Bush supports amendment banning gay marriage

[Tagrineth]

I don't see why polygamy should be blocked completely if everyone involved is aware of it and agrees to it. (so like, say a man wanted a second wife - what if the first wife really liked the other girl herself, and thought it was a good idea, herself? What's so wrong about that?)

 

[MfA]

A person is a person, a group of people is not a person ... to call something discrimination because a group of people is not treated the same as a single individual is a bit too extreme for my taste. Not how I define the word.

 

[RussSchultz]

I don't see why polygamy should be blocked completely if everyone involved is aware of it and agrees to it. (so like, say a man wanted a second wife - what if the first wife really liked the other girl herself, and thought it was a good idea, herself? What's so wrong about that?)

Property and inheritance rights are not (and cannot be) well defined in situation where more than 1 surviving spouse exists.

 

[Geeforcer]

I don't see why polygamy should be blocked completely if everyone involved is aware of it and agrees to it. (so like, say a man wanted a second wife - what if the first wife really liked the other girl herself, and thought it was a good idea, herself? What's so wrong about that?)

Property and inheritance rights are not (and cannot be) well defined in situation where more than 1 surviving spouse exists.

Why? Is it so much different from a situation with several surviving children or other family members?

 

[RussSchultz]

Who gets the children, for one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

A person is a person, a group of people is not a person ... to call something discrimination because a group of people is not treated the same as a single individual is a bit too extreme for my taste. Not how I define the word.

A marriage is not a person either.

Edit: let me make myself clear....

A homosexual CAN get legally married. just not to someone of the same sex.

A polygamist can also get married...just not to more than one person.

 

[Tagrineth]

Who gets the children, for one.

Oi, keep in mind court battles ensue over that anyway when things like divorces ensue.

My point was, what if the two wives lived in harmony? And if the dude kicked the bucket... then the two had some kind of agreement where they would stay together on some level (not necessarily *ahem* THAT kind of level) and, for example, take care of children.

If they chose to separate, proceedings could just go like any ordinary, modern-day male/female divorce.

 

[Vince]

A homosexual CAN get legally married. just not to someone of the same sex.

A polygamist can also get married...just not to more than one person.

Just curious, but why is it assumed that Marriage is actually a fundimental human right? I'd consider it a privilege kinda like driving which has it's own standards and rules, but just wondering.

 

[MfA]

A homosexual CAN get legally married. just not to someone of the same sex.

The person they cant get married to can get married to another.

A polygamist can also get married...just not to more than one person.

The group he cant get married to cant get married to any other given person either.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The person they cant get married to can get married to another.

But not another person of the same sex.

I'm a hetersosexual...and I can't marry someone of the same sex, no matter how much I might love that person and even feel he might be the ideal "partner" to raise a kid with.

 

[Tim Murray]

A homosexual CAN get legally married. just not to someone of the same sex.

A polygamist can also get married...just not to more than one person.

Just curious, but why is it assumed that Marriage is actually a fundimental human right? I'd consider it a privilege kinda like driving which has it's own standards and rules, but just wondering.

If Michael Jackson can, it's a fundamental human right.

 

[MfA]

The person they cant get married to can get married to another.

But not another person of the same sex.

Exactly, so the differentiation between individuals is based solely on sex. Prohibiting polygamy differentiates not between individuals though, but between individuals and groups. To call that discrimination stretches the term beyond the breaking point for me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Exactly, so the differentiation between individuals is based solely on sex.

I just don't follow you.

You're saying racial discrimination is OK then...because we're talking about "groups" of people?

Or that the notion of exactly "two" individuals is somehow "OK" to be protected...but more than two implies a group...which is over the line for you?

 

[MfA]

In the sense that not allowing an entire race to marry a single person whereas a single individual can, yes I say that kind of "racial discrimination" is ok.

 

[nelg]

A homosexual CAN get legally married. just not to someone of the same sex.

A polygamist can also get married...just not to more than one person.

Just curious, but why is it assumed that Marriage is actually a fundimental human right? I'd consider it a privilege kinda like driving which has it's own standards and rules, but just wondering.

Because it is allowed, for the most part, without conditions. So even if viewed as a privilege, the fact that the conditions required to obtain it are relatively non existent, it is in affect it is a right. Of course this all in the context of a heterosexual marriage.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In the sense that not allowing an entire race to marry a single person whereas a single individual can, yes I say that kind of "racial discrimination" is ok.

OK, so we've established that you have an issue with "many to one" relationships.

 

[MfA]

Not relationships, marriages ... not the same thing.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Not relationships, marriages ... not the same thing. The point is that having such an issue, codefied in law or not, does not actually discriminate against any person based on his background.

Please define "background"...it doesn't aparently include innately held beliefs (religious or not)?

 

[MfA]

BTW why not pick family relations as a ground to discriminate against marriage anyway? It is a so much better one than the rather stretched polygamy ...

 

[digitalwanderer]

If Michael Jackson can, it's a fundamental human right.

What does what Michael Jackson can or can not do have to do with anything humans can or can not do? :|