Is it bigotry to limit a contract to two parties?

[Orrex]

If so, please explain why it is bigotry.

[HFRN]

1. 'Is it bigotry to limit a contract to two parties'

like Republican and Democrat?

not, that's duopoly

[Orrex]

2. Is that a contract?

[HFRN]

3. probably more an ultimatum

but i didnt mean to hijack your threat with a play on words

your question is legit

[LuvNewcastle]

4. This reminds me of when they were arguing

whether to allow gays to have civil unions or marriage. Since marriage is considered more than just a contract, most gay people were not satisfied without full and equal marriage.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Indeed "civil unions" didn't provide all the same rights as marriage. n/t

[el_bryanto]

8. This is a good point too

If a marriage is strictly a contract between two people with certain legal considerations given it; than civil unions could be made to work (in fairness, many civil union laws did not in fact contain all of the legal protections that a marriage does, but that could have been fixed). It's clear from the debate though that marriage is more than a simple contract.

Bryant

[Orrex]

10. You're talking about "separate but equal," and that's not the question here.

If someone can demonstate that marriage is a union between as many consenting persons as care to join, then I will be happy to consider that argument.

As long as no party in a plural marriage is abused or coerced, and no party is unfairly permitted to double up on legal benefits (e.g., claiming multiple "marriage" credits on their taxes, etc.), then I don't see how it harms anyone.

Personally, I don't have a problem with plural marriage, though I find it frankly distasteful to compare that lifestyle choice to homosexuality.

If it can be shown that polygamists have faced persecution, discrimination and abuse comparable to what the LGBTQ community continues to endure, then I suspect that people would be more sympathetic to the complaints of polygamists.

[LuvNewcastle]

15. I don't want to see anyone discriminated against.

If virtually any number of people of any sex wants to live together and call themselves married, I'm fine with that. The only problem I have is when they go beyond claiming to be married and get licensed by the government as married people. I don't think it can work in our system of laws. The small number of polygamists in this country do not justify such a profound change in our government and laws.

[Man from Pickens]

19. I can't tell

whether some people are actually being serious, or they are ironically mocking the arguments against gay marriage

[GeorgeGist]

5. Corporations are legal, no?

[TexasProgresive]

9. I want to marry Apple

corps are people,no?

[Orrex]

12. Please explain what that has to do with the question

[el_bryanto]

6. Wouldn't that depend on the rationale for the limitation?

And the answer to the question "I would like to extend this contract to three people, why can't I?"

Bryant

[Orrex]

11. Wouldn't it depend on the entity charged with recognizing the contract?

[el_bryanto]

13. Well yes - but what is their rationale for doing so?

I get that we are talking about Marriage here - but what is the rationale for limiting it to two people?

Bryant

[Orrex]

16. Honestly, I don't know.

As I mentioned upthread, as long as no party in a plural marriage is coerced or abused, and no party in the marriage can unfairly double up on benefits (marriage tax credit, etc.), then I don't see why it must be limited to two.

[KittyWampus]

22. so much of our law is based on property rights, I'd have to wonder if that would be

the vein or argument. For starters.

Then there is the welfare of minorities and children.

Then there is the greater good of society.

[geek tragedy]

18. the answer is that two is a number that is much more stable, promotes equality

between members in the contract, and is more beneficial to the dependents of those party to the contract.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. That would depend on the basis for limiting the contract. n/t

[Orrex]

17. Fair enough.

What sort of basis would be bigotry, and what sort would not, for example?

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Any limitation based on ...

discrete group membership, e.g., race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability status, sexual orientation, would be bigoted unless it can be tied to a legitimate business reason, or related to a contract term.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. My husband will accept my bigotry -- if he knows what's good for him.

[KittyWampus]

21. Depends on what the contract is about. As a legal document, society and government

do have an interest in how and what contracts are made.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. What is the intention of the contract? Does that contract indirectly or directly involve anyone who

is not a party to the contract? A contract establishing custody of persons for example should be limited in any way that protects the person guardianship is being established for. A contract establishing certain responsibilities on each side often benefits from limited participation and as a party to such a contract I might insist on limitations on the number of responsible individuals comprising the other side. If it is your job alone to make sure I am properly paid it is easier for me to enforce your compliance than it is if the responsibility is diluted among persons.