Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:17 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Gay marriage - should they be legal? |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 06:49 PM by Rabrrrrrr
I'm listening to CSPAN now, and they have a woman anti-gay marriage, proposing we even offer a constotutional amendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman.
What do the pro-man/wopman marriage have to lose if gays are married? I mean, really, what's at stake? Does it hurt them if committed gay people can be married, too?
Seems that most, if not all, of the anti-gay marriage people are SuperChristians(tm), and I can understand their point though I utterly disagree with it. But is there any real argument against it? Does it harm anybody? Does it reduce the value of man-woman marriage to allow man-man or woman-woman?
And if we allow gay marraige, how much longer before we challenge and end up with polygamy?
And if one state allows gay marriage, should other states be forced to recognize those marriages (which is the constitutional problem, if you want to call it a problem, because a significant component of our republic is that states recognize thelegal rights of the citizens of other states)?
|
DODI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
1. How can you be against gay marriage |
|
and then watch "fake" marriage set up for our entertainment? Why isn't there an outcry about that!! People have a problem with two individuals marrying who love each other, respect each other, etc. But oh! Put Fox on now so I can see some girl marry for money! I think it is all INSANE!
|
CarlBallard
(512 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:24 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Gay marriage okay, polygamy okay |
|
It ain't what I'd do but it's none of my buisness what you do.
|
DarkPhenyx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:24 PM
Response to Original message |
3. No, it shouldn't be "legal". |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 06:48 PM by DarkPhenyx
Nor should heterosexual "marriage". Marriage is not a legal institution. It is a religious institution. The government should not be involved in a religious sacrament, nor should it give ligitimacy or legal status to said sacrament.
Now, if they wish to provide for a "domestic partner" statue that covers all forms of partnership and provides for equal benefits and protection under the law that is a completely different issue. I'd be all for that.
|
Christian73
(122 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
the "gay marriage okay, polygamy okay too" one and the "let's just call marriage something else altogether..." one, which I eventually chose.
Can someone please explain to me what the big deal about polygamy is?
I'm in a monogamous two person relationship with my boyfriend but that is my choice. What do I care if the guy next store has two wives or three boyfriends or the women next store has ten husbands or twenty seven girlfriends?
|
DODI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
How would tax law handle multiple spouses? The health insurance industry would lose money or all of our rates would go up. It is all about money.
|
CarlBallard
(512 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 06:42 PM by CarlBallard
Single people like me should be against all marriage/civil unions etc. After all those selfish people who chose to get hitched are driving my insurance rates up. Tax laws have plenty of trouble with married folks as it is.
|
DODI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
We get better car insurance rates, we get better health insurance rates, per capita, we get better tax relief. Single, child-free people get the short end of the stick every time.
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. I, for one, would definitely like to see the end of subsidies |
|
to married people and people with children.
And definitely, if we shoot for polyamorous (thanks to the one who corrected me on that usage) is that health care could really go ballistic.
"No, really, I'm married to these 38 women" could be a major problem.
maybe get rid of spousal healthcare altogether, or - and I would be happy for this entirely - allow a worker to choose only one other person to be on the healthcare (as well as children). Though, of course, what if you have children by 5 women, and those women have children from more than one guy... egads?!
But let's kill the reduced insurance costs for married people, kill the tax benefit, kill the child tax benefits. All highly unfair to the single people, and to the people who choose not to have children.
|
DarkPhenyx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. as long as you can produce paper... |
|
...where you are married to all of those women, can afford teh premimums, and also can prove parentalship to those kids, why the hell not.
Parentalship? Is that a word? :)
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
Nikia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. Yes, that's a big problem with polygamy |
|
I think there could be also problems with inheritance and property. Then there would also be issues with divorce. What about bisexual polygamous relationships? What if five people all marry each other and later four of the people decide to couple off and divorce the rest? What happens to the man or woman without a partner and which couple or individual gets the house? I think that it might be a legal nightmare.
|
DarkPhenyx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. The proper term is Polyamorous. |
|
Polygomy is only for a man that married to multiple women. Polyandry is the female version. Polyamory covers the entire gamut plus a few not covered by the other two terms, such as multiple partners of both sexes and various orientations.
|
Character Assassin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:32 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Yes. Enough of this dog-in-the-manger bullshit |
|
For the life of me, I can't understand how any hetero thinks two homos marrying is even in the most peripheral manner a 'threat' to their marriage.
It seems to boil down to a "We've got it, should you shouldn't have it.... Just because!"
The mind boggles.
|
SyracuseDemocrat
(696 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:33 PM
Response to Original message |
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:38 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Listening to this show |
|
And a person called up and said "Your arguments are the same that you people used 50 years ago against inter-racial marriages", and I have to say, listening to the anti-gay marriage Chrsitian woman, that her arguments are the same, though slightly different, as were used against inter-racial, and inter-denominational.
It's like they lost the fight against black and white marriage, lost the fight against protestant and catholic marriage, and have now dug in their feet for what they see as the last opportunity to preserve some kind of "religious" or "gender" purity thingabob whatever.
Sigh.
Instead of being willing to celebrate love and relationships and people connecting to one another, they are entrenched into believing that every person who isn't like them, somehow reduces their worth and value. Very sad, really. what a depressing way to go through life, I should think.
|
Darranar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 06:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Gay marriage okay, polygamy okay, and I also believe that marriage should be religious, not legal.
|
4_Legs_Good
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 07:02 PM
Response to Original message |
13. We MUST protect marriage! |
|
This is *clearly* demonstrated in today's Tom the Dancing Bug. Check it out... http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2003/08/07/boll/index1.htmldavid
|
CarlBallard
(512 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
a dowry of no less than 3 livestock animals.
|
DS1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 07:11 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Oh, damn. Dropped my coffee. |
|
I really don't care about what other people do in their homes.
Neither should the gov't.
|
baldguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-07-03 08:31 PM
Response to Original message |
20. "Marriage" shouldn't exist. |
|
The gov't shouldn't be in the fucking business of telling fucking adults who the fuck they can fuck.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 08:24 AM
Response to Original message |