Marriage Referendum Petition In Times News

[newyorker]

I agree with you, bakeall (never thought I'd say THAT, did you?! And Petey, thank you for your comment that validated my point and I respect that you disagree.

[darfbag]

What I was saying was where does individual right end and law begin.  If we have no limits then we are a lawless society. My point was that homosexuals feel their right to be married is valid, but polygamists who feel they should have multiple wives should not be have their "rights" considered. Every law limits something. The only way not to infringe is to be lawless.

How can you pick and choose who's rights are valid with the defense you offer?

marriage between three people is not allowed in any combination.
we're not talking about three people getting married.
we're talking about the already established principle of two people getting married.

Polygamy is pretty well established - it's been practiced for all of human history. Heck, it's even in the Bible! 

Saying that gay marriage is OK but polygamy is far out and wrong isn't a logical position. It's akin to accepting interracial marriage but saying gay marriage should be outlawed.

i'm trying to see if i inferred polygamy is right or wrong, and i'm not sure i said that - at least i wasn't trying to.
the point i'm making is, this discussion is about gay marriage, between two people.
people want to keep throwing these red herrings in to make it about something else because they can't debate the actual topic.
polygamy is not legal anywhere in the country by law, at least that i'm aware of.
but that's not my opinion on polygamy.
this discussion is about two people of the opposite sex being allowed to marry, and two of the same sex not being able to.
laws that allow one thing but not the other.
whenever people who are against gay marriage run out of things to say they like to start the slippery slope argument, that if you open one door that all these other things are sure to happen.
i am with you on the personal liberty aspect of it.

[MarcNelsonJr]

whenever people who are against gay marriage run out of things to say they like to start the slippery slope argument, that if you open one door that all these other things are sure to happen.

And it's a reasonable question. No doubt when interracial marriage was being debated, there were people who said, "If a white woman can marry a black man, why can't a man marry another man?"

There is a slippery slope - and I want to keep sliding. 

I'm just bothered when the gay marriage folks claim the moral high ground and paint gay marriage opponents as busybodies and bigots - but then turn around and act the same way about other forms of marriage. * The argument for gay marriage is stronger when it is based on logical principles.

I don't see the discussion of polygamy as a red herring. I view it as part of the discussion of what role the majority should have in dictating the marriage practices of consenting adults. I say that role should be non-existent, no matter what sort of marriage practices are under discussion.

* [If you're not doing that, then I appreciate it, darfbag.]

[1234ABCD]

I just object to the terminology......and somewhat to the baseless arguments. As I stated earlier, I may not approve of a government blessed union but my beliefs prevent me from saying God would bless a homosexual marriage.  I also feel that many marriages that were performed in a Church probably should have been performed in a civil ceremony.  Unless you have one man and one woman who understand the vows they are taking before God, and take them seriously, then they shouldn't be married in a church.

I would hope that the respect for Christian beliefs is not to taken as feeling threatened by a civil union.  I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle but from a civil standpoint I respect the desire to be treated equally.  Just do not try an tell me, or to justify, that it should be blessed by God.  That is an argument between God and Man.

The baseless arguments......when someone trys to justify a point by saying it is a right, that is downright ludicris.  The rights we have today are valued by the efforts our ancestors put forth to establish them. There are no "rights" without responsibilities, and the duty to confer and establish these rights in a way that respects all viewpoints to reflect our society as a whole. And again, this would be secular law and not to be confused with God's law.


So by saying you don't approve of a government blessed union, then your argument for heterosexual marriage is baseless as well, afterall, doesn't the government bless their union?? Contradicting yourself here.......careful!

[Albert Keener]

whenever people who are against gay marriage run out of things to say they like to start the slippery slope argument, that if you open one door that all these other things are sure to happen.

I'm just bothered when the gay marriage folks claim the moral high ground and paint gay marriage opponents as busybodies and bigots - but then turn around and act the same way about other forms of marriage. * The argument for gay marriage is stronger when it is based on logical principles.

I really don't see the hypocrisy.  Marriage is just being defined as requiring a monogamous relationship.  I wonder where gay people got that idea from?

[The_Ace]

My objection to polygamous marriage is at this point, the expansion to gay marriage really is seamless.  We have a body of rules and laws that two people can just "opt in" to that determines: who makes medical decisions, how financial assets are treated, how we handle custody disputes, how insurance is handled, etc. 

It is a bit trickier with adding a third or fourth person to the mix.  To settle legal/financial/custody/medical disputes, is there a vote?  How do we break ties?  We would need to craft new laws to answer these questions.  With gay marriage, there is no problem.  We have set up the system based on a two-person unit and the legal rules are pretty simple.

[MarcNelsonJr]

My objection to polygamous marriage is at this point, the expansion to gay marriage really is seamless.  We have a body of rules and laws that two people can just "opt in" to that determines: who makes medical decisions, how financial assets are treated, how we handle custody disputes, how insurance is handled, etc. 

It is a bit trickier with adding a third or fourth person to the mix.  To settle legal/financial/custody/medical disputes, is there a vote?  How do we break ties?  We would need to craft new laws to answer these questions.  With gay marriage, there is no problem.  We have set up the system based on a two-person unit and the legal rules are pretty simple.

If our legal system can handle joint stock companies, patent law, and a three-million word tax code... it can handle polygamy.

Besides - the laws work for us, not the other way around. The need to craft new laws dealing with automobiles was not a valid reason to ban them.

[The_Ace]

If our legal system can handle joint stock companies, patent law, and a three-million word tax code... it can handle polygamy.

You are making my point for me.  Joint stock companies, LLCs, LLPs, LLLPs, etc. are all creatures of statute with very detailed rules and regulations.  The same with patents and copyrights-- all creatures of statute defined by very precise rules.

Gay marriage is like flipping a switch.  Just recognize it and the rest sorts itself out.  Polygamy is not so simple.  It would require a new set of laws to do.  I am fine with the new set of laws to recognize it, but the devil is in the details.  I would want to see what that new law would look like.

[Rob]

I think they should ban marriage all together.  Just think of it; No divorce, everyone is equal, a rise in tax revenue for the government, and best of all, we no longer have to hear about it!   

[thechosenone]

Polygamy is practiced in many places including the USA. Anyone in Utah knows many polygamous relationships. There are Mormons in Arizona who practice multiply marriage and also in Mexico. Many Arab countries also practice it as well as many primitive societies in both Africa and South America. What people choose to do, as long as no one gets hurt, is their own damn business.

[DeeBee]

I wasn't married in a church,  so why was mine a marriage, and not a 'civil union' ?   I don't care what it's called,  but a marriage or civil union of a gay couple should grant them the same legal rights and responsibilities.  If they aren't considered married in the eyes a the church, that's OK,  but neither was I.      I think polygamy should be 'decriminalized'  but I don't know how easily we could define splitting up their rights to multiple partners.    I'm thinking of insurance coverage, social security, tax benefits, child custody, child support, etc.     We would have lots to define.

[purplepride]

I was shocked when the TimeNews had that petition in the paper. Seriously,why do they have to force things(specifically their views apparently) on people?

I dont care who marries who,its not my business if gays wish to marry. The Good Lord will sort it all out eventually,so,until that time,do what makes you happy and allow  all people to marry. Geesh! I hate when someone tries to tell me THEIR way is the ONLY way.

[Grumpyjack78]

I can't wait for the first divorce case between two legally married males and/or two females

[Lurker]

if the State would get out of the marriage equation the issue disappears

if a union between two people is a right, then the State should not be licensing a right

if the union takes place in a Church, it's a marriage, and the Church, based on it's tenets, can affirm or deny the relationship. aggrieved couples whose union is not blessed by a church based on tenets can seek their union sanctioned by the State in a Court

the Court should not be performing 'marriages' but instead 'unions'

The State can pass regulations on businesses that require them to recognize a union regardless of where it occurred, church or court
(I'll leave it to the rest of you to flesh out the issues where some idiot is able to convince a court clerk to perform a union between them and their cat and how to deal with the insurance claims)

individuals can vote with their feet if they disprove of their churches' stance(s) on the types of unions their churches affirm and/or deny

for me, the real issue is state and special interests interference in the free exercise of religion

I don't care what, or who, you put in your body, that's between you and your God

I do care when the State and special interests try to tell me what I can believe

I'm having enough trouble reconciling my belief system with my God and I don't need some pandering politician with the morals and ethics of a minor demon trying to insert themselves into that equation...for that matter I don't need anyone else trying to force their beliefs on me either, which is what the more militant special interests are attempting

[darfbag]

"(I'll leave it to the rest of you to flesh out the issues where some idiot is able to convince a court clerk to perform a union between them and their cat and how to deal with the insurance claims)"

again, another person goes all slippery slope, red herring on us.
where has this been a discussion about humans marrying animals?
your "real issue" that you bring up is bass-ackwards.
it's not a question of the state interfering with the churches' stance.
it's the churches' stance interfering with secular law.
marriage is secular.
christians, muslims, agnostics, atheists, satanists, faithless, whatever - can all get married.
religion has nothing to do with it.
so why does your church have any say over the issue?
the argument people have against same-sex marriage is based on the biblical definition of marriage.
it's irrelevant.
the state has to license marriage, because with marriage comes other secular rights (healthcare, dependence, property ownership, etc).
and what if you have a particularly liberal church that says they will marry same sex couples?
how about churches that hvae gay ministers?
wouldn't it be ironic if that minister is allowed to preach, but not be married in the church?
what a mess of major proportions you are headed for.
contrarily, the church is the entity that needs to get its hands out of marriage, other than for ceremonial rites.
if something is legal, it doesn't mean you have to do it.
if you go to a bar, you can drink a coke - you are not forced to drink alcohol just because it's there.
opening up rights to people does not diminish your ability to exercise or refrain from said right.

[Mac]

For all you people so up in arms about gay people being allowed to marry, please explain to me how gay marriage impacts your life. What will happen to you and yours if gay people have the right to marry?

I wish someone would explain this to me because I don't get it. All we're doing with gay marriage is granting same sex couples the same civil rights afforded heterosexual couples.

I'm not seeing any downside.

[illuminati]

Mac

The typical responses I hear are...

It's against the Word of God.

It will crash our economic system.

It ruins the family unit.   

It forces someones morals on me.

[Chuck]

[Lurker]

darfbag and Mac...you both missed the point, and my point is not backwards...remember that when a couple sues because  church won't let them 'marry' in the church

chuck...simply juvenile

[Albert Keener]

I tend to agree with most of what you said above Lurker, but I don't think what Mac and Darfbag are saying is necessarily in response to what you are saying, and I think Chuck was trying to point out some of the hypocrisy.