And by that logic, people should be able to marry their pets too!<br />
Yeah, no. Gay marriage should be ACCEPTED because regardless of sexual preference people should be treated equally. They're not asking for special rights, they're asking for EQUAL rights. Which as human beings they should be entitled to.
There's something about marriage being between two consenting adults that would prohibit that.
at first i was gonna say no because of all that i've seen in utah on tv an such. but you cant trust the media anyways. its hard to imagine a scenario where it would work out though. not that regular marriages work out either or anything haha.
Turn your own question on it's head. <br />
Should we allow heterosexual couples rights we deny others? Half a century ago it was illegal in the US for couples of different races to marry and before that it was illegal for blacks to even marry other blacks. They were denied the same rights by bigots who insisted it was impractical, immoral, and would ruin society to allow them to marry. <br />
All this nonsense about moral absolutism somehow addressing political realities should have been left behind in the dark ages when we were still burning witches at the stake. The political reality is homosexuals constitute a significant minority of the population and to deny them the same rights as others is undemocratic.
Some people would still like to burn me at the stake. O.O
Unfortunately a rather large and vocal minority hate just about everyone else. Hitler proved just how far it is possible for society to allow them to drag everyone down into mud along with them.
It's not really the same issue. There's already a precedent for marriage between two unrelated adult humans, and the only discriminating factor is gender. Opening that up to gays doesn't change what is already a contract for two people making a life together.
I luv this answer :)
In India, a Muslim man can have more than one wife but a Hindu or a Muslim woman can't. Some 'Rajput' Hindu women are allowed to keep more than one husband by culture.<br />
These are all nothing but perception at all. Logic has been suffering since the beginning of mankind.<br />
If a group of people can live happily married, who are we to interfere? Indian rule still consider 'homo-sexuality' illegal, but it's only a matter of time!<br />
Some people'll always win by taking the example of pet, father or sister though it's a complete different topic. Democracy doesn't consider logic.
Well I'm pretty sure that soon it will be past to say Hey its ok to have several wives!! Mormons are getting popular on TV now with shows! Yes the way this world is going with all this junk being excepted as just "THE TIMES" like the used to say hey its the 90's! so now EVERYTHINGS just exceptable!! But in reality its Not right
yes, i want 14 wives
No offense, but are you sure you want to risk that many women mad at you ? ;)
Remember, women living together sync up periods...he'd have to hide out a couple of days each month...
i aint scared to go sit in the woods with my dogs for a week.
no thank you.. 1 is fine.. with a couple of cats and dogs on a nice piece of land :)
No, that is a different issue all together.
The meaning and purpose of "marriage" is the biological union that creates children and forms a family. The child joins two families in blood. Polygamy is a a real marriage that is ba<x>sed on the biological union and creates children. Two same sex perverts are not a real marraige. <br />
If you are going to toss out all meaning and function of marriage, it doesn't matter what perversion and crapola you play after that.
I tend to think that...yeah...we should allow that...But I think most people are too wise to try a marriage of three people...it cubes the amount of work you have to put in to keep everyone happy, it's hard...and more than three is just impossible in any equalitarian way.
That doesn't follow logically, it's a separate issue altogether.<br />
If marriage is defined as being a union between 2 consenting adults, it would NOT follow that more than 2 people (or minors, or animals other than humans, or inanimate ob<x>jects) should be able to marry. <br />
The government can define marriage in ways other than traditionally, so it is not inconceivable that someone might suggest a marriage of more than 2 consenting adults...but under the more common view that a marriage is a union of 2 people, gay marriage could be included in that definition, while more than 2 could not. <br />
(BTW, the word you're looking for is "accepted"...if gay marriage were "excepted" it would be not included/not allowed)
Well I'm gay and idek wat ur tryanna get @... If its wat makes them happy then go for it... :D
do you mean llike ********* marriage, or **** marriage?
i don't know... i wrote that a long time ago... but i think i might have been taking the **** out of both sides of the argument, for sexualising a sacred/holy institution which exists for the stability of children's upbringing.
exactly. this whole thing would be a non-issue if the state referred to it as "civil union" and kept religion out of it. then leave each to their own religion as far as actual spiritual union goes.
why not a man and a horse... or a man and a boy... or a man and a... you get the picture...
A horse, a child, or a stop sign cannot give informed consent.
i dunno, stop signs are pretty clear about what they want. they probably don't want marriage though, but a give way sign might.
i dunno, a stop sign is pretty clear about what it wants, although that probably isn't marriage. a give way sign might be interested, though.
now i'm confused... reply glitch...
I think exercising the practice of plural marriage should be recognized under freedom of religion. Unlike bigamy where two or more spouses are usually unaware of each other, it is a contract of marriage which can be recognized and protected by law as a viable right as gay marriage should be for reasons of a consensual arrangement.
That would frustrate the IRS...
They don't make those decisions. What would frustrate them ( I believe) is the basic filing of taxes. They would need new forms, they would need to figure out all those tax percentages and stuff based on how many spouses and dependents and income and all that. I am not saying I care if 3 people marry each other, just that it would make things like that a little more complicated.
That happens alot in Utah from what I understand