What arguments would support same-sex marriage . . .?

Question

but not polygamous marriage?

Answer 1

None, other than those based only on emotion

Answer 2

* The transfer of property is the same process in a same-sex marriage as in a hetero marriage. Not so with polygamous marriages.

* It's a simple matter of being discrimination. If 2 heteros are allowed to marry for whatever reason they choose, rasing children, property transfer, social security benefits, etc... but 2 of the same sex are not allowed to do so, it's discrimination.

Answer 3

First, let's deal with phrases like "same-sex marriage and "gay marriage". The term "gay marriage" sets up a dichotomy that should not be present in our society. Framing the issue in terms of gay and straight leads to arguments supporting a separate but equal approach - marriage for straight couples, civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay couples. The real issue is marriage equality. Should all Americans have equal rights to marry the person they love?

Of course marriage is a religious sacrament. As such, it should not be referenced in state or federal laws. The term "marriage" is used in such laws to describe a contract not just between the partners, but also between that couple and the state. The state has an interest in reducing costs associated with the well-being of individuals. When a couple takes on the responsibilities of caring for one another financially and emotionally, the state reduces the cost of caring for those individuals. And when a couple commits to caring for a child, the state is spared the associated costs of bringing up that child. These gains occur regardless of the sex of the two partners in the relationship.

In return, the state provides certain legal rights and responsibilities to support that relationship. In federal law, more than 1,000 separate benefits and obligations are determined by marital status. These laws determine rights that affect our entire lives, ranging from inheritance, Social Security benefits and hospital visitation, to the right of a spouse to arrange for the funeral of his or her loved one. All these rights are conferred automatically the second a couple marries; yet, a gay couple must spend hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars to gain even a few of these rights for themselves.

The most equitable way to deal with these contracts would be to term them all "civil unions" and remove marriage from all state and federal law. Since this would be extremely complex and costly to implement, then the best way to remedy the current situation is to grant marriage licenses to any couple that wishes to marry, regardless of gender.

The arguments against marriage equality are always framed in religious terms, yet this is not a religious issue. Churches are, and must continue to be, free to determine who can marry. Divorced Roman Catholics, for example, cannot normally remarry in their church but are free to remarry as far as the state is concerned - just one example where religious doctrine is separate from state law. The arguments used by the religious community are themselves generally contradictory. A commonly used argument is that marriage is for procreation. So, would the religious community want to bar a woman who had ovarian cancer from marrying? How about a man who has had a vasectomy? Or a couple in its 60s?

Marriage has changed tremendously in the last 200 years. Those who say it has been an immutable bedrock of society conveniently overlook that two centuries ago, women lost their property when marrying. Marriage then was generally arranged for political or property reasons, not love. Women could not marry without their father's permission. And less than half a century ago, interracial marriage was still illegal in this country. Marriage, like our society in general, grows and changes. It is now time for true marriage equality for Americans.

With regard to polygamous marriage, society as a whole decided to ban this practice - it was a major issue when Utah joined the union; Mormons had to give up the practice. Oddly, polygamy is supported in the Old Testament, so I'm not sure why Christians are so offended by the idea. The issue is moot in this case - whatever rules apply for marriage should apply equally regardless of the sex of the partners.

Extending this argument to animals is infantile and stupid. An animal (or a child) cannot make an informed consent to enter into a contract - which is what marriage really is in terms of state and federal law. So there is no 'slippery slope'.

Answer 4

NONE,,and NONE. No matter what the person with the 5 or 6 paragraph is trying to say.NONE. If you love a person of the same sex, enough to have sex with them, I am thinking there is a problem deep within your soul. NONE and NONE again. The bible says, man shall not lay down with man, and I am certain that means woman shall not do the same.

Answer 5

In polygamous marriage you get so many kids that you don't even know their names.Same sex is OK as long as they do not pass their doctrine to others.

Answer 6

There is no argument that would support same sex marriage. It is an insult to marriage and is further eroding the moral fabric of our country. It is also inherently cruel and unfair to the children in society to impose this confusion on them-men married to men, women married to women. Enough is enough already. Keep your sexual promiscuity and personal choices to yourself and not to try force it on the rest of society-especially our children.

Answer 7

There are no good reason for either to be legal. They are both an abomination. Why not allow interspecies love between a horse and a man or a woman and a cat? They love each other don't they?

Answer 8

I would say 2 consenting adults, but in polygamy, its still 2 consenting adults (for each marriage), so i have no arguement that would apply to one and not the other.

Answer 9

Nothing supports it. It is wrong. When you say that it's OK, then you have to support Man married to a chicken.

Answer 10

Your question is a fine false delimia.