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.
Be careful of what you wish for...
I have nothing against gays, but I think country celebrity, Dolly Parton, made the best comment about the theme of same sex marriage:
"Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to find out what hell marriage can be."
Don't take my word for it, ask some married (and divorced) people.
The basis for this decision is basically whatever heterosexual couples are capable of doing, homosexual couples are capable of as well. And if there are things that homosexual couples are incapable of, there are countless example of legally recognized heterosexual married couples who are also incapable of these things.
I can think of several real problems with 103 people getting married--most notably child custody. Having a child bounce around between 103 people would probably do irreparable harm.
But a group of people who wish to marry will disagree, just as gays will disagree that they cannot be fit parents. If marriage is going to change, it should change to accomodate all consenting adults. Do three people who want to marry each other have less of a right to be heard from than two men or two women? They must at least be given their day in court, and you'd better believe they are going to ask for it.
I can't work up any enthusiasm about this issue, pro or con, but it strikes me that the judge being gay creates a problem about his ability to rule in an impartial manner.
What will the definition of marriage be if it's going to change?
I'm asking a legitimate question here and I'm interested in all answers.
If marriage is not between a man and a woman, is it fair to say it's between two people? Why two? If all humans who can give consent are free to marry each other, group marriage should be recognized too, right? As long as it's between consenting adults, the number of people involved should not matter going forward any more than the sexes of the people involved. If the game is going to change, it should change for everyone who has the right to give their consent.
Edit: For the record, if this country is going to recognize gay marriage, I believe that it should recognize all marriages between consenting adults, regardless of the number of people involved. In my opinion if a group of people are not doing anything to hurt anyone, they must be extended the same rights as gay people. That's what human rights should mean. And that means a lot more changes than many people are planning for could be coming.
Marriage I believe should be changed to "in between a party of consenting adults".
No number specified, no gender specified, theo nly thing BEING specified is "consenting adults". ANd if you want to get REAL techical "Consenting human adults". Which is kinda redundant, since animals cannot give consent.
If your only argument against gay marriage is that it could be extended to polygamous relationships then you should be more concerned to define marriage as a monogamous relationship between two individuals than to specify it as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman.
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing aganist gay marriage. I'm only asking if this should change the definition of marriage to the point that it's not limited to monogomy anymore. I am not making an anti-gay marriage rant in any way here. I'm asking where human rights should begin and end.
If at some point the law of the land is that marriage is a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults regardless of their sex, then that's what it is.
I can't work up any enthusiasm about this issue, pro or con, but it strikes me that the judge being gay creates a problem about his ability to rule in an impartial manner.
And, if the judge were heterosexual, how would that ensure impartiality?
Isn't prostitution legal in NV too? haha, no one seems to care about that either.
Prostitution should be legal around the coutnry (in the style of Nevada brothels), but that's besides the point.
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.
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
