If they allow gays to marry, why not other alternative lifestyles?

Question

I don't care if you want to get married....then good for you. I have no problems. My question is if the government opens the door for alternative lifestyles to get married, then where will it stop? I mean if men can marry men, then why can't a man marry two women? If it is no longer just a man and woman, then the door is open for all.....right?

Fireball, Thrice-Baked....if you don't want people to take out "consent" then don't change words to "man to man...or woman to woman".

gorgeoustxwoman...I feel worring about the future is a healthy way to prevent problems before the arrive instead of putting a band-aid of a cut....I choose to avoid getting cut.

Matt, not true. I respect your point and don't look for approval...I love hearing both sides and respect your approach on the subject. Some really good points you brought up.

Answer 1

You're exactly right, After all, in the history of man, what's more natural? Polygamy or homosexuality? Polygamy has been practice much much more, homosexuality was merely a game, (Roman Empire). If things keep up, one person could marry multiple men and women. Then each of them would be married to others. If that happens, true marriage will cease to exist and with it, the family and family ideals. next thing you know we will be able to marry our pets. no kidding. A few years ago gay marriage was unheard of, why now?

Answer 2

Hi Travis.

It's an interesting question. However, it does not seem to be an issue at all. In America, currently, marriages are determined by the State they occur in. There are several factors involved:

--Age
--Species (humans can only marry humans)
--Relations (can't marry Mom)
--Disability (see below)
--Quantity (how many people you can marry)
--Gender (people of the same gender cannot marry in most states)


Changing one of those factors does not mean the rest will be changed. There are good reasons for most.
With age, a young person cannot enter into any kind of contract, let alone marriage.

With Species...well...this is obvious. But on a more realistic level, a pet cannot fulfill the legal qualifications needed to enter into a marriage contract.

Relationship - you don't want too much inbreeding. That would lead to us all being like the Royal Family.

--Disability - some people with severe mental disability will not be allowed to marry. See the reason for age and species.

--Quantity - I'm sure there are a lot of laws (especially tax laws) that make it beneficial to only have 1 spouse. But this is probably a moral based law. At least originally.

--Gender: I don't understand why this is not legal. Maybe someone can explain it to me. The fact is, even if it is moral based, it doesn't have any of the legal problems the polygamy brings up.

So, as you can see, the door is not open for all. Making a decision based on one criteria and saying it has to apply for all simply does not hold up. Allowing one group to marry will not mean dogs suddenly got a legal status and can enter into a marriage contract. Nor does it mean people will be able to marry more than one person.

This line of thought is similar to saying "If we allow people to decorate their car by painting it a certain color, we'll eventually have to allow for deadly spikes to be put on cars."

There is a good chance you won't pick this as the "Best" answer because most people that ask these types of questions are simply looking for approval of some kind. But I hope you are different and really do enjoy learning.

Matt

Answer 3

The question is where do you ultimately draw the line. I know that Laptop Jesus just mentioned about the Slippery Slope.

But that is the very logic used in the arguments about restrictions on abortions. And how these two issues tie in together is that when you change the law you allow a precedent to be formed.

At what point do you no longer allow the precedent argument to reign and at what point do you say enough is enough.

These laws get changed as society and society's values change.

Let's go to the extreme end of the argument, where most of us would agree would be morally wrong, and no I don't think that anyone is saying we should allow this. But, what happens when people, such as NAMBLA finally get society to change their values and state that any relationship is okay as long as it is two consenting people and they finally allow an adult to have sex with the child as long as the parent consents to it. This is a hard leap, right? But then, the idea of same sex marriage was a hard leap to think would be considered 25 years ago.

That is why we have to set limitations. Otherwise, if morality changes, will we allow appropriate sex to be defined by two people, even if it is harmful?

Answer 4

Who else is ready for some polugamy? I saw Big Love, it seems pretty cool if people would just get off their cases about it.

Me and my girl already have it worked out where we can each have other women, so long as we agree on them. I would like to think that maybe another wife could come out of the deal. That would be easier on my girl, someone to watch the kids, cook maybe, split the chores while the other works. Three adults can care for children a lot better than two.

Polygamy--it takes a village...

Answer 5

The argument isn't unavoidably invalid as democracy is the biggest form of tyrany. in distinctive words, majority rules, and makes the guidelines. In Oklahoma, you may merely be married by utilizing technique of a %, or a "minister of the Gospel." Now, the state could probable not heavily enforce that regulation in spite of the undeniable actuality that this is on the books. My companion and that i (Wiccans) in protest took our honeymoon and marriage funds to Colorado and did not spend a dime in this state. In concept, here, athiests, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or others can merely be married by utilizing technique of a %, jointly as Christians are the only group legally allowed to have a non secular marriage. i've got have been given self theory this is termed seperation of church and state, or consistent with danger equivalent therapy decrease than the regulation. "No advertising?" What constitutes advertising? the government giving it thumbs up? A author penning a television teach which incorporate "Queer as persons?" affirming it favourably, or in any admire?

Answer 6

I'm of the opinion that marriage should be open in that manner but it should be an all encompassing relationship between all married people. If for example you have a married couple and the man wants to marry another woman then the woman he's already married to should also be married to the new partner, and all parties must be unanimous in their position or it doesn't happen.

I will ring your doorbell and run away!!!

Answer 7

"Marriage" is the territory of religion, but civil unions (i.e., basic marriage contracts) should be available for anyone who wants them. If I'm estranged from my family and want my best friend to be the one who inherits my estate and visits me in the hospital, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do that.

I frankly think bigamy is weird and that it only comes about when women agree to have VERY low expectations of their husband...but I'm not sure in a secular country with division of church and state that it should actually be ILLEGAL.

The thing with slippery slope arguments (like yours) is, it assumes that everyone involved is an idiot who doesn't know when reasonable limits have been reached. This would never extend to man and dog, as famously suggested in Washington, because the dog can't consent.

Answer 8

I think if ANY couple of consenting age wishes to get married no matter their sex or color or culture or religion, they should be allowed to do so.

Marriage is supposed to be a commitment between said couple and their GOD/CREATOR not between that couple and the darn government!

By the by there are already MEN that are allowed to marry more than one woman... it is due to their religious beliefs! I just don't see one woman marrying more than one man which if it is fair for the goose it should be fair for the gander as well!

I just don't see who or what gives others the right to say what is or is not fair when it comes to love and marriage, this is something that is supposed to be between GOD/Creator/Goddess and that couple/people, not the governments or societies deal!

Answer 9

I don't see a problem with someone having more than one wife or husband as long as they follow the laws like paying taxes not murdering and stuff like that.I don't think the government should have so much control over peoples personal lives.

Answer 10

As it should be, yes.

Why does the government have any business determining the nature of my relationships?

I know a family right now that consists of two men, two women, and about seven kids, the adults living a polyamorous lifestyle. The kids are quite well adjusted, attend school, make good grades, participate in extracurricular activities, etc.

So what business does the government have interfering?