Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Aeson]

Scoutmasters should not be allowed to marry their scouts! (in either sense)

[Ben Kenobi]

[Az]

@ Asher and BK.

[Ben Kenobi]

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Asher

I find this comment offensive.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm not the only one?

Of course not, Park Avenue voted as well. Enjoy the company!

[Agathon]

Someone should have put a "No, and all poofs should be shot for good measure!" option just for him.

[MrFun]

Full marriage rights for couples of same gender who marry one another.

[Agathon]

You know I'm really shocked that Fred Phelps has not weighed in on this issue.

I've been going to godhatesfags.com every day for a couple of weeks in hope of seeing him foam at the mouth over the marriage issue, but nothing.

What kind of country is it when it's worst fundamentalist bigot doesn't even care about gay marriage enough to denounce it on his site?

[Thorn]

Fred Phelps is in prison for tax evasion right now, FYI.

[Drogue]

Now 13 people for Hetero marriage only, and 7 of them non US Looks like BK and PA aren't alone.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by yavoon


why just 2? I hardly think the number 2 is less arbitrary than "man and women"

Actually, it's easy to make an arguement that two is not less arbitrary.

In today's society, despite what some may believe, we strive for equality. In a marriage, the two spouses are looked upon as equal partners, sharing each others commitment with no one else. It's what allows for the default 50% ownership of assets, decisions rights (eg:for medical procedures), implied POA, etc. When you start splitting the same issues among various people, you potentially run into problems. Some examples:

A spouse has been in an accident and needs contsent for a certain procedure. One spouse is fully willing to proceed, another disagrees - who's opinion takes priority?

Divorce. Let's say there are five spouses in total. One files for divorce from the other four (which, in and of itself would likely cause another problem), how do you deem the assets to be divided up? Does everyone own a one-fifth share? Most likely, not everyone got married at the same time, so how do you justify that spouse #5 that wants a divorce is entitled to the same amount as spouse number one who entered the union 10 years before? With two person marriages, it's simple because everyone (both) concerned entered the union at the same time.

Having said that, I'm not adamently against polygamy, as long as everyone consents. I think it makes more sense to not allow it, but I wouldn't actively fight it or have an aneurysm if they were allowed. It might, however, cause me to love my wife less.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Let me put it another way, if you don't limit the number of people you can marry you essentially reduce the value of the institution from a legal sense. I would suggest therefore that you remove the legal institution and replace it with electable rights, which you can elect to anyone you choose whether you are romantically, physically or otherwise involved with them or not. Where rights are not exclusive there would be no limit on how many people you choose to give them to.

so ur going to deny people a right based upon the legal convenience of the consequence?

I think legal convenience arguments are hard to stretch into this arena.

[Sava]

I'm for treating people equally, equal protection under law, and making no law respecting the establishment of religion... I don't care what people call it... civil unions, marriage, whatever... but the constitution says EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW... so whatever you call it, gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

and the gay-haters can go **** themselves

[JohnT]

Wow Sava, that is brilliantly reasoned.