I often hear Conservatives complain that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. What's wrong with polygamy?
What would be so wrong if Rym and Emily decided to marry and then, a little bit later, Scott wanted "in" on the marriage? As long as all members of the marriage are consenting adults where is the harm?
One could easily argue that polygamy is a good thing for the kids in that it insures more parents will be available to care for the kids. There will also be more parents in the labor pool to support those kids.
I admit not knowing many gays, and having none as a close friend, so could someone explain me why they (or anyone else) insist on a traditional marriage? I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries? The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
I admit not knowing many gays, and having none as a close friend, so could someone explain me why they (or anyone else) insist on a traditional marriage? I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries? The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
Yeah! There is an idea, let's create something separate but equal. Oh wait...
I admit not knowing many gays, and having none as a close friend, so could someone explain me why they (or anyone else) insist on a traditional marriage? I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries? The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
Yeah! There is an idea, let's create something separate but equal. Oh wait...
The anti-prop 8 groups should have used that in their advertising campaign.
I admit not knowing many gays, and having none as a close friend, so could someone explain me why they (or anyone else) insist on a traditional marriage? I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries? The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
Yeah! There is an idea, let's create something separate but equal. Oh wait...
The anti-prop 8 groups should have used that in their advertising campaign.
They most definitely did do this. In fact, for the most part, they tried to frame it as purely a civil rights issue, avoiding the words 'gay marriage' entirely, instead relying on generalities and analogies.
I often hear Conservatives complain that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. What's wrong with polygamy?
Many people oppose this for the same reasons opposents of gay marriage cite: because they find it offensive and immoral.
Wait.. oh, can we stick to saying anti or pro gay marriage, it saves a lot of confusion.
There is an important distinction between supporting prop 8 or not and opposing gay marriage or not. It is possible to be against gay marriage and yet oppose prop 8. For example, those who think gay marriage is wrong, but don't believe it should be illegal, or those who thought that a law to ban gay marriage (like the one previously passed, then struck down) would be acceptable, but believe that inserting it into our constitution is excessive. Obama has put himself in this group. There is also a group, probably even smaller, of those who support gay marriage, but are also in favor of prop 8. I take a less extreme version of this stance myself. I think that gay marriage is fine, but that prop 8 is perfectly reasonable. I voted against it because I recognized that the consequence of prop 8 passing would be to put an end to the gay marriages that were legal at the time, but I am not unhappy that prop 8 passed. I have always believed that the push to legislate acceptance of gay marriage is a way of treating the symptoms of the underlying problems of bigotry and prejudice, rather than addressing the causes of these problems through education.
I often hear Conservatives complain that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy.
I don't understand their logic. Wouldn't they think they'd be happy with their partner? Do they really believe same-sex marriage is a stepping stone to even more deviant (which is subjective) practices?
Do they really believe same-sex marriage is a stepping stone to even more deviant (which is subjective) practices?
They believe ALLOWING gay marriage is a stepping stone to allowing more "deviant" practices.
Hmmm, perhaps we should disallow heterosexual marriages then. By allowing it we're only creating a stepping stone for homosexuals to demand the right to marry.
Hmmm, perhaps we should disallow heterosexual marriages then. By allowing it we're only creating a stepping stone for homosexuals to demand the right to marry.
Hmmm, perhaps we should disallow heterosexual marriages then. By allowing it we're only creating a stepping stone for homosexuals to demand the right to marry.
I admit not knowing many gays, and having none as a close friend, so could someone explain me why they (or anyone else) insist on a traditional marriage? I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries? The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
Yeah! There is an idea, let's create something separate but equal. Oh wait...
We've had this argument before, but honestly, if the religious wingnuts are just hung up on the word "marriage," why not just acquiesce, make something new that's precisely identical, and enjoy the same benefits? Really, you could use the opportunity to laugh at people who think they've won, when they're really getting is lip service.
Sure, it'd be wonderful if everyone just magically accepted homosexual marriages, but that's simply not the case. You can fight for it in principle, but if your principle is seriously hindering your ability to achieve its goal, it may be time to reconsider your strategy.
That, or we could just round up all the religious people and burn them. I'm down with that.
I admit not knowing many gays, and having none as a close friend, so could someone explain me why they (or anyone else) insist on a traditional marriage? I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries? The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
Yeah! There is an idea, let's create something separate but equal. Oh wait...
We've had this argument before, but honestly, if the religious wingnuts are just hung up on the word "marriage," why not just acquiesce, make something new that's precisely identical, and enjoy the same benefits? Really, you could use the opportunity to laugh at people who think they've won, when they're really getting is lip service.
Sure, it'd be wonderful if everyone just magically accepted homosexual marriages, but that's simply not the case. You can fight for it in principle, but if your principle is seriously hindering your ability to achieve its goal, it may be time to reconsider your strategy.
That, or we could just round up all the religious people and burn them. I'm down with that.
The problem is that there would be no legal requirement for affording people in "secular marriages" or "civil unions" or whatever word you use the same rights afforded people in "traditional marriages." Remember, we're talking about over a thousand rights afforded by the federal government and around 400 on the state level. If you neglect to include even one of those rights in the new "same thing but called something different," then it's not really equal.
I know we're talking about a lot of rights, and I'm saying that we make something new that affords the exact same rights, but is called something else. You could just right an addendum to the law defining a "civil union" and then specify that a civil union conveys all the legal rights detailed in sections blah blah blah of the appropriate law.
Separate but equal works if it's truly equal. Since we're not dividing up a finite commodity, there's really no reason why you can't make a "civil union" truly equal to a marriage. If stupid people are getting hung up on the word, use a different word. The joke's on them, really.
I know we're talking about a lot of rights, and I'm saying that we make something new that affords theexactsame rights, but is called something else. You could just right an addendum to the law defining a "civil union" and then specify that a civil union conveys all the legal rights detailed in sections blah blah blah of the appropriate law.
Separate but equal works if it'strulyequal. Since we're not dividing up a finite commodity, there's really no reason why you can't make a "civil union" truly equal to a marriage. If stupid people are getting hung up on the word, use a different word. The joke's onthem, really.
I still think that the government should not recognize "marriage", but create "civil unions" for all. Marriage should be in the hand of religious institutions and spiritual organizations. The government should not be in the business of "sanctifying" anything. EDIT: If everything is the same, except the language, it is still not the same. Language has power. You might as well call civil unions "fag marriage" - it will have the same effect. Also, what if a straight couple wants to have a "civil union"? Most human beings think in words. They have incredible power, and these words can change how something is perceived and treated. Getting hung up on words makes sense, particularly when those words hold so much social impact. If I worked at a company where a man and I did the same exact job for the same money and benefits, but he was called a Case Manager and I was called a Secretary, then that title would create an inequity that would be detrimental to me and a benefit to the man in how I was treated and respected within the organization. The same thing applies in the big picture with some people be allowed "marriage" and others "civil union".
You could just right an addendum to the law defining a "civil union" and then specify that a civil union conveys all the legal rights detailed in sections blah blah blah of the appropriate law.
You're assuming marriage is defined in the legal language of the United States by a single federal law. I'm no lawyer, but I can tell you right now that's not even remotely likely to be the case. Not after over two hundred years of legislation.
EDIT:
I still think that the government should not recognize "marriage", but create "civil unions" for all. Marriage should be in the hand of religious institutions and spiritual organizations. The government should not be in the business of "sanctifying" anything.
Couldn't agree with you more, actually, considering also that the term and concept of "marriage" isn't even universal among all religions (ex. Neopagan handfastings).
Here is the solution. Get rid of "marriage" from a government view point and declare the legal rights of a civil union. Then make the act of being married a pure religious ceremony. It can then be left up to the Church whether or not to allow gays to be "married", which keeps the religious people happy about the sanctification of "marriage" while at the same time allowing everyone the legal rights of union.
We have been saying this for days. It addresses the legal rights separate-but-equal problem. It also addresses the "sanctity of marriage" problem. It really is a good idea to read the last page of discussion rather than adding the same statement over and over again. Then you can add to or discuss what has already been said. Some of the problems brought up on THIS page were just discussed on the last page.
I think that marriage should be a religious institution only.
I think the government should not issue "marriage" licenses. I think they should have ONE term for the legal contract, and it should apply to everybody. Call it civil union if you like...I don't care what it's called, but it needs to be distinctly separate from the religious institution of marriage. Then all the religious people who object to the sanctity of their sacrament being sullied can shut the hell up.
Separation of Church and State. We shouldn't legally sanction a religious sacrament. Any benefits from a non-religious institution (like the state or an employer) conferred to an individual and their spouse/family should be done so on a legal basis and not on the basis of religion.
Guys, we have been saying this for days. It addresses the legal rights separate-but-equal problem. It also addresses the "sanctity of marriage" problem. It really is a good idea to read the last page of discussion rather than adding the same statement over and over again. Then you can add to or discuss what has already been said. Some of the problems brought up on THIS page were just discussed on the last page.
Good for you.
I'm sorry if I missed your single post on the issue from four days ago and the fact that Mrs. MacRoss' post was posted three minutes before mine (so I didn't actually know she posted it).
Guys, we have been saying this for days. It addresses the legal rights separate-but-equal problem. It also addresses the "sanctity of marriage" problem. It really is a good idea to read the last page of discussion rather than adding the same statement over and over again. Then you can add to or discuss what has already been said. Some of the problems brought up on THIS page were just discussed on the last page.
Good for you.
I said the same thing months ago, but people brought the issue back up, I said it again. Sorry for the repetition, but apparently people don't get the point the first time.
It's on the previous page, man. In this case 4 days just means a few posts. And I wasn't saying it just for your benefit...I meant it more generally. I understand if a thread is 50 pages long, you don't want to read the whole thing. But reading the last page or two so you know where the conversation is is just common sense. I have no problem with agreement or elaboration posts. It's mostly the ones that repeat exactly what has just been said as if it has not been brought up yet. It irritates me because it implies that the other comments are not worth reading before someone posts.
Mrs. Macross: You totally said it on the first page. Was not aimed at you...however, I think that other people's elaboration was warranted, given that you only posted a brief comment on it.
It's on the previous page, man. In this case 4 days just means a few posts.
I read this forum everyday. People post so often that I often miss one or two posts while reading through. So, I must have skipped over your post four days ago. Sorry if I don't reread every thread every time I want to post.
Changing the government-recognized idea of 'marriage' into something identical called 'civil unions' makes sense legally, but doesn't solve the problem at hand. There is some segment of gay people that only want the legal benefits of marriage, but those tend to be the ones that are happy with a separate but equal institution as already exists in many places. After changing the state of 'marriage' into 'civil union,' gays will still not be able to get married. Instead, they will be able to get a 'civil union.' This is not what they want.
To clarify, there is a rich tradition and history behind the institution of marriage, and some gays want in. Other folks want to keep them out. There is not a good way of making both groups happy simultaneously, because their desires are exactly contradictory.
EDIT: Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I said it makes sense legally, but does not solve the problem. vvvvvvvv
Comments
What would be so wrong if Rym and Emily decided to marry and then, a little bit later, Scott wanted "in" on the marriage? As long as all members of the marriage are consenting adults where is the harm?
One could easily argue that polygamy is a good thing for the kids in that it insures more parents will be available to care for the kids. There will also be more parents in the labor pool to support those kids.
I don't suggest canceling the institution, just creating a civil alternative ("Secular Marriage") equal in the eyes of the law and the government, but to which the church couldn't resist because it's not a religion practice, and therefore out of it's boundaries?
The couple will be regarded as married by the general public, and will enjoy all coupled privileges. The only shortcoming is that the church and its followers wouldn't see this as marriage, which is what happens anyhow with legalized gay marriage.
There is an important distinction between supporting prop 8 or not and opposing gay marriage or not.
It is possible to be against gay marriage and yet oppose prop 8. For example, those who think gay marriage is wrong, but don't believe it should be illegal, or those who thought that a law to ban gay marriage (like the one previously passed, then struck down) would be acceptable, but believe that inserting it into our constitution is excessive. Obama has put himself in this group.
There is also a group, probably even smaller, of those who support gay marriage, but are also in favor of prop 8. I take a less extreme version of this stance myself. I think that gay marriage is fine, but that prop 8 is perfectly reasonable. I voted against it because I recognized that the consequence of prop 8 passing would be to put an end to the gay marriages that were legal at the time, but I am not unhappy that prop 8 passed. I have always believed that the push to legislate acceptance of gay marriage is a way of treating the symptoms of the underlying problems of bigotry and prejudice, rather than addressing the causes of these problems through education.
Sure, it'd be wonderful if everyone just magically accepted homosexual marriages, but that's simply not the case. You can fight for it in principle, but if your principle is seriously hindering your ability to achieve its goal, it may be time to reconsider your strategy.
That, or we could just round up all the religious people and burn them. I'm down with that.
A quick search on google yields an abridged, simplified list.
Separate but equal works if it's truly equal. Since we're not dividing up a finite commodity, there's really no reason why you can't make a "civil union" truly equal to a marriage. If stupid people are getting hung up on the word, use a different word. The joke's on them, really.
EDIT: If everything is the same, except the language, it is still not the same. Language has power. You might as well call civil unions "fag marriage" - it will have the same effect. Also, what if a straight couple wants to have a "civil union"? Most human beings think in words. They have incredible power, and these words can change how something is perceived and treated. Getting hung up on words makes sense, particularly when those words hold so much social impact. If I worked at a company where a man and I did the same exact job for the same money and benefits, but he was called a Case Manager and I was called a Secretary, then that title would create an inequity that would be detrimental to me and a benefit to the man in how I was treated and respected within the organization. The same thing applies in the big picture with some people be allowed "marriage" and others "civil union".
EDIT:Couldn't agree with you more, actually, considering also that the term and concept of "marriage" isn't even universal among all religions (ex. Neopagan handfastings).
Good for you.
I'm sorry if I missed your single post on the issue from four days ago and the fact that Mrs. MacRoss' post was posted three minutes before mine (so I didn't actually know she posted it).
Mrs. Macross: You totally said it on the first page.
After changing the state of 'marriage' into 'civil union,' gays will still not be able to get married. Instead, they will be able to get a 'civil union.' This is not what they want.
To clarify, there is a rich tradition and history behind the institution of marriage, and some gays want in. Other folks want to keep them out. There is not a good way of making both groups happy simultaneously, because their desires are exactly contradictory.
EDIT:
Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I said it makes sense legally, but does not solve the problem.
vvvvvvvv