Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Yahoo News: Republicans Cindy and Meghan McCain Support Gay Marriage Movement

Ellis

By Ellis
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
:yes:

As long as it's consenting, non-incestual adults (just to :stop: the "it'll lead to incest" crap).

Right.

IMO, if you support gay marriage, but not consenting polygamists, or any other consenting adult, you have ZERO right to call traditional marriage supporters hypocrites.

And quite honestly, if I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure I stole this position from Larry. Scary as that is for both of us. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
Right.

IMO, if you support gay marriage, but not consenting polygamists, or any other consenting adult, you have ZERO right to call traditional marriage supporters hypocrites.

And quite honestly, if I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure I stole this position from Larry. Scary as that is for both of us. :)

HH, I'm on that team as well. It just makes no sense that somehow the Gov't is involved in marriage at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
HH, I'm on that team as well. It just makes no sense that somehow the Gov't is involved in marriage at all

I think it'll be great too. I could marry everyone in one of the top cancer treatment centers, put them all on my new "can't deny for pre-existing conditions" insurance, and finally make a difference in the world!

I can get family coverage for $400-and-some dollars a month. That'll be less than $1 per person!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRSmith

DRSmith

Posted
Posted
I think it'll be great too. I could marry everyone in one of the top cancer treatment centers, put them all on my new "can't deny for pre-existing conditions" insurance, and finally make a difference in the world!

I can get family coverage for $400-and-some dollars a month. That'll be less than $1 per person!!!!

You know if they all survive you have to put up with them all right?:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted

Am I the only one who simply doesn't care at all one way or the other about this issue? My only concern is I don't want the courts or the federal gov't dictating what qualifies as marriage, but I couldn't care less whether gay people marry or not. I always thought the one advantage gays had was that their relatives would never bug them with the annoying "so when are you going to get married?" b.s. If they want to be as miserable as straight people, go ahead. What's the big deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
I think it'll be great too. I could marry everyone in one of the top cancer treatment centers, put them all on my new "can't deny for pre-existing conditions" insurance, and finally make a difference in the world!

I can get family coverage for $400-and-some dollars a month. That'll be less than $1 per person!!!!

Of course that right there is a major argument against polygamy: it invites fraud, whether it is insurance or bankruptcy or immigration status, marriage confers certain rights that can be abused. Now this kind of abuse certainly occurs now, but removing a cap on the number of partners would make the situation completely different.

If you take the moral/religious questions out of it, just making the number possibly unlimited is a major practical difference between monogamy and polygamy that does not exist between heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

Insurance is one thing, but what about divorce? In a three-person relationship, if only one wants a divorce, how do you divide the assets? Who gets custody rights? We have built up a lot of rules based on a two-person relationship, and a lot of things would need to change to accommodate an arbitrary number.

If we were every to go polygamy, I think it would have to be done by private contract, because I'm not sure that one-third/one-third/one-third would necessarily be the most logical split in most cases. Maybe 50%/25%/25% in many cases ... and many of the marriages would likely be a two-person marriage adding a third. The courts would have a hell of a time sorting that stuff out if the partners hadn't signed a pre-nup.

Those problems don't exist for monogamous homosexual marriage. We could legalize gay marriage right now and none of the laws regarding divorce or inheritance or adoption or immigration would need to change at all. The practical issues create a clear line there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
Those problems don't exist for monogamous homosexual marriage. We could legalize gay marriage right now and none of the laws regarding divorce or inheritance or adoption or immigration would need to change at all. The practical issues create a clear line there.

So now civil rights are based on practicality and convenience? Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACW

ACW

Posted
Posted
Right.

IMO, if you support gay marriage, but not consenting polygamists, or any other consenting adult, you have ZERO right to call traditional marriage supporters hypocrites.

:confused: Where did I say ANYTHING about not consenting polygamists?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
So now civil rights are based on practicality and convenience? Great.
They always have. The right to bear arms does not give you the right to own nuclear weapons. The right to an attorney does not get you a public defender as well-paid as the prosecutor.

The right to free speech does not give you the right to anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to your favorite political candidate.

Although many 17-year-olds may be more intelligent and better informed than many 18-year-olds, only the 18-year-olds get to vote.

The law draws bright lines all the time based on practicality and convenience. Everything is a balance ... it's note perfect, but it's one of the great advantages of our legal system over those of more rigid and authoritarian countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Right.

IMO, if you support gay marriage, but not consenting polygamists, or any other consenting adult, you have ZERO right to call traditional marriage supporters hypocrites.

And quite honestly, if I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure I stole this position from Larry. Scary as that is for both of us. :)

Actually, I would assert that there's nothing discriminatory about, for example, not permitting incestuous marriages.

Society does have a legitimate interest in prohibiting, let along not encouraging, sexual relations which are likely to result in the production of genetically defective offspring.

And I'll admit that I don't like the thought of polygamy. For one thing, to me, one of the fundamental characteristics of marriage is that ir's a promise of exclusivity. (That whole "forsaking all others" thing.)

In short, I'm not going to go join in any "polygamy rights parades". But if it comes to pass, I'm not going to be ticked, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
Actually, I would assert that there's nothing discriminatory about, for example, not permitting incestuous marriages.

Agreed. And I largely agree with the rest of that post as well. I think we can all support not permitting marriages/unions that involve currently illegal practices. At least I can't think of any that I would legitimize off the top of my head.

As far as forsaking all others, Larry, that begins to get into traditions regarding marriage....and I will respect you enough to steer clear of that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Of course that right there is a major argument against polygamy: it invites fraud, whether it is insurance or bankruptcy or immigration status, marriage confers certain rights that can be abused. Now this kind of abuse certainly occurs now, but removing a cap on the number of partners would make the situation completely different.

(and lots more)

I agree. Legalizing polygamy could make our laws a lot more complicated.

(That's why one of the expressions I like to use when the subject comes up is "When 4 guys want to marry 7 women, they aren't proposing marriage, they're forming a corporation.")

So now civil rights are based on practicality and convenience? Great.

But I agree with you. "It would make things complicated" isn't a good enough reason to limit people's freedoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NavyDave

NavyDave

Posted
Posted

Wow two liberal daughters of a "Maverick" Republican did something that isn't conservative or supported by the majority of the population. I guess conservative church going blacks and hispanics in California who helped keep the sanctity of marriage, are going to change their stance now. :rolleyes:

Who would have thunk it?? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRSmith

DRSmith

Posted
Posted
Wow two liberal daughters of a "Maverick" Republican did something that isn't conservative or supported by the majority of the population. I guess conservative church going blacks and hispanics in California who helped keep the sanctity of marriage, are going to change their stance now. :rolleyes:

Who would have thunk it?? :rolleyes:

They made illegal to for hetros to live in sin and remarry on any grounds other than adultery which they made illegal also?

Or did they just to to selectively decide one group should not marry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fullnelson9999

fullnelson9999

Posted
Posted
Wow two liberal daughters of a "Maverick" Republican did something that isn't conservative or supported by the majority of the population. I guess conservative church going blacks and hispanics in California who helped keep the sanctity of marriage, are going to change their stance now. :rolleyes:

Who would have thunk it?? :rolleyes:

If thats how you want to view it...

:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
codeorama

codeorama

Posted
Posted
I'm not going to voice my opinion on gay marrage because I don't wan't it to taint my argument. How about this idea....

Take government out of marrage. No need for the courthouse. No tax benefit. Government couldn't care less. If you want to have some kind of ceremony to announce your love for another person, good for you. But there is no legal benefit or down side to being married. Would that make both sides happy?

I kind of think along the same lines... IF marriage is a religious ceremony, then anything having to do with the government should be civil unions, period. Besides, there are churches that are willing to marry gays now.... so, its basically a government issue as it is, not a church/religious one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...