to '' normalize '' those lifestyles too. They are trying to do it with homosexuality.
It all boils down to what the word '' Marriage '' actually means. The traditional definition has always been a union between a man and woman. This is also the religious definition. Some people want to change the term to mean something else, they think '' Marriage '' should be secularized.
IMO Marriage has no place in the Government or vice versa. There should only be '' secular contracts '' given and recognized by the Government, indiscriminately. Straight, gay, man and his Xbox, doesn't matter.
Marriage it's self would be a private thing among Churches, Synagogues, families etc.... The term would be protected as it would apply to the Religious and Social aspects of it.This would end the entire debate. No one could complain about not having equality and those of us who believe in Traditional Marriage would not have our values and the meaning of Marriage compromised.
Gay activists however do not want this option. Because it would take away their power. Their goal is not really equality, it's to push their lifestyle onto everyone else in society, and they need Gay Marriage as a rallying issue to accomplish that agenda. Drop Marriage from the Government and they no longer can accomplish this, they would then be seen as nothing more than a militant lifestyle group demanding special treatment, which is what they are.
How would your marriage be compromised if Michael and Philip down the street get married?
I keep hearing about how it will compromise and devalue heterosexual marriages, but not a soul has been able to explain how or why.
Actually, don't blame the gays. It was the interracial folks that started the case law precedent. All them soldiers bringing home their Asian brides and all them race-mixin folks in the south.
How would your marriage be compromised if Michael and Philip down the street get married?
I keep hearing about how it will compromise and devalue heterosexual marriages, but not a soul has been able to explain how or why.
Because once you redefine one variable that creates the definition of marriage people will quickly begin to argue that the other variables shouldn't matter either. For over 200 years in this country marriage was defined as a union between one man and one women who are not close relations. So you have three variables: gender, numbers, and prior relationships. It is also unspoken that it includes only humans. I did not address the age part since requiring both to be of a certain age is a relatively speaking recent change. (I had a great aunt who married at 13.) Nor did I include the formally held race restrictions.
Let's say the next domino to fall is the numbers and we now allow, as this thread implies, however many adults to form a marriage. What happens when one partner wants an extra spouse or two and the other doesn't. Can the first spouse say no? I suspect the spouse now being forced to accept a new person in the marriage would say it will destroy their marriage.
It is that slippery slope that people worry about. You may pooh, pooh them and say it isn't possible. But a frequent argument brought up to support SSM, whether on boards like this or in the courts, has been Loving v Virginia, which eliminated the race restrictions. I once read an newspaper article written from the time, when my husband was doing a paper for school, where they interviewed someone, who thought they should keep the status quo, said something along the lines of next thing you know fairies will want to get married. (I distinctly remember the fairy reference because I was so offended by it) It was dismissed by the person arguing with them as ridiculous, and they said it would never happen so that wasn't a legitimate argument. I wish I could find that article but this was back in the days of microfiche.
Same thing with other objections about changes in social norms concerning marriage. I still remember my parents discussing how no-fault divorce would lead to more sexual affairs, a higher divorce rate, and would destroy the institute of marriage. I definitely remember the discussions that the pill encourage pre-marital sex and that men would quit thinking they had to marry a woman who got pregnant because they would say if the woman took the pill it wouldn't have happened. And of course there is the whole abortion soothsaying.
I'm not saying any of these changes shouldn't have happened, only that they all had far reaching impact on our society and paved the way to other changes, including our current debate about SSM. To dismiss the adoption of SSM as having no impact on marriage as an institution is naïve. And while it may no impact my current marriage, it will influence future marriages. Look at all the talk about getting the government out of all marriages - that will greatly impact heterosexual marriages.
Actually, don't blame the gays. It was the interracial folks that started the case law precedent. All them soldiers bringing home their Asian brides and all them race-mixin folks in the south.
Since gay marriage is here, it is time to allow heterosexual men to have multiple wives? Will America fight to allow men to have more then one wife since we marching? I mean as a straight man my rights are being denied.
One thing at a time. Gay marriage, then multiple wifes, and then animals etc. The wheels are already in motion to normalize such marriages, because there is a TV show with the very scenario.
I'm not saying any of these changes shouldn't have happened, only that they all had far reaching impact on our society and paved the way to other changes. To dismiss the adoption of SSM as having no impact on marriage as an institution is naïve. And while it may no impact my current marriage, it will influence future marriages. Look at all the talk about getting the government out of all marriages - that will greatly impact heterosexual marriages.
You DO realize that SSM has been a reality in places like Canada, Massachusetts, parts of Europe for at least 10 years or more.
Society has not collapsed, and the marriages of heterosexuals in those areas have not been affected.
The talk about "getting government out of marriage" is just that - talk. Talk by people who would bite their nose off to spite their face.
One thing at a time. Gay marriage, then multiple wifes, and then animals etc. The wheels are already in motion to normalize such marriages, because there is a TV show with the very scenario.
Actually, using a Bible based definition, multiple wives is more in line with history and tradition, and god's plan. We'd actually be moving TOWARDS the traditional definition of marriage were that to occur.
Also, Eve WAS tempted by a big ole' talking snake, so animal-human relationships also appear to be well-documented.
Since gay marriage is here, it is time to allow heterosexual men to have multiple wives? Will America fight to allow men to have more then one wife since we marching? I mean as a straight man my rights are being denied.
You have to understand where the push for gay marriage came from. Basically, it began with the AIDS crisis.
Starting in the 1980s, millions of gay men in long-term relationships suddenly found themselves having to care for partners stricken with he illness. They found, to their horror, that they had no legal rights. They could not make end-of-life choices, they could not participate in health care decisions, they sometimes couldn't even visiting dying partners in the hospital. After their partners died, many gay men were kicked out of the homes they had shared for years because they had no legal rights to them. If a husband of wife dies, his or her property transfers automatically to the surviving spouse. Not so with same-sex couples. The list of injustices goes on and on.
For better or worse, many rights and benefits in this society are tied to marriage. That is why marriage equality is so important.
There is no similar circumstance pushing gay men to marry more than one woman.
Because once you redefine one variable that creates the definition of marriage people will quickly begin to argue that the other variables shouldn't matter either. For over 200 years in this country marriage was defined as a union between one man and one women who are not close relations. So you have three variables: gender, numbers, and prior relationships. It is also unspoken that it includes only humans. I did not address the age part since requiring both to be of a certain age is a relatively speaking recent change. (I had a great aunt who married at 13.) Nor did I include the formally held race restrictions.
Let's say the next domino to fall is the numbers and we now allow, as this thread implies, however many adults to form a marriage. What happens when one partner wants an extra spouse or two and the other doesn't. Can the first spouse say no? I suspect the spouse now being forced to accept a new person in the marriage would say it will destroy their marriage.
It is that slippery slope that people worry about. You may pooh, pooh them and say it isn't possible. But a frequent argument brought up to support SSM, whether on boards like this or in the courts, has been Loving v Virginia, which eliminated the race restrictions. I once read an newspaper article written from the time, when my husband was doing a paper for school, where they interviewed someone, who thought they should keep the status quo, said something along the lines of next thing you know fairies will want to get married. (I distinctly remember the fairy reference because I was so offended by it) It was dismissed by the person arguing with them as ridiculous, and they said it would never happen so that wasn't a legitimate argument. I wish I could find that article but this was back in the days of microfiche.
Same thing with other objections about changes in social norms concerning marriage. I still remember my parents discussing how no-fault divorce would lead to more sexual affairs, a higher divorce rate, and would destroy the institute of marriage. I definitely remember the discussions that the pill encourage pre-marital sex and that men would quit thinking they had to marry a woman who got pregnant because they would say if the woman took the pill it wouldn't have happened. And of course there is the whole abortion soothsaying.
I'm not saying any of these changes shouldn't have happened, only that they all had far reaching impact on our society and paved the way to other changes, including our current debate about SSM. To dismiss the adoption of SSM as having no impact on marriage as an institution is naïve. And while it may no impact my current marriage, it will influence future marriages. Look at all the talk about getting the government out of all marriages - that will greatly impact heterosexual marriages.
You didn't answer the question. How will Michael and Philip's marriage negatively impact YOUR marriage? How will it devalue your own matrimonial vows and life?
Furthermore, using "that's how it's been done for 200 years" doesn't really compute. How would you like to go to the voting booth and be told that you're not allowed to vote because you're a woman and that's how it's been done for almost 200 years? What's next....dogs and horses voting? Would you meekly agree and go home?
How about being told you're not allowed to own property because you're a female? After, all that's it's always been done. Something tells me you wouldn't like it much.
Societies grow and evolve. Michael and Philip getting married doesn't affect you. At all.
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.
