I completely agree, but here in the states it should be even easier than that. From research for a previous thread on this issue, I found that in almost all states I could gather info on (and there were a lot), there was no mention of a marriage being limited to a man and a woman as the couple, until recent laws were passed to make it so. Therefore, simply repealing the state laws that were passed in the last few years would solve the problem, completely, and with little effort.
Let’s throw out DOMA while we’re at it, but that also shouldn’t be tough (except politically).
The truth? Yes, yes there is something wrong with denying CIVIL marriage to gay couples, since it has NO EFFECT on straight marriages.
Religious marriage rites are different. We’re talking secular marriage, not a Catholic nuptial Mass.
Civil unions would only end up being another form of segregation-you can NOT have “separate but equal.”
You may not “believe” gays are inferior (although I certainly doubt even that), but you sure don’t have a problem TREATING them as inferior. And THAT is what really counts. You can “believe” all you want, really. But when you start using those beliefs to treat other people as lesser beings, then it becomes a problem.
I think Excalibre said it best:
That would be like someone saying, “Well, I call my wife a bitch, treat her like dirt, won’t let her work outside the house, make her my slave…but I don’t BEAT her.”
I won’t call you a hypocrite unless you’re saying that polygamy shouldn’t be legally recognized. The “foreign to me” point won’t stand: gay marriage is still “foreign” to the vast majority of people in the US.
You don’t have an opinion, but you can say that it has nothing to do with your vision of gay marriage?! Your not coming down on one side or another means that you might oppose it? Hmm. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, methinks.
Polygamy and polyamory represent legal hurdles which have not even begun to be worked out yet, and implementation of them might prove to be quite a challenge. While I personally don’t see a reason it should be denied, I do at least understand why it might bring up many issues that same sex marriage does not have, and also why it might take some time to actually come to fruition, even if we all agreed that it should be allowed. Legalizing gay marriage is about as easy to handle as possible. Simply repeal the recent laws outlawing it.
I disagree, I think you just want to change the name of marriage to civil union when it comes to the law. I think it’s a silly idea with no real benefit to anyone.
Great, so instead of calling it marriage they can call it a civil union. A rose by any other name… you get the rest.
Marc
Look, I’m not trying to get personal here, but SHAKES - aren’t you divorced? You’d deny a gay couple the right to marry because it’s a sacred union between a man and a woman… but you got divorced? Does this mean that yours was not a “sacred union”?
No. Simply, no. You’re not going to say you won’t call me a hypocrite and then call me a hypocrite. You’re not going to put words in my mouth, and you’re not going to get me into an argument about polygamy and polyandry in a discussion that is about monagmous homosexual marriage. They are simply not related. If you want to interpret that as my opposing it, go right ahead, but that’s not what I said. I said plainly and clearly that I don’t know enough to state an opinion on it. So your posts, both of them, are complete hijacks.
AFAIK, there are a number of people (me being one of them) who wouldn’t mind the government allowing gays to get married as long as any religious institution who didn’t want to wouldn’t be forced into doing it. For whatever reason there seems to be a fear that suddenly churches will be crowded with gay people wanting to walk down the aisle (when in reality the case is that they just go straight to City Hall).
The “problem” with the gay marriage issue is that for every person who honest has peoples’ rights and best interest at heart, there’s some number of idiots who are along just to make noise and another number who are too entrenched in their own belief systems to rationally consider a compromise. You can’t expect America to become ancient Greece overnight; these kinds of things take time, especially when there’s so many self-proclaimed Christians who somehow think that this sort of thing signals the end of the world as we know it. (Personally, I think the Church has pretty much missed the boat on being a real voice in society for at least a century now, but that’s another topic altogether.)
Your original phrase was, “And I’ve no doubt I’ll be labeled a hypocrite for saying this.” So you anticipated the problem yourself.
Since when does marriage require “monogamy”? That’s the whole point I’m trying to make. I don’t care if you want to argue about it or not–you responded to my post, though, saying you’re not sure if it’s a good idea or not.
Hijacks, my eye. Social justice requires that all lifestyles get treated equally under the law. Homosexual marriage is in no way more valid than marriage for polyamorous groups.
I would hope this would go without saying. My right to marry should not in any way come at the expense of another’s right to practice their religion as they see fit. That would be just as bad as their religion preventing me from marrying.
Presumably then you’d be removing the age of consent for marriage(16 in Britland, not sure what it is in various states) so that if I chose to marry a 15 year old, then that would be acceptable.And as it is in some countries where the marriage age is different, then surely it should be the case in all countries?
Pedophilia is not a “lifestyle.” Truly, neither is homosexuality. But homosexuality doesn’t hurt children. Pedophiles rape children. Do not compare the two.
It had to happen sooner or later; The Godwin of homosexuality threads; “If you allow homosexual marriages, then you have to allow a man to marry a dog, or a lamp post, or a small fleet of Argentinian trawlers.”
Regardless of one’s feelings about polygamy (personally, as long as everyone’s a consenting adult and none of those consenting adults are my husband, I say good for them), it’s an undeniable fact that there are practical barriers standing in the way of legalizing polygamy. (Those practical considerations have been the focus of many debate here, so we all already know them by heart and don’t need a further recital.) Homosexual marriage, however, doesn’t require us to create any new infrastructure. We’ve already got the laws in place to deal with forming and dissolving two-person unions, so there’s no barrier to full-on gay marriage except for some people’s ideological objections. I don’t think anyone is saying that the government shouldn’t recognize polygamous unions, just that at present there are practical barriers to doing so. In that case, gay marriage and polygamy are very, very different indeed.
Oh, and marrying a 15-year-old is NOT pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, and 15 is certainly not prepubescent. Discussions about age of consent laws is most decidedly not comparing homosexuality to raping children.
As for the OP, I don’t see it working out very well, really arguments about treating gays like second-class citizens aside. Right now, there’s no distinguishable difference between a couple who had the full-on church wedding and one who exchanged vows at the courthouse during lunch and then went back to work. Under your plan, there would be, and I don’t forsee the non-religious married people of this country standing still for that.
The “problem” that I anticipated was exactly the posts you proceeded to make. I could see it coming from a mile away. You make a side reference in response to one of my posts saying that “you’ll have to let polygamous groups in there as well.” I point out that that’s not what I’m arguing for. You would then point out that if I’m not supporting it, I’m against it. And since I’m for marriage for some consenting adults but not others, that makes me a hypocrite. Then you can conveniently use me as a counterpoint to put out your own opinions on the topic of polygamous marriage. Which is a hijack to this thread.
I’m like Kreskin how I could see that coming.
Ever since I first made it clear that what I was arguing for was monogamous gay marriage. And I immediately, categorically, reject any attempts at a slippery-slope argument against monogamous gay marriage, no matter where they come from. I’m not arguing for polygamy any more than I’m arguing for campaign finance reform.
What I am proposing is 99.999% identical to the religious, social, and civil institution of marriage that exists today and has for years. It’s as simple as swapping one of the figures on the wedding cake.
That’s not inclusive enough for you? You want to argue for legalized polygamous marriage? Knock yourself out. I’m not going to stand in your way. But I’m not fighting for it, either, and I’m not going to allow anyone to imply or infer that if I’m fighting for one then I’m fighting for the other. Because I see them as completely unrelated.