There is no constitutional right to marriage.
Marriage is a privilege granted by each of the states.
Where do you draw the line on who can get married?
If a man wants to marry another man of the same gender, why can't a man marry two or three or four women?
Why does one-on-one marriages have to be the only rule?
If government should stay out of the bedroom, why shouldn't people be allowed to enter in any lifestyle of their choice?
2006-12-12 08:16:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
That is one of the stupidest questions ever.
2006-12-12 08:46:41 · answer #1 · answered by Webber 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First of all gay marraige has nothing to do with religion. second of all the people who believe that it does should chose not to have homosexual relationships. somehow you imply that by granting a gay couple to marry there is an abuse to the system. the truth is that there is no abuse, just some bigots cant look past the fact that two people can love each other without being the opposite sex.
there is no relation to same sex marriages and multiple marriages. you can argue that by denying a muslim multiple marraiges you deny his religious right, but at the same time the same people denied a gay couple marriage in the name of religion.
i am in favor of the government staying out of the bedroom as long as it is legal sex (all parties invlolved are of age to consent) but i dont see any correlation between gay couples and a muslim's polygamous behavior.
2006-12-12 16:32:58 · answer #2 · answered by gumbles21 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Marriage should be about 2 people that commit to each other, for health, finances, love and general well being.
There is no equality in allowing a man to marry more than 1 woman. If that was the case, a woman should be able to marry more than 1 man.
Hey... maybe you're onto something...
2006-12-12 16:21:19 · answer #3 · answered by CoronaGirl 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Seems OK on the surface, as does polygamy. however, in the religious factions in which polygamy is practiced (Mormon fundamentalists), it's really quite horrible. Old (powerful) men with dozens of wives, many just young teenagers. All on welfare.
Places like Colorado City, UT have the highest percaptia welfare recipients due to all the 'official' unmarried women with children. It's basically a way for men to rape young girls in the name of religion.
The government should stay out of the bedroom, but needs to step in when cultures or religions suppress the rights of others. Which, in this case might be young women.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with this.
2006-12-12 16:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by Morey000 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pretty good question. I assume your question is not just related to Muslims, but anybody who wants to enter into a polygamous marriage.
I agree with you that marriage is not a right but rather a social construct. That is why I am entirely in favor of extending full rights (property, hospital visitation, etc.) to gay couples, while I am opposed to Gay Marriage.
The line is drawn where your society says it is. This is why different societies have different concepts of marriage. This is also why Gay activists should not be allowed 'force' their desire on the majority of society. Marriage is not a right. It is part of the way in which society 'chooses' to organize itself.
For the people who responded about the horrors of polygamy, they clearly are unaware that the majority of cultures around the world live proudly, comfortably and by choice in polygamous marriages. As with anything there are both advantages (shared work and income, shared housekeeping and child-rearing, etc.) and disadvantages to polygamy.
This is anecdotal, but a close friend was raised in a polygamous family and he remains grateful because his birth mother died when he was quite young. He claims that while he felt pain and loss, the loss was mitigated by the fact that he remained with his brothers and sisters and had additional 'mothers' to nuture him.
P.S. I've long wondered what happens when a dignitary is on prolonged stay in the U.S. from a country that permits polygamy. Are his/her spouses all accorded the full rights of a spouse?
2006-12-12 19:53:36 · answer #5 · answered by twistyhair 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is ridiculous to use the sliding scale argument. They can simply define marriage as between two consenting adults. Then it would be just as clear as it is now, but allowing gay couples to get married. It ISN'T like all of a sudden there will be no control and other forms of marriage will all of a sudden become legal.
2006-12-12 16:23:56 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't have a problem with two men getting married or two women getting married because they aren't hurting anyone else.
However, if a woman's husband is allowed to get another wife without the consent of his first wife, that would be misogynist. In this country, women have equal rights to men and are not the property of their husbands.
I think legalizing polygamy would be a step backwards.
2006-12-12 16:27:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Polygamy is wrong. It leads to many expenses and a husband who has to resort to government help to support his large family. In Utah, there are many that are on welfare something that I don't like. I think marriage should be define between two people and that's that. We should draw the line on that. Two adult people who aren't related.
2006-12-12 17:08:01 · answer #8 · answered by cynical 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Doubtful. There are bans in several states against polygamous marriage already.
2006-12-12 16:27:47 · answer #9 · answered by erin7 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The government sucks.
2006-12-12 16:24:29 · answer #10 · answered by Skyleigh's Mom :)™ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The courts have interpreted marriage to be a "fundamental right."
I do agree, however, that the floodgates have opened for abuse. In Utah, homosexual marriage has already been used as support for polygamy.
2006-12-12 16:19:58 · answer #11 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋