Bush supports amendment banning gay marriage
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
Mfa, I think your completly wrong in regards to polygamy. If several individuals want to raise a family in a committed relationship they should also have that right if we give it to gays. The fact that their relation has more than 2 people should have no bearing. We could have polygamists fill out detailed forms specifing how they would like their benifits, children, property divided when/if something breaks the relation.
later,
epic
ps 2 side points
humus, in the last 3 thousand years where have we had marriage without religion(god(s)) involved.
I also am starting to think that marriage should be less a right and more a privilige. Not everyone can marry, ie if your not old enough.
later,
epic
ps 2 side points
humus, in the last 3 thousand years where have we had marriage without religion(god(s)) involved.
I also am starting to think that marriage should be less a right and more a privilige. Not everyone can marry, ie if your not old enough.
Hmm, i could have sworn that they still believed in 'spirits' and the like. I could be really wrong (and probably am).notAFanB said:
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
that's pretty much my point, it appears to be largely indirect (certainly not driven). You might as well put concepts like 'fate' or 'harmony' in there as a factor of marriege throughout the ages.
I will conceed however, that many of the rituals, rights and aims of marriege in the west do appear to stem from the 3 monotheistic religions thus far.
None of this would be a big deal if
1) The US made up a new term for marriage to distinguish it from the xtian rite.. Call it a 'confluence' or something. So a man and a woman would go to church for a marriage, and go to the court for a 'confluence'!
2) The law was very mild in giving taxation and legal favors over and above a regular nonmarried couple. So this should entail mild priviledges to citizenship requests, and visiting rites, but not much more that could potentially weigh on the rights of the taxpaying community.
However, I do still see the slippery slope problem assuming 1/2 above are not implemented. Polygamy/incest/beastiality/whatever could, under the same logic, be fought for as well. With that, comes absurd possibilities for tax loopholes, and undamped ponzi schemes.
So I ask, why should the will of the majority be supressed for something that is not an inalienable human right (marriage).
Gay and Lesbian groups should be fighting for implementation of the above, at least the logic would be clean and not arbitrarily contrived.
1) The US made up a new term for marriage to distinguish it from the xtian rite.. Call it a 'confluence' or something. So a man and a woman would go to church for a marriage, and go to the court for a 'confluence'!
2) The law was very mild in giving taxation and legal favors over and above a regular nonmarried couple. So this should entail mild priviledges to citizenship requests, and visiting rites, but not much more that could potentially weigh on the rights of the taxpaying community.
However, I do still see the slippery slope problem assuming 1/2 above are not implemented. Polygamy/incest/beastiality/whatever could, under the same logic, be fought for as well. With that, comes absurd possibilities for tax loopholes, and undamped ponzi schemes.
So I ask, why should the will of the majority be supressed for something that is not an inalienable human right (marriage).
Gay and Lesbian groups should be fighting for implementation of the above, at least the logic would be clean and not arbitrarily contrived.
The problem with polygamy as I see it is that it is rarely an arrangement between mature consenting adults.
Has anyone ever heard of polygamy in which a number of men are married to one woman? No - because polygamy tends to be about male domination over women i.e. the wealthier a man, the more wives he has and the more wives he has the greater his perceived status.
As with arranged marriages, the woman rarely has much power in the relationship.
If polygamy was just about a group of people wanting to get married regardless of the numbers of each gender then there would be nothing wrong with it. The fact that it has always been one man to many wives shows that there are serious problems with the concept. IMO.
Has anyone ever heard of polygamy in which a number of men are married to one woman? No - because polygamy tends to be about male domination over women i.e. the wealthier a man, the more wives he has and the more wives he has the greater his perceived status.
As with arranged marriages, the woman rarely has much power in the relationship.
If polygamy was just about a group of people wanting to get married regardless of the numbers of each gender then there would be nothing wrong with it. The fact that it has always been one man to many wives shows that there are serious problems with the concept. IMO.
Fred said:
I guess you never heard of the marriage tax, that existed for decades and decades.later,
epic
Ill let my wife know that Im supposed to have the real power in our relationship.Mariner said:
later,
epic
since the xtian marriage is the "new method" , then perhaps xtians should consider making there own term up . did romans marry ? did celts ? did ancient chinese ?
i really dont understand why there is a huge 'christianity' problem here , i'm an athiest , if i was married religion would have nothing to do with my marriage , so what does it matter wether gay people 'offend xtians' .
just my 2penneth
-dave-
. did romans marry ? did celts ? did ancient chinese ?i really dont understand why there is a huge 'christianity' problem here , i'm an athiest , if i was married religion would have nothing to do with my marriage , so what does it matter wether gay people 'offend xtians' .
just my 2penneth
-dave-