Should same sex civil unions, child marriages, polygamy, polyandry be approved? Why? Why not?

Question

Web Sources: Nambla, ACLU, American Family Association, Family Research Council

House Bills 1592, 254 and 984 are all slated for vote Real soon...Source Exodus International!

House Bills 1592, 254 and 984 are all slated for vote Real soon...Source Exodus International! Are These Bills persecution?

House Bills 1592, 254 and 984 are all slated for vote Real soon...Source Exodus International! Are These Bills persecution? Newswatch Magazine Dec 2006-present, freedome21.com

House Bills 1592, 254 and 984 are all slated for vote Real soon...Source Exodus International! Are These Bills persecution? Newswatch Magazine Dec 2006-present, freedom21.com

Answer 1

Same Sex Marriage: Yes.
Child Marriage: Honestly, I never heard of this till now, I would have to say no on a gut reaction however.
Polygamy / Polyandry: Yes.

Reasons: I don't believe that the government should regulate marriage for two (or more) people who are able to understand the weight of their decision.

Answer 2

Salam, Well my conception is like this: Polygamy: in a way can solve a lot of issues, such as cheat ting, and studs, because Man for nature is not monogamous, woman yes we are. Is not a sin is just their nature, men are more visual than woman, and lets face it there are more woman in the world. of course this is my pragmatic answer. As a woman I would say I don't want to share my husband because I love him, but if there is someone that is struggling, a widow or a divorced woman with children or someone that needs help, I would suggest for that marriage, not for lust, or for selfish needs that I would not approve. ( and it will take alot of acceptance for me and sacrifice from my part because I am a deep, sensitive and emotional person, but with perseverance and Faith I'm sure I would be ok) same sex marriages: men are made for woman, because we need each other in every sense of the word, I guess is their choice, I cannot point fingers at because first I have to see my faults instead of seeing others, It goes against all of nature's and God's design, is a deviation., and I don't agree with it Polyandry: Is looking for an equality per say, man may have polygamous relationships, woman usually ask why we can't do the same, It doesn't quite fit my style, and everybody is free to choose what they want, but. I don't agree with it either

Answer 3

A marriage should be entered into by adults able to form a legal consent to such an arrangement. For that reason, no, child marriages should not be brought back (remember as late as the 1950s marrying a 12 year old girl in the south was still legal!)

Civil unions should be allowed for all. In fact, I'd replace the term 'marriage' in all federal and state statutes with the words 'civil union'. The government should NEVER have been in the marriage business - that is a religious concept and should be retained for religions to legislate. However, if we are going to give federal or state privileges to two adults in a committed relationship, they should all be treated the same under the law, which is supposed to be independent of church doctrine.

Polygamy/polyandry: I don't see an objection - it was certainly around in biblical times. Throughout the bible, men had multiple wives, and in the Muslim faith it is still permitted. I would stipulate only that all partners in the civil union must approve of the addition of anyone new, and that they must all consent to the nature of the relationship. Again, no reason for the state to be involved in how committed partnerships develop. (Utah was the last state to give up polygamy, in 1897).

Answer 4

If you approve one you have to approve them all or you lose the credibility of your argument. If marriage is not only for one man and one woman, then civil unions must also be open to interpretation by those entering into them. Depending on the individual this very definitely could mean allowing child marriages as long as both/all parties involved are competent and comprehend the legal ramifications. The trouble here is where do we draw the line. I honestly don't think it would be fair if two women or two men want to enter a civil union and then I would be forbidden from entering into a polyandric union. I could use more than one husband at times, my honey-do list gets pretty long sometimes. Also, where do corporations draw the line on who qualifies as family for health/employment benefits?

Answer 5

Approved by whom? the people involved in them? religious institutions? government institutions/courts? insurance companies? You need to be more specific....

Assuming you mean legally approved, my answers are:
-No on child marriages, poligamy, or polyandry. Multiple marriages often involve underage partners, and children have, and require, legal protection from abuse, molestation, and so on.

-Unions between consenting adults are no one else's business and should not be legislated, taxed, investigated, allowed, or prohibited by any legal entity. IMO this includes "traditional (male/female) marriages as well as any other form of union.

Answer 6

I can't see how the government ever assumed this power. Marriage is a social contract btween people, not involving the government.
We need to get the government out of our bedrooms and doctors' offices.

Answer 7

yes, to same sex marriages, if two consent adults want to get married, regardless of their sexuality, it's their business, the gov. have nothing to do with it..
now, if it's a child marriages, they have to have law about that because children can't protect themselves and don't know what's good for them yet.
and last but not least, it's a must to have law against marriages with multi-partners...it's effects their children.

Answer 8

The government should not approve, condone, or recognize any marriage as this is a religious commitment.

Answer 9

I am so tired of hearing this gay stuff.
Esspecially since a bill is trying to pass thru congress called: HR1529. Ever hear of it?
Here in PA, the state level of this same bill is already in affect, and it caused the arrest of two 75 yr. old grandmoms in Philadelphia. They were arrested for hate crimes. Do you want to know who they beat up and severely injured? NOBODY.
What horrible thing did these old ladies do?
They handed out a Bible pamphlet to someone who was gay. Yep, thats it.
They were arrested, handcuffed, fingerprinted, changed to prison garb, and thrown into general population at the County prison. They await a possible 47 years in prison, each. Thats the rest of their lives in prison.
This bill, HR1529 is being called "the most dangerous legislation ever introduced in American history". It says that if you hand out Bible passages or anything else, that says that being gay is wrong, then you are thinking "hate". And "thinking hate" is just as bad as if you attack and seriously injure a person. Evidently, the laws already on the books called assault, are not good enough for gays. No, this bill says that the gay person's life is more valuable than all the rest of us. It clearly makes the gay person and crossdresser better than you and better than me.
In fact, if you do physcially attack an old defensless woman, and seriously injure and hospitalize her, you will get 33% LESS JAIL TIME THAN YOU WILL IF YOU HAND OUT A BOOKLET SAYING THAT GOD IS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
Same exact crime. The exact same crime.
Of course, they aren't the same crime, but according to this bill, they will be the same crime. The "authorities" can decide what you are thinking. This bill says that thinking of hate is the same as acting on hate.
And thinking of hate means saying you are against being gay. Thats hateful, and if you ask those two grandmoms, its also "hate" that takes the rest of your life away.
So if you want to commit a crime, attack an old lady, instead of handing literature to a gay guy, because you'll get less time in jail.
Isn't this wonderful? Your "aclu" is nothing more than a gay rights, anti heterosexual
agenda-filled, satanistic group of hellbound
assholes. American Civil liberties? Give me a break. Americans are having their liberties taken away thanks to that group.
Freedom of speech is going bye bye thanks to that group. Freedom of religion is going bye bye thanks to that group.
Amendment 14 of the Constitution says there will be EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR EVERYONE.
Say bye bye to that, too. The gay guy will now have elevated status in society based on their chosen sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe.
This means that Cho, who killed 31 people in one day at VA Tech, committed a second-tier crime, since he did not attack those who are gay. SECOND TIER.
Do you know how many hate crimes were prosecuted on that same day? ZERO, NONE, NAIDA, ZILTCH. Yet for some reason, its all of a sudden absolutely necessary to ignore Amendment 14 and say that its not good enough; gays need MORE PROTECTION THAN OTHERS.
MORE STATUS THAN OTHERS.
MORE RIGHTS THAN OTHERS.
MORE CONSIDERATION THAN OTHERS.
MORE ATTENTION UNDER THE LAW THAN OTHERS.

This bill HR1529, if its passed, will mean a Pastor in a Church can be arrested for giving a sermon. A parent who raises their child with Christian values and morals will be accused of teaching their children "hate", and as "haters" they are guilty of hate crimes under this law (yes, even if they never attacked anyone) and therefore they are child abusers. Children will be taken from their parents.
This bill is, in fact, THE MOST DANGEROUS BILL EVER INTRODUCED.

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT SAME SEX ANYTHING. NOBODY CALLS IT WHAT IT REALLY IS;
SO WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT THAT THESE PEOPLE REALLY WANT SANCTION UNDER THE LAW TO DO?

Lets say it like it is;
A man wants to put the penis of another man into his mouth. He wants the man to put his penis into his anus.
A woman wants to put her mouth onto another womans vagina. She wants to have another woman put her mouth onto her vagina.
This is what they want to do. Lets call it
a spade, if its a spade, shall we?
No more sweetening it up.
Why not rights for someone to marry their sister? Why not their child? What if they say how much they really care for them?
Who are you to make that choice for them?
What about someone who decides you have no right to say if they marry their puppy dog? Who are you to say they can't?
And why can't I marry five men? Why can't a man marry 20 women? But they LOVE THEM, DONCHA SEE???????

Where exactly will this end? Guess what:
it won't end. You are opening pandora's box,
and totally destroying the entire fabric of our society.
Do you think the families of the VA tech shooting victims feel they should be "second class" to some gay guy who might feel upset that he was handed a booklet? Why not go and ask one of them?

Answer 10

vote yes on 2.

child marriages??? geepers!!! no!