mylfmyhnr
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 145
I brought up gay marriage in the religious board but thought that, beacuse the point is non-secular reasons, that a new thread night be more appropriate, and here more than there.
My reasoning for not supporting G/L marriage:
Marriage, as defined in our society, is between a man and a woman. Anything outside this is not considered to be a lawful marriage. (This does break down in truly transgendered relationship where an actual operation takes place. In this case the law still recognizes the marriage that took place between the opposite genders prior to the change.) However, when this idea of marriage is changed, it opens up the idea that marriage is simply between two consenting adults and can have larger ramifications. And, no, I’m not going to mention marriage to an animal, that’s a stupidly ignorant argument that is useless and idiotic. No, my concern is more polyamory, at the moment. My family has been Mormon for many a generation and the first question I get when mentioning a Mormon past is the old “aren’t they the one’s with more than one wife” question. And this is where the question has led me in connection with G/L marriage.
If you allow the definition of marriage to be changed, what stops it from being changed further? If it’s between consenting adults, why not polygamy? And what’s wrong with polygamy? In the polygamist off-shoot of the Mormon culture, that still exist, the family is dominant, the marriage and the family unit stay intact because of hardcore religious beliefs… But what happens if that religious belief is removed? The marriages are held together by the same string that hold together today’s marriages and, if you look around, that string is a bit frayed. So, here’s a scenario, a man and a woman get married. Soon enough they have a baby and sometime after than the husband comes home and says “Hey honey, meet my new wife!” Is the husband bound by law to get the first wife’s consent? Is this, then, a marriage of 3 and not 2? If the first wife refuses the marriage and looks to dissolve the marriage, is the second marriage grounds for adultery? Or is the dissolution on her, as the husband did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law?
And what about age of consent in relation to marriage? If marriage is going to be redefined, what’s to stop it from going further to keep the next set of minorities happy? There are those that believe a girl is of marrying age when she is old enough to bear children. Is this acceptable? Well, not to today’s society, but what about tomorrow? Can changing the way marriage is perceived lead here? The only thing that separates child from adult is the social law that defines adult as 18. Well, we already have parental consent at younger than 18… So what’s the difference between parental consent at 17 and non parental consent when it’s the rights of the individual that’s paramount? If it’s undeniable that all have the same right to marriage, then what makes a 14 year old different from 2 men? Societal views of normal, right, wrong and acceptable.
I’m not saying that Gays and Lesbians don’t deserve protections in the law, right to file jointly, right’s to adopt, to be next of kin. What I am saying is that when you begin to fiddle with the definitions of something so basic, you end up on a slippery slope that jeopardizes how we maintain our social view of acceptable and non-acceptable.
All that being said, as this issue does effect the legal rights of consenting adults, I do believe that this should be a nation wide initiative. If you get married in Massachusetts don’t dare go on vacation and get sick in Utah because there you won’t be next of kin. That’s just dumb. I do think it should go on the national ticket and be voted on by the whole. And the 51% is the way of it, regardless of which direction. If the 51% says no, the minority must understand the desires of the majority and vice-versa.
I have other reasons, but I figured this was at least a start.
My reasoning for not supporting G/L marriage:
Marriage, as defined in our society, is between a man and a woman. Anything outside this is not considered to be a lawful marriage. (This does break down in truly transgendered relationship where an actual operation takes place. In this case the law still recognizes the marriage that took place between the opposite genders prior to the change.) However, when this idea of marriage is changed, it opens up the idea that marriage is simply between two consenting adults and can have larger ramifications. And, no, I’m not going to mention marriage to an animal, that’s a stupidly ignorant argument that is useless and idiotic. No, my concern is more polyamory, at the moment. My family has been Mormon for many a generation and the first question I get when mentioning a Mormon past is the old “aren’t they the one’s with more than one wife” question. And this is where the question has led me in connection with G/L marriage.
If you allow the definition of marriage to be changed, what stops it from being changed further? If it’s between consenting adults, why not polygamy? And what’s wrong with polygamy? In the polygamist off-shoot of the Mormon culture, that still exist, the family is dominant, the marriage and the family unit stay intact because of hardcore religious beliefs… But what happens if that religious belief is removed? The marriages are held together by the same string that hold together today’s marriages and, if you look around, that string is a bit frayed. So, here’s a scenario, a man and a woman get married. Soon enough they have a baby and sometime after than the husband comes home and says “Hey honey, meet my new wife!” Is the husband bound by law to get the first wife’s consent? Is this, then, a marriage of 3 and not 2? If the first wife refuses the marriage and looks to dissolve the marriage, is the second marriage grounds for adultery? Or is the dissolution on her, as the husband did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law?
And what about age of consent in relation to marriage? If marriage is going to be redefined, what’s to stop it from going further to keep the next set of minorities happy? There are those that believe a girl is of marrying age when she is old enough to bear children. Is this acceptable? Well, not to today’s society, but what about tomorrow? Can changing the way marriage is perceived lead here? The only thing that separates child from adult is the social law that defines adult as 18. Well, we already have parental consent at younger than 18… So what’s the difference between parental consent at 17 and non parental consent when it’s the rights of the individual that’s paramount? If it’s undeniable that all have the same right to marriage, then what makes a 14 year old different from 2 men? Societal views of normal, right, wrong and acceptable.
I’m not saying that Gays and Lesbians don’t deserve protections in the law, right to file jointly, right’s to adopt, to be next of kin. What I am saying is that when you begin to fiddle with the definitions of something so basic, you end up on a slippery slope that jeopardizes how we maintain our social view of acceptable and non-acceptable.
All that being said, as this issue does effect the legal rights of consenting adults, I do believe that this should be a nation wide initiative. If you get married in Massachusetts don’t dare go on vacation and get sick in Utah because there you won’t be next of kin. That’s just dumb. I do think it should go on the national ticket and be voted on by the whole. And the 51% is the way of it, regardless of which direction. If the 51% says no, the minority must understand the desires of the majority and vice-versa.
I have other reasons, but I figured this was at least a start.
) would do is remove one current condition - i.e. a man can't marry another man and a woman can't marry another woman, nothing else changes. So what may at first thought look to be a major change is in fact not that at all. After the change a man can still get married and a woman can still get married.
