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

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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?

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.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by creekster

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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

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

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

Yea, that was sort of mypoint.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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?

[Mars]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Why can't a man legally marry two women...?

BINGO!