Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what perspective are you looking at this. In the traditional sense, for thousands of years, marriage was either one man to one woman, or in some cultures, one man to multiple wives.
If anything, gay marriage is a much newer phenomenon. And as marriage now has been defined by the Supreme Court to be between two people due to "love", why can't a father and daughter (of age) love each other and marry? Why can't a woman marry two men because she "loves" them both equally? Is it fair to her that she can only legally marry one and not the other?
I can. No one is allowed to have more than legal spouse at a time. That is equal treatment.
Hmm..
If these are call consenting adults, why not?
If the argument for any form of marriage is that you have two consenting adults, then it stands to reason that a man can marry 2 women. We are a hop, a skip, and a jump away from polygamy becoming legal.
Why not? Heck anything goes now. Before long you'll be able to marry your pet.
Well, I've told this tale before but in light of the nonsense above it deserves a retelling.
In 2013, when my state of Minnesota was in the process of enacting a law allowing for same-sex marriage, an outraged coworker piped up and claimed that it would lead to human-canine marriages. First, I pointed out that expanding marriage rights is no more going to lead to dogs marrying than extending the vote to women was ever going to lead to dogs voting. His reply? "Sure, that hasn't happened - yet!" I pointed out that it's been over 90 years. "You just wait!", he said. I moved on to the point that a dog cannot even indicate his consent. He claimed that a dog can use its paw to indicate consent. At that point I decided not to waste any more time on what was clearly among the most hopeless of causes.
And this is the problem with the slippery-slope fear-mongers. Aside from the facts that they don't comprehend the jurisprudence behind marriage law and they don't comprehend that the slippery-slope fallacy is just that - a fallacy - they also appear to be oblivious that dire predictions of doom and gloom that never come true have always been the currency of those who just can't handle social change.
Take gays and the law. Remember how allowing them to serve openly in the military was going to destroy military morale, crater unit cohesion, and send straight troops into retirement en masse and deter new enlistments? Never happened. Never happened. Never happened. Remember how same-sex marriage was going to lead to polygamy? Never happened. Hasn't happened in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage has been legal for over 11 years) and it hasn't happened in a single one of the over two dozen countries where same-sex marriage is legal. And it goes beyond issues of homosexuality. Back to the military - in the 1990s, allowing women to serve in combat rules was going to ruin everything, while in the 1970s allowing women into the general ranks and the service academies was going to ruin everything and in the 1940s and 1950s the desegregation of the military was going to ruin everything. Never happened, never happened, never happened. And beyond, from allowing interracial marriage (that was supposed to destroy the white race, remember?) and taking down Jim Crow (blacks were going to take over) and abolishing slavery (blacks were going to take over then, too) and allowing women to vote (society was going to spiral down, remember?).
The fear-mongering never ends. And it is always flat-out wrong. And the fear-mongers never own up to the fact that they were completely and totally wrong.
They either never learn a damn thing from the serial wrongness of previous fear-mongering, or they just blithely hope we don't notice because they don't have any arguments of actual substance to make.
As an aside, I don't have an issue with same-sex marriage. It's fine with me if it is legalized, and I'm content with allowing individuals to decide if they want to be in a plural marriage (ever notice how those who bleat loudest about the perils of 'big government' tend to be from the same crowd demanding that government micromanage marriage?). But I'm also aware that same-sex marriage is no more a stepping-stone to plural marriage than was allowing interracial marriage, or making marriage egalitarian.
I believe you're referring to the FLDS and not to the LDS.
You are correct. Once the mainstream LDS Mormons settled their Utah Zion, they began to realize the problems in patriarchal men hoarding the woman supply.
It worked when their was a surplus of widows and orphans, but once Zion was settled, it was trouble.
People did say the same thing about "giving rights to Negroes" and "letting women vote".
I get that some people are part of a religious organization that teaches them homosexuality is a sin. But everyone has rights. I can't make you think differently about that, and you cannot change the fact that the majority of people now feel homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
And then there's the fear mongering group who says they're afraid for the children (no statistics to back that up) or they just know this is going to lead to our demise.
I guess in their minds that sounds more acceptable than admitting they're homophobic.
You are correct. Once the mainstream LDS Mormons settled their Utah Zion, they began to realize the problems in patriarchal men hoarding the woman supply.
It worked when their was a surplus of widows and orphans, but once Zion was settled, it was trouble.
No, they gave it up because it was a condition of statehood for the Utah territory. That was when the Mormon church split.
People did say the same thing about "giving rights to Negroes" and "letting women vote".
I get that some people are part of a religious organization that teaches them homosexuality is a sin. But everyone has rights. I can't make you think differently about that, and you cannot change the fact that the majority of people now feel homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
And then there's the fear mongering group who says they're afraid for the children (no statistics to back that up) or they just know this is going to lead to our demise.
I guess in their minds that sounds more acceptable than admitting they're homophobic.
I will put my hand up and admit i'm homophobic light.I have no problem with people having the same rights as others but what bothers me is the constant promotion of the lifestyle from the govt(rainbow flag on white house)and the television/media.Just go about your life like most people, nose to the grindstone, minding your own business and there would be less animosity towards homosexuals.
What if, say, your employer will no longer pay/subsidize the cost health insurance for spouses and families? Perhaps your co-workers with 7 spouses and 22 children each cost your employer too much. They can't exclude ONLY those spouses/children, they must exclude yours too.
I feel my employer should have the right to offer health insurance to anyone they'd like.
Originally, health insurance coverage was just an additional compensation package to lure employees.
I don't believe for one second it should be the responsibility of an employer to provide health insurance. Should they also be responsible for providing food or housing? No.
I can. No one is allowed to have more than legal spouse at a time. That is equal treatment.
The previous law was equal yet it was still changed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
