General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it bigotry to limit a contract to two parties?
If so, please explain why it is bigotry.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)like Republican and Democrat?
not, that's duopoly
Orrex
(63,749 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)but i didnt mean to hijack your threat with a play on words
your question is legit
LuvNewcastle
(16,971 posts)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
(26,366 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)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
(63,749 posts)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
(16,971 posts)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
(1,713 posts)whether some people are actually being serious, or they are ironically mocking the arguments against gay marriage
GeorgeGist
(25,384 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,244 posts)corps are people,no?
Orrex
(63,749 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And the answer to the question "I would like to extend this contract to three people, why can't I?"
Bryant
Orrex
(63,749 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I get that we are talking about Marriage here - but what is the rationale for limiting it to two people?
Bryant
Orrex
(63,749 posts)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
(55,894 posts)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
(68,868 posts)between members in the contract, and is more beneficial to the dependents of those party to the contract.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Orrex
(63,749 posts)What sort of basis would be bigotry, and what sort would not, for example?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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
(19,497 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)do have an interest in how and what contracts are made.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.