Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[Emperor SJoyce]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.

[The Mikado]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.

[ZuWo]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.

Don't avoid answering the question. We can't speak of "marriage equality" if heterosexual and homosexual couples can marry but other people are excluded from the right to enter a civil union/get married. It's not logical.

For the record, Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School, put forward a similar argument. It's a significant legal question which should not be discarded by attacks on people who make such comparisons.

[greenforest32]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

[The Mikado]

As a serious answer, polygamy leads to dicey questions regarding custody rights in divorce, inheritance, and all those other things.

[ZuWo]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

[afleitch]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?

[ZuWo]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?

The answer to your question is very simple: Despite the fact that incestuous and polygamous relationships have a long history - just like same-sex relationships - people who engage in these kinds of relationships still can't marry the people of their choice and are hardly ever mentioned even by proponents of gay marriage. This is a case of inequal treatment which does not change even if we introduce gay marriage across the board. I repeat: There is no "marriage equality" unless this changes and all forms or marriage are made legal, that's why the term "marriage equality" exclusively used in the context of same-sex relationships is odd.

[Jack Vance RIP]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.

That was all you needed to say....

Anyway, my position is that I'm not hugely in favour of marriage, like the military and so recently I've become very disappointed in the gays.

[Holmes]

I take offense to those who are against it.

[Rhodie]

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

[Supersonic]

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol

[Holmes]

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?

[Yelnoc]

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol

I'm reminded of a white man in the south of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?


EDIT, Context:

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/

Yeah, I was scrolling and attributed the "lol" to Rhodie.  Sorry Supersonic.

[afleitch]

I take offense to those who are against it.

lol

I'm reminded of a white man in the south Rhodesia of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?

Corrected.

[Holmes]

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

[afleitch]

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/

[shua]

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?

So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 

[nclib]

Pro-gay marriage, of course.

While there may be some legitimacy in comparing legalize gay marriages to incestuous marriages, polygamy is not at all analogous. Simply involving more than 2 people does make bureaucratic difficulty, if nothing else. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is like saying that a whites-only restaurant with a capacity limit of 40 people, if required to serve blacks, would also be required to hold more than 40 people.

[Dr. Cynic]

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die. Get out of the way, opponents, the train's coming and you don't want it to run your ass over.

[Holmes]

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?

So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 

It's both, but they're both rather tied together. Although I'm able to get married where I live, my boyfriend's home state wouldn't recognize it, and the US federal government wouldn't either.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.

I don't support it.

Care to elaborate?

Sadly I'm just a good, old fashioned, straight laced conservative. I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial, and thus I don't think its in our power, or that it is our right to change that.

It's clearly within our power to change it - we people of today write the laws of today. It's also clearly within our right to change it - we people of today do not have to be bound by the practices of our ancestors. A tradition is good or bad on its merits, not on the basis that it is a tradition.

[The Mikado]

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die.

Someone's optimistic about his longevity.

[SPC]

Where's the oxymoron option?

Both sides are idiots on this issue. Liberal civil rights advocates ought to be questioning why couples with a marital license from the state should receive special treatment in the first place, while conservative traditionalists ought to be questioning why the state is serving the role of Merriam-Webster on the subject in the first place.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

I believe that the state should sanction marriage between any number of consenting adults, regardless of their characteristics.