What is "marriage"?

[The Iron Sheik]

I think the legal shit that goes along with marriage would be too difficult with more than 2 people. Divorces would be a nightmare, I'm sure there'd be tax fraud that the gov't wants to prevent, etc.

edit - Altho I guess in works in Utah somehow so maybe they have it figured out. I personally don't care if more than 2 people want to be married but my guess is that gay marriage will be legal long before polygamous marriages are.

divorces already suck, but couldn't they just split stuff among who owns it? like even if it were something you couldn't literally split (like a house/car) couldn't they just look at whose name is on the deed and give it to them? and how could one fraud taxes with polygamous marriages? i always hear that but i'm not versed enough to know of any particular ways it could be done.

and to your last statement, i think it's silly how being gay is more acceptable than polygamy (in a moral sense). they're both just sexual preferences.

[Droid101]

Another good reason it shouldn't be a legal matter

Uh... what? Marriage in society is nothing more than a contract. By the very definition of the word, it's a legal document.

[NumberSix]

Uh... what? Marriage in society is nothing more than a contract. By the very definition of the word, it's a legal document.

Huh?

You're gonna have to explain that one.

[Derka]

Marriage always felt like a religious rite to me, involving the blessing of your union before your chosen god/gods/pantheon/whatever.

I never liked the use of the word "marriage" in the civic arena.

[rufuspaul]

Shouldn't be a legal contract at all
There should be no legal or tax benefits to being married
The government shouldn't endorse a particular lifestyle by offering these perks

There aren't any tax benefits, in fact the fed penalizes married couples when it comes to taxes.

I think the issue comes down to sex (gender) discrimination more so than sexual orientation discrimination. Chief Justice Roberts said as much yesterday:

[Quote]

[rufuspaul]

Marriage always felt like a religious rite to me, involving the blessing of your union before your chosen god/gods/pantheon/whatever.

I never liked the use of the word "marriage" in the civic arena.

It is used in the "civic arena" because of the legal rites a marriage bestows and because we have in this country a separation of church and state, at least we're supposed to.

[The Iron Sheik]

I think the issue comes down to sex (gender) discrimination more so than sexual orientation discrimination. Chief Justice Roberts said as much yesterday:

but how could it be gender discrimination when both men and women who want to marry the same sex are denied that opportunity? people have a problem with the fact that it's gay people who want to get married, not that it's a gay man or woman. you can be gay and be of either gender.

[Tarik One]

Marriage aka Relationship Insurance

[Nanners]

stupid that our nation is still distracted by this pointless wedge issue.

[NumberSix]

stupid that our nation is still distracted by this pointless wedge issue.

So what's your solution? The gays should just let it go or the government should recognize marriage as any combination of any number of any people?

[lilandywiggins]

Shouldn't be a legal contract at all
There should be no legal or tax benefits to being married
The government shouldn't endorse a particular lifestyle by offering these perks

Should legal contracts be allowed if 2 people enter a partnership where 1 works and 1 supports children? And if the contract is breached, a payout is owed as penalty?

[rufuspaul]

but how could it be gender discrimination when both men and women who want to marry the same sex are denied that opportunity? people have a problem with the fact that it's gay people who want to get married, not that it's a gay man or woman. you can be gay and be of either gender.

ORLY?!?!???

It's the same argument either way. A woman can't marry another woman but a man can. It's discrimination based on gender.

[Le Shaqtus]

Or you know

Relationships shouldn't involve the law/government at all

This.

[Akrazotile]

ORLY?!?!???

It's the same argument either way. A woman can't marry another woman but a man can. It's discrimination based on gender.

It's not. Because the woman can't marry her same sex, and neither can a man. It's a law that applies equally to everyone, thus no discrimination.

If the men's shower is all crowded, I cant go and use the women's. And the woman can't go use the men's.


Let me in the women's showers, and I'll reverse course on this issue.

[rufuspaul]

It's not. Because the woman can't marry her same sex, and neither can a man. It's a law that applies equally to everyone, thus no discrimination.

If the men's shower is all crowded, I cant go and use the women's. And the woman can't go use the men's.


Let me in the women's showers, and I'll reverse course on this issue.

Because using showers confers legal rights and benefits upon shower users. Good argument.

Your reasoning is flawed because the law isn't applied equally to everyone. The woman can't marry her same sex, neither can a man, but in the case of the two women a man can marry either one and vice versa with men. It's denial under the law on the basis of sex (gender), thus discrimination.