One of the main arguments against same-sex marriage is that it opens the door to other alternatives to one-man/one-woman marriage. Legal practice is largely based on Precedent (what courts have decided previously). There is actually precedent in civilization for polygamy (but only with one-man/plural-women, not the other way around). In fact, it is still legal in some countries. So, once the rule of one-man/one-woman is discarded, there are special interest groups such as dissident (unorthodox) Mormons and traditional Muslims who will show that polygamy is at least as valid as same-sex marriage and, in their opinion, more valid. Others with even more dubious ideas of marriage will also sue for equal rights. I heard in the news that a woman in the middle east recently married a captive dolphin. This marriage has no legal status, of course, but it shows that there are those who would seek to marry their pets. Which is more likely to be approved through legal precedent, marriage to a pet or marriage between siblings, or parent and child? This at least requires conseiderable thought,
2006-07-22 19:29:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by The First Dragon 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Simply put, the legalization of gay marriage does not automatically imply that a state would have to acknowledge any other form of marriage. The "slippery slope" arguement works on the concept that if gay marriage was recognized, the current precedent for not allowing polygamy (or marriage to snakes) would be broken. Moreover, a unified ban on gay marriage is a precedent that the state is capable of deciding what constitutes as marriage.
I can't see any real reason why the state would legalize polygamy: at the very least, marriage is a contractual agreement initally between two people. If you were to be a polygamist, you'd have to have that contract extend to three people (at least), which gets into some complex legal issues, and quite frankly, that's not how polygamy works. In short, even if polygamy was legalized, the legal form of it would be unlikely to be practiced.
2006-07-22 20:16:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it's a matter of legality, then we're talking about the government running your life. What's worse? People have a vision or belief system in place for what they think life should be based on their own personal experience and/or what they've been taught. So if you're a gay basher that will be worse and if you're against someone having more than one spouse that is the worse of the two so called "evils". Why do we allow a government or any other authority to rule our lives in such a way? Witch (that's a good one by the way) is worse?
2006-07-22 18:48:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I know a few people who would marry their cat or dog if it was legal. The pets don't complain and do what they are told and the dogs especially are so easy to please and show love for their master. If someone could marry their pet, then they could also use them as a tax deduction.
I do think that the line would be pushed and pushed. We have a traditional defination of marriage. I think that homosexuals are entitled to some kind of a union with similiar benefits to marriage, but just don't call it marriage - give it it's own name; it is less confusing.
2006-07-23 01:23:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by runningviolin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The marriage of same sex couples is a marriage between 2 people not a dozen! The 2 do not have anything in common!
2006-07-23 10:59:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by ♥Stranger In Maine™♥ (Thriller) 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would put polygamy as worse, simply because those are usually arraigned rather than agreed to.
As far as gay marriage, I don't care if they want to marry their freaking gerbil. As long as all sides are consenting, have at it.
In today's STD climate, monogamy is much better than one night stands. Anything that promotes that I am for.
2006-07-22 18:45:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by diogenese19348 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well ... Acording to most common prinipes of modern sociaty.
You must not think about PERSONAL CHOOSES as a bad thing.
Even beter - this is a step toward beter live for everyone separately.
2006-07-22 21:42:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sun Sonic 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who cares as long as the people doing it are happy...Its not like we have to do it because they do, as long as they are happy and dont push thier beliefs on me I dont care who marries who.
2006-07-22 18:41:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kelly + Eternal Universal Energy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the worse would have to be the marriage of my parents.........
2006-07-22 19:12:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋