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 don't care what anyone does in their own bedroom - that is not what gay marriage is about.
Then why do you keep bringing sex into the discussion, often in a very graphic manner? I agree it's not about what they do in bed, but you're the one who keeps bringing it up here!
No, but it is expensive, time-consuming, and doesn't include every right & benefit that comes with legal marriage. Is it fair to make a gay couple go through that process (while still not acquiring 100% of the benefits), when a straight couple has the option on that? I don't think so, and neither should you if you believe in civil equality.
But what about polygamous couples? Are you fighting for their rights too???
Then why do you keep bringing sex into the discussion, often in a very graphic manner? I agree it's not about what they do in bed, but you're the one who keeps bringing it up here!
No - I was responding to what someone else said about happenings in the bedroom.
But what about polygamous couples? Are you fighting for their rights too???
Polygamous units (they're not really couples, are they?) and civil marriage contracts are a completely different beast. I think you can make a very good argument as to how polygamous units exercising civil marriage rights would be harmful to society.
How would spousal immigration visas work? Could I go and marry all 12,000 residents of a Mexican boarder town and bring them to live with me in the US? How would inheritance of marital property work in the absence of a will and all the surviving wives or husbands couldn't agree on division of assets? How about end of life care? What if the 2 wives were in complete disagreement about how to proceed in an emergency medical situation? What if a man and 5 women all married each other and all adopted a child. If they got a divorce, would that child be shared among all the spouses, constantly being shuffled back and forth between 6 different households? How about if a women with 8 husbands joined the military. Do they all get to live in military housing on the government dime?
I have no moral objection whatsoever to polygamy. It just doesn't make much sense in the context of jointly defined civil marriage rights.
Polygamous units (they're not really couples, are they?) and civil marriage contracts are a completely different beast. I think you can make a very good argument as to how polygamous units exercising civil marriage rights would be harmful to society.
How would spousal immigration visas work? Could I go and marry all 12,000 residents of a Mexican boarder town and bring them to live with me in the US? How would inheritance of marital property work in the absence of a will and all the surviving wives or husbands couldn't agree on division of assets? How about end of life care? What if the 2 wives were in complete disagreement about how to proceed in an emergency medical situation? What if a man and 5 women all married each other and all adopted a child. If they got a divorce, would that child be shared among all the spouses, constantly being shuffled back and forth between 6 different households? How about if a women with 8 husbands joined the military. Do they all get to live in military housing on the government dime?
I have no moral objection whatsoever to polygamy. It just doesn't make much sense in the context of jointly defined civil marriage rights.
But we're getting off topic.
This is exactly my point!
We are talking about what marriage looks like under the law. I say that when it comes to consenting adults of legal age, you can't pick and choose. Because we can't pick and choose without infringing someone's rights, the government should have NO say whatsoever on what partnerships people choose. All or nothing.
We don't write laws based upon the simplistic notion of "what will it hurt".
Actually, while it's a bit of a simplistic overstatement, we more or less do.
In order to ban something, anything, the government MUST SHOW a "compelling state interest" to do so.
The federal government, nor any of the states, can ban anything just because they can gather sufficient votes to pass a piece of legislation.
For example, while you may think if the Legislature of say, Kansas (chosen totally at random) could ban green beans in the state by passing a law by majority vote to do so, you would be wrong to do so.
Not only must they pass a law by majority vote, they must also show (even if only after the fact in court) that there exists a compelling state interest in banning green beans.
Now, if it turns out that green beans cause cancer, they might have a case. If it turns out that people who eat green beans rarely live past the age of 45, that's an even better case. If it turns out that eating green beans causes people to explode, killing other people when they do, then they have a great case.
But if they're banning green beans for no other reason than somehow they got a 50.1% majority in the Legislature to do so, and with no other reason, they can't do it.
So, yeah. If you can't answer the "what will it hurt" question with a good answer, then you're SOL.
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.
