Question for gay who want to change traditional definiation of marriage?

Question

If marriage is no longer defined as between man/woman, what's to stop it from further being defined as man/2women or 3women or man/dog??? or should all that be allowed too? Tell me what you think.

I am very much for gay rights and think gay couples should be able to do something other than "marriage" in order to obtain the same rights as married people.

I don't think gays will improve the institution of marriage b/c I know lots of gay people who cheat and are just a promiscuous as the straight ones. So please don't give this as an answer.

If we can make an argument for gay marriage, what's to stop us from making an argument for polygamy?

Traditional: "a holy union based on love and commitment between man and woman"

Gay: "a holy union based on love and commitment between two people"

Polygamy: "a holy union based on love and commitment between people"

Man/animal: "a holy union based on lvoe and commitment between souls"

Actually, gay marriage is ILLEGAL in most states.

Why would a marriage between 3 people be any more awful than a relationship between two people of the same sex. It's just not FAIR. If a STRAIGHT person can marry the person they love and a GAY person can marry the person they love then a BI- person should be able to marry the people they love. Right or wrong?

After we achieve gay marriage, can we then make an argument for incest? I know some counties will already allow you to marry your 1st cousin. But could we argue for a sister to marry her sister or brother/brother. It's not like they could produce retarded kids...

A partnership is actually 2 OR more parties. It seems we don't want the government to define marriage EXCEPT when it comes to the NUMBER involved.

Three people taking care of the kids would allow for stronger family values dont you think. We know the outcome of MOST single parent homes. Imagine 3parent homes:
1)more love to go around
2)better healthcare coverage
3)perhaps fewer latchkey kids
4)more parent involvement in school
activities
5)more household income
6)ability to produce more productive families and more productive members of society.

Answer 1

You don't seem to understand what it is we want to change. The "traditional definition" is fine. We want to change the LEGAL definition. Marriage is between you and your priest, not the government. As adults, we should all have the same rights. Heterosexual marriages get tax benefits, the benefits of adoption & Joint Parenthood in the eyes of the law, health insurance for spouses, etc. We want the same rights. If your church decides not to recognize gay marriage, that's fine. We really don't care what your church thinks. After all, we can always go to a different church. However, we ALL have to deal with the same government.

Answer 2

First of all, your definition of marriage is not the "legal" one. A legal marriage has nothing to do with any religion, therefore "holy" does not apply. (Atheists can get married. And considering the rate of divorce in America is now 50%, it hardly seems like such a holy institution, does it?) If a particular church wants to ban gay marriages, that will most likely always be their prerogative. A private institution can often make its own rules. The U.S. government, however, does not have the right to discriminate.

If a marriage is defined as being between two consenting adults, that would still prohibit polygamy, as well as the really ridiculous suggestion that any of this could lead to marriage between a person and an animal - or a person and a piece of furniture - or a person and his beloved rock collection. Let's stay in the realm of sensibility here.

Is your contention that gay people are somehow "less equal" than straight people? Because denying someone the same rights based on their sexual orientation is prejudice, discrimination, and not what this country was built on. If a straight person has the right to marry one other straight person, there isn't a valid argument to say that a gay person does not have the right to marry one other gay person.

P.S. Considering the rate of divorce in America is now 50%, it hardly seems like such a holy institution, does it?

Answer 3

You raise an interesting question! Well done and thank you - we need interesting questions here at the moment.

I think the thing is, in regards to how far marriage would go - you need to realize that society would never accept marriage between a man and a dog! That's incredibly too extreme, although I do see why you thought of mentioning it.

And there are already countries out there that have legally allowed a man to have more than one wife, that will always be the case, because all cultures are different.

If you're talking the mainstream culture, it will never happen, there are just some things that people will not ever be able to accept. And until gay marriage is legal world-wide, this isn't too much of a concern!

Again, thank you!

Answer 4

I don't exactly agree with the traditional definition. I believe that marriage is "a holy Union based on love and commitment between two people". Notice the vagueness in that last part.
By allowing gay marriage, we are not degrading the term, we are simply broadening it.

But before anbody accuses me of being overly liberal, no i don't think men and dogs or a man and 3 women should be able to get married.

Answer 5

It is the conservative position that if you allow one thing that something awful will follow. That just isn't true. Alls one has to do is look at history to know this. Dennis Kucinich put it best when before the country he said (last week on the Logo Presidential forum) that unless you allow gay marriage there is no equality for all. I am willing to concede that it doesn't have to be "marriage" if the same exact legal rights and benefits are afforded gay people as are the str8 people. Until then, I will fight for the right for gays to marry.

Answer 6

i'm gay and i don't think i want to get married. however, i think if PEOPLE do love each other then they should get married regardless if there are mulitple parties involved. the one thing that i do not agree is the animal one. how is one to know for sure that the animal feels the same as the person? the animal cannot express love for a human in a carnal way. do you think that the human will know what the animal is thinking? the human will just get frustrated, thus it will be a disadvantage for the human to be with an animal.

Answer 7

The problem in your argument is that you seem to think that once any change in the law is made you must make that change across the board indiscriminately. You think that because you treat homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality, that you are also FORCED to treat monogamous marriage as the equal of polygamous marriage and that you are FORCED to treat incestuous marriage as the equal of non-incestuous marriage and that you are FORCED to treat inhuman marriage as the equal of human marriage.

Believe it or not, you can DISCRIMINATE! You can choose to treat homosexuals as the equal of heterosexuals, but the fact that you do so does not mean that you are REQUIRED to recognize all other kinds of "equality." And by the same token, if you want to, you can choose to treat incestuous marriage as the equal of non-incestuous marriage, but if you did so it would not mean that you are REQUIRED to treat gay marriage as the equal of straight marriage. Likewise, if you wanted to legalize polygamy, doing so does not mean that you must legalize gay marriage.

You can DISCRIMINATE!

Answer 8

Marriage should be defined as a binding contract between two people. I hate that the government can decide what is a partnership and what is not.

Answer 9

Marriage was created by God, so his terms dictate absolutely. Any changes made by man are a slap in Gods face. I feel gays should have some legal benefit for being a couple, but marriage is sacred.

Answer 10

man/ dog is illegal and so is man/2women but being gay is not illegal! so that's what stops it form going that far!