Since gay marriage is here, its time to allow heterosexual men to have multiple wives?

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by jimj

And there in lies the problem. <bold> Why should one care about you if you don't do the same? Look, I'm not a religious bible thumping person and in fact have seen up close and personal how religion is sometimes used to justify some truly hideous actions. Heck, I had one highly religious neighbor who espoused that all gays should be shot on sight and gave me the "stink eye" when I didn't readily agree. I never could figure out how one could reconcile that kind of thinking with any religion.

I agree that gay people should enjoy the same rights as others, be treated with respect and not as "second class citizens" that is your RIGHT as a citizen and a human being but is being hung up over one word worth the delays and certain bad blood that follows?

I've also seen and been the victim of being straight and treated like a second class citizen while working in a predominately gay office building while working in San Francisco so it's fair to say I've seen both sides and neither are acceptable.

Here's where I'm at a loss, if you get the same rights and responsibilities as a "married" couple then why care what it's called? You're going from having virtually no rights to full rights but that one word is a sticking point?
Could it be that you're much more concerned with forcing those that may never agree with what you do to accept it?

Why should I and all gay people have to accept a second status marriage designation because the Christians have their panties in a wad? We pay taxes too, we are citizens too, we expect to be treated as equal and not as someone not of this country or world even. Why create two forms of paperwork for what would be the same institution? The church and christians do not own the word or term, marriage . I will not accept "back of the bus marriage", why should I and any other gay or lesbian? The hangup is with the christians that think they and their religion solely owns and maintains marriage and do not want to share marriage with gays. They are willing to share it with divorced straights, yet I thought the bible stated divorce as a sin too. Having gay marriage called marriage is not going to change any straight persons marriage one iota, it will not remove any of their marriage rights or change their benefits one bit.

[california-jewel]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

What about women having multiple husbands?

Maybe ok for some this multiple wives or husbands, but i'll stick with taking care of in every way, just my one husband.

How could men these days afford more then one wive That time of the month, with more then one wife, knock yourself out.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

Why should I and all gay people have to accept a second status marriage designation because the Christians have their panties in a wad? We pay taxes too, we are citizens too, we expect to be treated as equal and not as someone not of this country or world even. Why create two forms of paperwork for what would be the same institution? The church and christians do not own the word or term, marriage . I will not accept "back of the bus marriage", why should I and any other gay or lesbian? The hangup is with the christians that think they and their religion solely owns and maintains marriage and do not want to share marriage with gays. They are willing to share it with divorced straights, yet I thought the bible stated divorce as a sin too. Having gay marriage called marriage is not going to change any straight persons marriage one iota, it will not remove any of their marriage rights or change their benefits one bit.

First off as an FYI, it's not just religious people that don't like the gay "marriage" wording. Secondly, nobody is talking about "back of the bus" anything as that insinuates "less than" not to mention insults those who were regulated to sitting there for real. Gays are NOTHING like those that were forced to use separate bathrooms,fountains,living quarters,restaurants etc. and regularly hung not to mention treated as property. Can you honestly tell us that gay people are under these types of restrictions? Is there any public place you can't go due to being gay? No? Hmmm.....

In my mind along with many others I've spoken to this all boils down to a fight to FORCE others to agree with your life choices. I specifically say choice not because you're gay but that you are "choosing" to unite with another person unless you will also argue that you are born to be joined with another.
The majority opinion is "we don't care if they want to live together and be bound together AND agree that there's no reason they should not enjoy all of the same rights/legal responsibilities/down side of said union under the term "civil union" or whatever, just not the word marriage.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by jimj

First off as an FYI, it's not just religious people that don't like the gay "marriage" wording. Secondly, nobody is talking about "back of the bus" anything as that insinuates "less than" not to mention insults those who were regulated to sitting there for real. Gays are NOTHING like those that were forced to use separate bathrooms,fountains,living quarters,restaurants etc. and regularly hung not to mention treated as property. Can you honestly tell us that gay people are under these types of restrictions? Is there any public place you can't go due to being gay? No? Hmmm.....

Gay people are not "under these restrictions" because they fought to gain rights and freedoms they have now over the decades.

Because guess what? They WERE under those restrictions in the past - in dire risk of losing jobs, barred from jobs, barred from housing, looked upon unfavorably by courts, thrown in jail for having sex, denied custody of their children, beaten, harassed by cops and the courts, lynched, murdered.... the list goes on and on.

Originally Posted by jimj

In my mind along with many others I've spoken to this all boils down to a fight to FORCE others to agree with your life choices. I specifically say choice not because you're gay but that you are "choosing" to unite with another person unless you will also argue that you are born to be joined with another.

Absolutely WOW. Just wow.

Yet why do we protect religion, and afford religion all the protection of something that is innate, when clearly it truly IS a lifestyle choice?


Why did the courts strike down miscegenation laws? Clearly in that case choosing to marry someone of another race is/was a CHOICE! We should be able to tell people how to run their affairs and order their personal lives, huh?


Face it: You cannot have moral consistency on this issue. Either accept that, or continue to look foolish with your pathetic justifications. They may work in your head to cure the dissonance of a people who are supposedly "freedom and liberty loving," but they really don't work for those with more than a couple brain cells to rub together.

Originally Posted by jimj

The majority opinion is "we don't care if they want to live together and be bound together AND agree that there's no reason they should not enjoy all of the same rights/legal responsibilities/down side of said union under the term "civil union" or whatever, just not the word marriage.

#1: You are not the majority anymore, and you will continue to be a rapidly shrinking minority.

#2: Separate is inherently unequal.

#3: Nobody owns the word marriage. If you want to protect marriage, work to make things like divorce and drive through marriages illegal.

#4: You're going to lose on this issue anyway.