Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[rah]

But If I thought that Polygamous marriages were actually among FULLY consenting adults I probably wouldn't object too strongly. In almost all the times I've read something about it, it seemed that there really wasn't total consent but resulting from arrangements or social pressure. There's been so much abuse here tradionally that I couldn't support it at this point.

[rah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'll send you free beer.

The beer isn't necessary.

TO me, the definition isn't important. I could care less if my marriage was called a civil union outside of church references. But listening to all the gays here that actually care about the terminology has made me lean towards not giving a crap about that aspect. If they feel that important about it and I don't, it seem silly to stand in the way. But Like I said, not 100% convinced but wouldn't object too greatly.

[Boris Godunov]

The beer would have been Schlitz Gay, anyway.

[rah]

Actually that would have been good, since my father's big break in business came from advertising it orginally in the 60's. It allowed him to retire at the age of 49.

Damn, I'm behind schedule.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by rah
Could someone point out where I did that?

It might have been Ming, I get you two confused.

JM

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't have a problem with polygamous marriages, as long as it's involving fully-consenting adults.

Which is where the bestial and pedophilic (I know it wasn't brought up in this thread, but I've seen it lumped in the same argument before) marriage slippery slope argument breaks down, though I've yet to see anybody making that argument acknowledge this fundamental difference. Of course, like BK, they also tend to take the destruction of or harm to heterosexual marriage by the presence of homosexual marriage as an unquestionable given.

My position pretty well matches yours, I think. As long as the involved private parties all consent, which includes having the legal capacity to do so, the state should not stand in their way.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah

For the record, I'd prefer
civil - Civil Unions and leave marriages to the church

But having read some comments from the gay community here, I could probably eventually be convinced to go along with civil marriages.

Cool, because giving full civil right to marry with the word "marriage" to gay and lesbian couples means that churches will still be free to choose whether or not to marry gay or lesbian couples.

[rah]

I don't fully understand that connection. But, as I said, I really don't care how my union is referenced. Of course my wife proably does care.

[MrFun]

I'm not comfortable with fully recognizing/legalizing polygamous marriage. It can be too exploitative, putting women in such relationships in uequal, subordinate position to their husbands. Yeah, I know - someone here will come along and point out that monogamous relationships have been similar this way too. But today in Western countries, generally speaking, monogamous relationships are much more egalitarian legally, and in terms of social custom.

And of course, I have zero interest in supporting pedophiliac relationships or incest marriages.

[rah]

You left out bestial

Let's talk about consent.

[Jon Miller]

I think that polygamous marriages are almost fundamentally unequal to the particpants involved. This is why threesome type relationships rarely last (but twosome do).

No matter what, some of the partners will be lesser. I know that people can enter into such arrangements of their own will and choice, but do we really want to support them? As well as supporting all the other issues (mainly women being pressured to marry some fellow (even if she is older, and consenting) due to family/culture?

This is speaking as someone who for a while (pre time at apolyton, I think) had it as a goal to have a polygamous relationship (myself and multiple girls, obviously). I grew to realize that such things are unfair to some of the parties/don't work.

JM

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
I don't fully understand that connection. But, as I said, I really don't care how my union is referenced. Of course my wife proably does care.

Let's say we already have the civil right to marry. A gay couple approach their traditional church to marry. The church is not legally forced to marry them and so refuses the couple's request.

But, with the full equal protection of marriage rights, this gay couple decide to leave their church and marry at a church that, out of its own free will, agrees to marry them.

Thanks to this equal rights protection, this marriage will now allow this gay couple to enjoy the more than 1,000 privileges and rights that go along with marriage, while still allowing the first church mentioned above to be free to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples.

Does that explain it better?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
You left out bestial

Let's talk about consent.

Rest assured, I am opposed to legalizing any bestial relationship involving a person.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that polygamous marriages are almost fundamentally unequal to the particpants involved. This is why threesome type relationships rarely last (but twosome do).

No matter what, some of the partners will be lesser. I know that people can enter into such arrangements of their own will and choice, but do we really want to support them? As well as supporting all the other issues (mainly women being pressured to marry some fellow (even if she is older, and consenting) due to family/culture?

This is speaking as someone who for a while (pre time at apolyton, I think) had it as a goal to have a polygamous relationship (myself and multiple girls, obviously). I grew to realize that such things are unfair to some of the parties/don't work.

JM

I learn something new about fellow Apolytoners everyday.

[Jon Miller]

Marriage is better than civil unions precisely because of the social support that marriage is given (and this then causes marriage relationships to last better, I think, I know others disagree with me).

That is why it is beneficial for homosexuals to be able to enter into such relationships. This will hopefully assist them in forming stable long term and healthier relationships.

This is my argument for being pro-homosexual marriage. The party that says 'it is just a contract between two people' is also the party that is in favor the expansions.

JM