I feel like if we don't define marriage, perverts will define it for us in the name of freedom of religion, right to privacy, etc. Is there to be no such thing as a perversion of marital rights?
2006-11-13 09:32:06 · 17 answers · asked by luperith 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Let's okay gay marriages. Then let's okay polygamous marriages. Then let's okay pedophiles marriage with children. And we can okay cross dressers to marry themselves. We don't want anyone to feel left out. That wouldn't be fair.
2006-11-13 10:53:05 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. D 7 · 1⤊ 7⤋
I am bi... when I am with someone I am commited to that person. If I ever decided to get married I don't feel I should get the "privilege" of a polygamous marriage, nor do I feel anyone else should either.
Marriage and commitment have to do with love not sex. Polygamy has nothing to do with the institute of marriage... I am a person that believes marriage shouldn't even be a political matter, it is a religious one. The institute in which the marriage takes place should be deciding if anything in the marriage is "wrong" or not.
If I decided that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with a woman I loved I wouldn't expect a, say, Catholic church to perform the ceremony.
In some Morman establishments polygamy is not only "right" it's expected.
As for "perversion of marital rights" goes, again I believe it should be who performs the ceremony of marriage to say what is "perverted" about it or not.
I know a couple who has an open marriage and they got married in a Baptist church. I'm sure whoever married them wouldn't approve of that but they are a straight couple and were allowed to get married there. I also know a gay couple who has been together for years and choose to stay soley with eachother and can't get married.
So I don't know if it's a question of "perversion of marital rights" so much as it is a question of a perversion of freedom rights itself.
2006-11-13 09:47:10 · answer #2 · answered by IceyFlame 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You have confused two very different issues.
Since it is the STATE who gives and controls marital rights, such as inheritance and taxation, religion should have no say in what defines "marriage." I have never seen any state define marriage as anything but a union between TWO people.
In fact, some states (Utah comes to mind) have specific statues against polygamous unions.
Allowing two people who love each other to marry, and stopping gender- or orientation-based bigotry and discrimination, will in no way "pervert" marriage rights given by the state.
2006-11-13 09:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
First, bisexuals are no more likely than anyone else to be poly amorous, as a bi person who has always been faithful to my partner, of either sex, I take exception. Second, marriage is defined in this country as two people because the people who founded this country came from a country where Catholic principles were the basis of the marriage laws. The Mormons went to plural marriage as soon as they had the chance, and only dropped it because the U.S. made that a condition of Statehood. Same sex, plural, line marriages, open marriages, even marriages with expiration dates have all been practiced with great success in various cultures throughout history. How can an Institution that has been practiced world wide for thousands of years be a perversion of itself?
2006-11-13 11:48:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
People should have the right to marry the person they see fit, regardless of the other person's gender. That is not the same as allowing polygamous marriage, however. What this would mean, for a bisexual, is that he/she would be legally allowed to take one spouse of either gender. And what exactly, folks, is a "pervert"? Isn't that someone who uses sex in such a way that it harms the other party/parties? I don't see how homosexuality or bisexuality, in themselves, can therefore be "perversions" if all involved people are consenting adults and no one gets physically or psychologically hurt.
2006-11-13 09:40:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Ummm...which rights are they perverting exactly? In other words, how does two (or even three, four, etc.) people entering into a marital contract affect your own marriage?
And wouldn't things be much easier if the government got out of the marriage business entirely and let churches and individuals decide how they wanted to structure their relationships for themselves?
2006-11-13 09:42:59 · answer #6 · answered by watsonc64 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
My very dear Sir, provided the people who are getting married are in LOVE it doesn't bloody well matter who they're marrying. I take offense at you calling me a pervert (I've been married to the same lovely Lady for the last 26 years) but I also recognise your freedom of speech, lucky for you. I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry or single marriage. You are the pervert for not recognizing that Love is Love provided all the adults are consentual. Please get it through your head that times are changing. Blessings to you;you need it badly.
2006-11-13 10:32:39 · answer #7 · answered by Mama Otter 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why not allow polygamous marriage? It has a sound Biblical basis in the Old Testament.
2006-11-13 10:11:43 · answer #8 · answered by Marakey 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Why does everyone associate bisexuality with polygamy!? I am bisexual and I am strictly monogamous. Marriage is a union between two people, regardless of sex or sexuality who love each other very much.
Well at least that's how I think it should be defined.
2006-11-13 13:08:12 · answer #9 · answered by Rageling 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
And monogamous heterosexual marriage has a stellar reputation doesn't it??
Rush Limbaugh - 3 marriages.....
Ted Haggard - married - while cheating with a gay guy
Jimmy Swaggart - adulterer
Jim Bakker - adulterer.....
You can be drunk as Cooter Brown on pay day and get married in Vegas and then get an annulment 55 hours later.
Yeah, you guys are doing GREAT with the marriage thing, we would not want to tarnish such divine thing as marriage!
2006-11-13 09:37:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
The simple answer to your question is people will twist language so that it suits their own ignorance of other people's lifestyles. If it is someone quoting a text from the Bible in defence of an extreme view to someone totally misunderstanding, through ignorance of some else's sexuality and having the cheek to parade that so called 'knowledge' as some sort of banner that they think all 'normal' people will march alongside. All I will add to that is the truth will out and then when it does, where does that leave to ignorant........
2006-11-13 09:44:30 · answer #11 · answered by waggy 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋