If a man has the right to marry a man...
 

Why can't a man legally marry two women, or two men?

Think of what the purpose is behind each of those scenarios. Those with same-gender attraction seek equality because they want to enjoy all of the same social acceptance, rights, and privileges that traditional couples have.

What is a person who wants multiple marital partners trying to achieve?

Probably the same things.

I think the slope gets real slippery real fast. What if someone wants to marry a sibling, or a son or daughter, or an animal? Once you break from the traditional man/wife thing, deciding where the new line will be gets real tough.

I don't understand your logical chain of thought here. Why is it that saying marriage is NOT one thing necessarily means it is everything else?

Saying marriage is not just a marriage between a man and a woman is not tantamount to saying marriage is all other relationships.

If marriage is defined as a state recognized relationship between two people (except as specifically noted by statute, such as marriage to a minor or to a close relative), that encompasses a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, and a man and a man. It also doesn't require that the state recognize a marriage to a little child or to a goat. How do you get from Point A to Point B on this one?

It's basically this: if the definition of marriage is going to change to make a certain constituency happy, why not change it to make all constituents happy? Or atleast more than just one certain type of constituency happy?

Marriage already changes to make its constituencies happy. In some states, marriage with a second cousin is ok. In some, first cousin marriages are alright. In others, they aren't. The age of consent for marriage varies from state to state.

The state already defines marriage. If your opinion is that any state action defining marriage opens the door to further state action defining marriage, then you should be opposed to all state action in that arena, right? I doubt very much that you are.

If the reasons for prohibiting certain forms of marriage are simply public policy reasons, then isn't there a reasonable argument that in the past marriage was only between a man and a woman based on antiquated ideas of the "good" of public policy and those ideas are subject to revision to include a man and a woman? Certainly a state could also determine that polygamy was appropriate (they also have in the past), but it doesn't necessarily follow that they must accept polygamy if they accept gay marriage.

Sure. I'm just saying different people will want the line drawn in different places, and I think we'd atleast need to hear everybody out. Where is the harm in that?

laws againt consanguinous marriage are ok because they are for the good of society. And society trumps the rights of those individuals who seek to marry. If you buy that, then gay marriage can also be argued as detrimental to society, or not adding to society, therefore also legal. You have to at least allow for the possibility, if you are going to still ban consanguinous marriage.

I wonder if we will get into a situation at times where brothers "marry" purely for tax reasons.

Based on what? What scientific evidence is there that gay marriage is bad for society (in comparison to heterosexual marriage)? Consanguinous relations can scientifically be shown to result in genetic defects in offspring.

Non-consanguinous relations have also been shown to result in genetic defects in offspring. I'm sure you've encountered these yourself among your family, friends, and acquaintances.

I bet I can prove to you that gay couples are less fertile than heterosexual couples.

I can see it now, in the year 2350 the UN Supreme Court of Nations finds that it violates the United Constitution to prevent Sven Bjorg's lesbian Greyhound from marrying its life partner, a non-fertile Pygmy Horse (and a Canaanite!) and receiving the same rights and privileges that have been enjoyed by orangutans and chimpanzees for nearly 40 years....

Homosexual relations can be scientifically shown to result in no offspring. How in the hell is that not bad for society?

gay marriage advocates are more organized then advocates for plural marriage. it is also easier for gays and lesbians to lobby b/c they don't have to drag through the history of the not-mainstream mormon religion as part of their argument. plus, gays and lesbians aren't living in compounds and blindly following prophet-type leaders.

Sure it does. The same arguments legitimizing gay marriage can be applied to polygamy, and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. There's no way to avoid this.

Maybe this is a sign of how the media and public awareness changes opinion. To call gays sexual deviants would have been very acceptable in my vocabulary a few years back. Deviant to me is a very degrading term. It not only means "deviate from norm", but to me labels the person as degenerate or less human being, like for instance, a child molester.

While I find the homo-sexual act repulsive, at least as far as men are concerned, I no longer consider them deviants.

For instance. I might see a guy pick and eat his own buger. That would be repulsive and yet I wouldn't consider the person a deviant.

Speaking of which, we did we not discuss this more often during the BYU/TAMU game week?

Dang, I am sure it is good. My company blocks youtube.

Yes, and on this website, in fact.

This country has to get back to basic religious values. God married Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

It's a sign of a sinful behavior going from an abnormal, deviant behavior, to an "alternative behavior" that should be "accepted" as normal as any other behavior. In other words, it's a sign of the Apocolypse.

No reason at all. Logically, there is no reason why men and women of any number or proportion (numerically) should not be able to marry if marriage is not the union of one man and one women. I can think of no logical distinction whatever.

C'mon Cali, if marriage is not one man and one women, then the numbers are totally, totally arbitrary. I go agree with your goat example because that is not a person. But can you really articulate why two men should be able to marry and not three men and 4 women?

Why is it per se bad for society that they can't have kids? Infertile people can't have kids either. Should we prohibit them from marriage?

The same arguments legitimizing ANY marriage can be applied to polygamy and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. So?

Because the concept of one man one woman in a marriage is just as easily viewed as one person marrying one person. The total number of participants in the marriage is identical in both scenarios. Why do you assume logically that changing the characteristics of the people involved in the marriage necessitates allowing a change in the number of participants too?

I'm not sold.

Logic can be tough.

Petty and childish.

How's this for logic? Penises go in vaginas, not poopers.

Not true. If you assume marriage is a moral act of union before God, then it can only be used (from the typical conservative christian point of view) to justify monogamous heterosexual marriages. This is really the issue here. Once you leave behind the traditional religious aspect of the notion of marriage, then it becomes nothing more than some sort of tax break and if it is a right for hetero or homo couples, then it should be for polyandrous group couples and so forth. This is exactly the reason churches object and exactly the reason they do not want to allow gay marriages.

I think we should divorce, so to sepak, the notion of mariage from the notion of legal unions. Churches should do marriages, county clerks/judges should do unions.

SO what? Why is the number of particapnts meaningful? If anything, it is LESS meaningful than the gender of the partiicapnts, and yet you are conmfrotbale hanging your hat on this characterisitc but not on gender? THis makes no sense to me.

Logic can be tough for more than just me I guess. *shrug

The government isn't in the business of sanctifying moral acts of union before God. They recognize marriages for societal purposes. Religion involves the moral act of union before God.

Why is it less meaningful than the gender? Because you say so?

WHy is it meanginfula t all? Becasue you say so?

Yea, that was sort of mypoint.

Fine. Then we agree. And if the government's recognition of marriage has nothing to do with an act of morality before God, then the characteristics of the participants aren't particularly relevant. You could argue that the number is also not relevant, but you certainly don't have to accept both propositions if you accept one. That is sort of my point.

But my point is that if they aren't important, how can you not accpet the other versions of these unions?