05-16-2008, 01:28 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
|
If a man has the right to marry a man...
Why can't a man legally marry two women, or two men?
|
05-16-2008, 01:39 AM | #2 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
Think of what the purpose is behind each of those scenarios. Those with same-gender attraction seek equality because they want to enjoy all of the same social acceptance, rights, and privileges that traditional couples have.
What is a person who wants multiple marital partners trying to achieve? |
05-16-2008, 01:43 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Quote:
I think the slope gets real slippery real fast. What if someone wants to marry a sibling, or a son or daughter, or an animal? Once you break from the traditional man/wife thing, deciding where the new line will be gets real tough. |
|
05-16-2008, 02:54 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
I don't understand your logical chain of thought here. Why is it that saying marriage is NOT one thing necessarily means it is everything else?
Saying marriage is not just a marriage between a man and a woman is not tantamount to saying marriage is all other relationships. If marriage is defined as a state recognized relationship between two people (except as specifically noted by statute, such as marriage to a minor or to a close relative), that encompasses a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, and a man and a man. It also doesn't require that the state recognize a marriage to a little child or to a goat. How do you get from Point A to Point B on this one? |
05-16-2008, 03:04 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 03:13 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
The state already defines marriage. If your opinion is that any state action defining marriage opens the door to further state action defining marriage, then you should be opposed to all state action in that arena, right? I doubt very much that you are. If the reasons for prohibiting certain forms of marriage are simply public policy reasons, then isn't there a reasonable argument that in the past marriage was only between a man and a woman based on antiquated ideas of the "good" of public policy and those ideas are subject to revision to include a man and a woman? Certainly a state could also determine that polygamy was appropriate (they also have in the past), but it doesn't necessarily follow that they must accept polygamy if they accept gay marriage. |
|
05-16-2008, 03:18 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 04:13 AM | #8 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
laws againt consanguinous marriage are ok because they are for the good of society. And society trumps the rights of those individuals who seek to marry. If you buy that, then gay marriage can also be argued as detrimental to society, or not adding to society, therefore also legal. You have to at least allow for the possibility, if you are going to still ban consanguinous marriage.
|
05-16-2008, 04:14 AM | #9 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
I wonder if we will get into a situation at times where brothers "marry" purely for tax reasons.
|
05-16-2008, 02:22 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|