Who does homosexuality hurt?

[Elspode]

...and my point is simply that all current "socially acceptable" definitions of marriage are wrong.

Race, religion, national origin...none of these things are any longer acceptable reasons to deny the right of marriage between two people in any country which we would call, by almost any set of defintions, "civilized".

Yet it is permissable, nay, *legal*, to deny the right of marriage to two individuals strictly based upon the fact that they happen to be of the same sex.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me an absolute, logical, moral reason why this should be so. A moral reason not based on any one theology or mythology, but a truly, simply, plainly *moral* reason.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Elspode

right of marriage between two people

Why just 2?

[classicman]

Oh, well if the definition isn't to your liking then write your congressman.

[ZenGum]

Have I waved the great prophet Roy Zimmerman at you all lately?

"It's the Lord's holy word
said my second wife to my third..."

[classicman]

nope - please do....

[Elspode]

Any group of people should be able to enter into a legal contract without exception regardless of sexual orientation.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jinx.

[Aliantha]

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I'm 'legally' married doesn't mean anywhere near as much to me as the fact that I feel spiritually bound to my husband. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything to me what the law thinks. This is my issue with the whole legal contract argument. There's more involved in getting married than a simple signing of names. If that's all it was, then there'd be no talking or exchanging of vows. People would just send away for the forms, sign them and then send them back.

[ZenGum]

Still, if we are thinking of civil unions, they come with various pension/insurance benefits. Polygamous unions could become tricky in that respect.
Suppose eight people get "married". Do they all get carer's leave when one is sick? How many mother-in-law's funerals can they attend? How would this affect welfare and pensions?
It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.
Not that these things should preclude poly-marriage, but I think they're interesting questions.

[Aliantha]

I can't imagine having another wife in this house, but an extra husband would come in handy sometimes.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.

Read any RAH recently?

[binky]

Originally Posted by jinx

Why just 2?

Because then you are a Mormon. Marriage is just between a man and a woman, and another woman, and another.....

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Elspode

No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

None of that was in the title of the thread.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Pie

Read any RAH recently?

err, who? (I guess that means "no".)

[dar512]

Robert Anson Heinlein - One of the preeminent science fiction authors of the golden era.

In particular, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress discusses line-marriage.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

None of that was in the title of the thread.

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.