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.
The question is, what consistent reasoning can be used to justify same-sex marriage while prohibiting other non-traditional forms of marriage?
After common sense is tossed out the window along with marriage based on nature's plan for human reproduction, then almost nothing can be prohibited.
That is what is so important about redefining marriage. Once they can convince people that the reason governments endorse marriage, is publicly endorse the feelings of love between people, cohabitation, and sharing property. If that is mainly what marriage is about then why would anyone object to three or more loving people from living together.
What's it going to hurt?
How will three people marrying each other hurt anyone else's marriage?
That is what is so important about redefining marriage. Once they can convince people that the reason governments endorse marriage, is publicly endorse the feelings of love between people, cohabitation, and sharing property. If that is mainly what marriage is about then why would anyone object to three or more loving people from living together.
What's it going to hurt?
How will three people marrying each other hurt anyone else's marriage?
Government is involved to enforce a contract not to endorse feelings of love. You can already love or live with pretty much whoever and whatever you want.
Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. If issues of finance, property and custody can be legally worked out to expand that to more than two adults then you are correct that there's no reason to not allow multiple partner marriage.
You can "marry" your iPad or any other non-traditional item/person/animal if you so desire, but there's no way to have that as a legally recognized partnership.
EXACTLY.
There are rational reasons to limit legal, government-sanctioned marriage to two people. If someone can work out how to parse the benefits and responsibilities among more than two people, then let them do it and bring the argument that they should now be married. Polygamy is, after all, the most traditional form of marriage there is in human history.
I just don't think it can be done, and frankly I have no interest in wasting my energy on it.
That is what is so important about redefining marriage. Once they can convince people that the reason governments endorse marriage, is publicly endorse the feelings of love between people, cohabitation, and sharing property. If that is mainly what marriage is about then why would anyone object to three or more loving people from living together.
Why would you object to three or more living together? What do YOU care, and how does it affect YOU or ANYBODY else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
What's it going to hurt?
It doesn't, and it won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
How will three people marrying each other hurt anyone else's marriage?
It won't hurt anyone else's marriage, but neither you nor polygamists have figured out a way to make the 1000+ legal ramifications of entering into a marriage contract work beyond 1 person + 1 person. (including benefits, child custody, property division and alimony, immigration implications, court spousal immunities, tax filings, etc. etc. etc.)...
That is a burden that polygamists must overcome before bringing their case that they should be allowed to be able to have their marriage legally recognized. And when (if) they do meet that burden, what's it to you how others live their lives? There are already tons of people living in polygamous arrangements in several states.
I see you still don't get it, no one has to marry for reproduction reasons. My marriage license says nothing about it being a legal document to produce children.
A man and woman can get married, never have sex with each other, but have sex with other partners and that would be completely legal for them to do before same sex marriage was ever legal.
Oh, then why is the only other alternative to traditional marriage being discussed a sexual union between members of the same sex?
Seems to me the if the criteria is simply that TWO people love each other (or not I suppose) and they want to build a life together and play house with real babies, then any non-sexual relationship could also be justified under the same reasoning.
BTW, you haven't stated your specific criteria for marriage. I dodn't want to make assertions on your behalf. So spill it. What is now right and what is now wrong according to urbanlife78?
Government is involved to enforce a contract not to endorse feelings of love. You can already love or live with pretty much whoever and whatever you want.
Sorry, no.
You are heartless and mean for not allowing two loving gay women become married, that is the line over and over. They are not fighting for nor would they be satisfied with legal documents so they can share property.
Oh, then why is the only other alternative to traditional marriage being discussed a sexual union between members of the same sex?
Seems to me the if the criteria is simply that TWO people love each other (or not I suppose) and they want to build a life together and play house with real babies, then any non-sexual relationship could also be justified under the same reasoning.
BTW, you haven't stated your specific criteria for marriage. I dodn't want to make assertions on your behalf. So spill it. What is now right and what is now wrong according to urbanlife78?
You do realize a man and woman don't have to love each other to get married. Also what is a sexual union? Is that another phrase for having sex?
You are heartless and mean for not allowing two loving gay women become married, that is the line over and over. They are not fighting for nor would they be satisfied with legal documents so they can share property.
Heartless and mean is just one of the reasons why opposing same sex marriage is wrong.
Not having a rational, independent basis for denying tax paying citizens the full rights of citizenship that doesn't appeal to some revisionist history, or appeal to religion is the major reason.
Oh, then why is the only other alternative to traditional marriage being discussed a sexual union between members of the same sex?
Seems to me the if the criteria is simply that TWO people love each other (or not I suppose) and they want to build a life together and play house with real babies, then any non-sexual relationship could also be justified under the same reasoning.
BTW, you haven't stated your specific criteria for marriage. I dodn't want to make assertions on your behalf. So spill it. What is now right and what is now wrong according to urbanlife78?
Sex is not requisite for marriage under the law. There is nothing about the marriage contract that requires the entrants EVER have sex, love each other.... or even LIKE each other.
That's because as far as the government is concerned, it's a shorthand contract scheme (much like establishing an LLC or business partnership that automatically creates certain rights and responsibilities between entrants).
The part about "love" is to help appeal to the dummies who don't understand what marriage actually is in the eyes of the government.
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.
