Why People Really do not want Ghey Marriage.......

[JuanDenver]

.....no its not because we are homophobic or hard core Christian fundamentalists or are dening people their civil rights. Anyway, I wanted to post this because I found a great article as to why a ton of people are against it.

Legally speaking:

A man and woman can. A man and man can. A woman and woman can. So why cant two women and a man??? EVERYONE is entitled to their civil rights. Well, its may happen in Canada.



Once same-sex marriage is OK, polygamy's next
Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: March 16, 2006 – 3:35 PM
Printer friendly E-mail this story Related Content

Sen. Dean Johnson's statements about court stir furor
Katherine Kersten
Has U Law School taken up a cause of shaky merit?

Rochester pays tribute to veterans the whole year

North of border, gay marriage spurs social revolution
The Minnesota Legislature is considering proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Many opponents claim that definition is antiquated and discriminatory. A committed relationship should be the only criterion for marriage, they say.

But wait. What if a person loves two people, or three or more? If "one man-one woman" is a discriminatory limitation on the choice of a life partner, on what grounds can the state logically restrict marriage to two people? The fact is, once you adopt same-sex marriage -- legally changing the standard for marriage from one-man, one-woman to a "committed relationship" -- there is no principled way to prevent its extension to polygamy or other forms of "plural marriage" or partnership.

Outrageous scare-mongering! say the amendment's opponents. Oh, really?

Did you catch HBO's new prime-time series, "Big Love," which premiered Sunday? It's about a Utah man married to three wives.

The creators of "Big Love" are a gay couple, Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer, who say that the same-sex marriage debate spurred their interest in the topic.

They seek to normalize polygamy by treating it in a "non-judgmental" way.

"It's everything that every family faces, just times three," Olsen told Newsweek. "We'd like them to be America's next great family," Scheffer told the New York Times.

"Big Love" is just a TV show, you say? But cultural expression can pack a powerful wallop - witness the much ballyhooed bid by "Brokeback Mountain" to normalize same-sex attraction. Influential voices are already calling for allowing polygamy. Last week, New York Times libertarian columnist John Tierney endorsed itslegalization in a column titled "Who's afraid of polygamy?"

Acceptance of polygamy might already be on the horizon in Canada, which recently recognized same-sex marriage. In January a Canadian Justice Department report called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy, and warned the nation to prepare for a court challenge to two-person marriage. In a 2003 survey, 20 percent of Canadians said they are willing to accept polygamy.

Here in America, professors at elite law schools such as Yale and Columbia are laying the groundwork for legal recognition of committed relationships of three or more. Drawing on concepts borrowed from civil rights law, they say they aim to protect "sexual minorities" from discrimination.

Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will open a Pandora's box. As a New Jersey appellate court judge wrote recently, if "marriage [is] ... couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous ... unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?"

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships. So get ready. Today gay marriage supporters' mantra is, "How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?" Down the road it may be, "How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?" If we don't answer the first question with resolve -- making clear that "one man-one woman" is at the heart of marriage in Minnesota -- we may not have a chance to answer the second.


Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by SeniorDiscount

.....no its not because we are homophobic or hard core Christian fundamentalists or are dening people their civil rights. Anyway, I wanted to post this because I found a great article as to why a ton of people are against it.

Legally speaking:

A man and woman can. A man and man can. A woman and woman can. So why cant two women and a man??? EVERYONE is entitled to their civil rights. Well, its may happen in Canada.



Once same-sex marriage is OK, polygamy's next
Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: March 16, 2006 – 3:35 PM
Printer friendly E-mail this story Related Content

Sen. Dean Johnson's statements about court stir furor
Katherine Kersten
Has U Law School taken up a cause of shaky merit?

Rochester pays tribute to veterans the whole year

North of border, gay marriage spurs social revolution
The Minnesota Legislature is considering proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Many opponents claim that definition is antiquated and discriminatory. A committed relationship should be the only criterion for marriage, they say.

But wait. What if a person loves two people, or three or more? If "one man-one woman" is a discriminatory limitation on the choice of a life partner, on what grounds can the state logically restrict marriage to two people? The fact is, once you adopt same-sex marriage -- legally changing the standard for marriage from one-man, one-woman to a "committed relationship" -- there is no principled way to prevent its extension to polygamy or other forms of "plural marriage" or partnership.

Outrageous scare-mongering! say the amendment's opponents. Oh, really?

Did you catch HBO's new prime-time series, "Big Love," which premiered Sunday? It's about a Utah man married to three wives.

The creators of "Big Love" are a gay couple, Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer, who say that the same-sex marriage debate spurred their interest in the topic.

They seek to normalize polygamy by treating it in a "non-judgmental" way.

"It's everything that every family faces, just times three," Olsen told Newsweek. "We'd like them to be America's next great family," Scheffer told the New York Times.

"Big Love" is just a TV show, you say? But cultural expression can pack a powerful wallop - witness the much ballyhooed bid by "Brokeback Mountain" to normalize same-sex attraction. Influential voices are already calling for allowing polygamy. Last week, New York Times libertarian columnist John Tierney endorsed itslegalization in a column titled "Who's afraid of polygamy?"

Acceptance of polygamy might already be on the horizon in Canada, which recently recognized same-sex marriage. In January a Canadian Justice Department report called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy, and warned the nation to prepare for a court challenge to two-person marriage. In a 2003 survey, 20 percent of Canadians said they are willing to accept polygamy.

Here in America, professors at elite law schools such as Yale and Columbia are laying the groundwork for legal recognition of committed relationships of three or more. Drawing on concepts borrowed from civil rights law, they say they aim to protect "sexual minorities" from discrimination.

Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will open a Pandora's box. As a New Jersey appellate court judge wrote recently, if "marriage [is] ... couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous ... unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?"

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships. So get ready. Today gay marriage supporters' mantra is, "How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?" Down the road it may be, "How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?" If we don't answer the first question with resolve -- making clear that "one man-one woman" is at the heart of marriage in Minnesota -- we may not have a chance to answer the second.


Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com

interesting perspective. but homosexuality isn't and never was illegal, however polygamy is illegal...

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by ouchies

interesting perspective. but homosexuality isn't illegal and polygamy is...

Only if you try and get married to a second person.

[PumpAndGrow]

Make sure to vote in the poll.

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Only if you try and get married to a second person.

damn you're right i could just imagine the legal battles...

jesus, cant these liberals realize that they are opening a MOTHER****ING pandora's box here!?

i mean what the hell will stop me from marrying a cow or a cloud or a frickin piece of pie?!

[Skwidward]

Wasn't there a woman who married a dolphin in England recently?

I wonder if it was consentual. How would you know?

[MantisShrimp]

Well if we're going for ghey marriage, I'm willing to put up with it if we can have polygamy.

[okdude]

first, its slippery sloppery bull****.
second, true, not every one who is against it is homophobic, but there are real homophoics and real bigots who will hide behind these excuses because it doesn't look as bad for them.

third, so what the hell has it to do with you when three or four people want to marry together. It is ****ing stupid imo, but as long as they are all consenting and are capable of consenting, who the **** am I to interfere or control their lives.

And same goes for incest, the ultimate disgust,but as long as they are consenting and are capable of consenting, who am I to stop them.

And since some dumbass is going to bring up kids and animals, let's look at the two criterias again, are they are all consenting, animals out. what about kids? well, the capable of consenting takes care of that.

These two criteria takes care of everything and that should be the way. Otherwise, any ****head can go around preventing consenting people from getting together. Like interracial marriages. Or me preventing ppl from having anal sex. I don't like anal sex and if not for these two criterias, I would go around stopping anal sex loving heterosexual couples from getting together. But my disgust or disapproval does not entitle me to interfere with somebody else's life, does it?

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by okdude

first, its slippery sloppery bull****.
second, true, not every one who is against it is homophobic, but there are real homophoics and real bigots who will hide behind these excuses because it doesn't look as bad for them.

third, so what the hell has it to do with you when three or four people want to marry together. It is ****ing stupid imo, but as long as they are all consenting and are capable of consenting, who the **** am I to interfere or control their lives.

And same goes for incest, the ultimate disgust,but as long as they are consenting and are capable of consenting, who am I to stop them.

And since some dumbass is going to bring up kids and animals, let's look at the two criterias again, are they are all consenting, animals out. what about kids? well, the capable of consenting takes care of that.

These two criteria takes care of everything and that should be the way. Otherwise, any ****head can go around preventing consenting people from getting together. Like interracial marriages. Or me preventing ppl from having anal sex. I don't like anal sex and if not for these two criterias, I would go around stopping anal sex oving heterosexual couples from getting together. But my disgust or disapproval does not entitle me to interfere with somebody else's life, does it?

yes i'll agree that someone's sex life really has nothing to do with me, but seriously, we have to approach this issue carefully because if we cater to one sexual minority we have to cater to the rest.

now im sure that polygamy and homosexual marriages can work, but we as a society have to draw the line SOMEWHERE in order to maintain some atmosphere of order.

besides anyone can argue that your defintion of "consent" is simply constructed to discriminate against their sexual minority...

[JuanDenver]

Originally Posted by ouchies

interesting perspective. but homosexuality isn't and never
was illegal, however polygamy is illegal...

.....Acceptance of polygamy might already be on the horizon in Canada, which recently recognized same-sex marriage. In January a Canadian Justice Department report called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy, and warned the nation to prepare for a court challenge to two-person marriage. In a 2003 survey, 20 percent of Canadians said they are willing to accept polygamy.

.......

[ouchies]

[QUOTE=SeniorDiscount]

.....Acceptance of polygamy might already be on the horizon in Canada, which recently recognized same-sex marriage. In January a Canadian Justice Department report called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy, and warned the nation to prepare for a court challenge to two-person marriage. In a 2003 survey, 20 percent of Canadians said they are willing to accept polygamy.[\QUOTE]

im American...

[Fidelis]

I personally have no problem with polygamy.

Originally Posted by ouchies

now im sure that polygamy and homosexual marriages can work, but we as a society have to draw the line SOMEWHERE in order to maintain some atmosphere of order.

You might have a good reason for believing this, but I can't conceive of one at the moment. How might allowing polygamous marriages result in social chaos?

[okdude]

Originally Posted by ouchies

yes i'll agree that someone's sex life really has nothing to do with me, but seriously, we have to approach this issue carefully because if we cater to one sexual minority we have to cater to the rest.

now im sure that polygamy and homosexual marriages can work, but we as a society have to draw the line SOMEWHERE in order to maintain some atmosphere of order.

besides anyone can argue that your defintion of "consent" is simply constructed to discriminate against their sexual minority...

draw it with something similar the two criterias I mentioned, takes care of almost everything.

That will keep discrimination to the least

[mlc82]

I really don't get what the big problem is with polygamy either outside of religious belief saying it's wrong. Not something I would want to do though, can you imagine how much money that would cost, and how quickly your free time would go out the window?

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by okdude

draw it with something similar the two criterias I mentioned, takes care of everything.

That will keep discrimination to the least

but you are still discriminating...

either NO sexual minority is entitled to marriage or ALL of them are entitled to marriage.

you cant discriminate against pedophiles and not discriminate against gays and then turn around and accuse heteros for discriminating against homosexuals...

[MantisShrimp]

Originally Posted by mlc82

I really don't get what the big problem is with polygamy either outside of religious belief saying it's wrong. Not something I would want to do though, can you imagine how much money that would cost, and how quickly your free time would go out the window?

Primitive, genetically weak men who sought out power and church authority made religious laws to prevent their less political but stronger and more attractive competitors from usurping all the poontang.

[JuanDenver]

Originally Posted by okdude

first, its slippery sloppery bull****.
second, true, not every one who is against it is homophobic, but there are real homophoics and real bigots who will hide behind these excuses because it doesn't look as bad for them.

third, so what the hell has it to do with you when three or four people want to marry together. It is ****ing stupid imo, but as long as they are all consenting and are capable of consenting, who the **** am I to interfere or control their lives.

And same goes for incest, the ultimate disgust,but as long as they are consenting and are capable of consenting, who am I to stop them.

And since some dumbass is going to bring up kids and animals, let's look at the two criterias again, are they are all consenting, animals out. what about kids? well, the capable of consenting takes care of that.

These two criteria takes care of everything and that should be the way. Otherwise, any ****head can go around preventing consenting people from getting together. Like interracial marriages. Or me preventing ppl from having anal sex. I don't like anal sex and if not for these two criterias, I would go around stopping anal sex loving heterosexual couples from getting together. But my disgust or disapproval does not entitle me to interfere with somebody else's life, does it?

Well, physcally speaking because Im tiard of typing and I dont feel like responding to a rant:

You can foot the bill when Bill who works for your company needs to have braces on his 600 children. If you dont do it, youll be taken to court and be sued till your innards liquefies. Then ultimately, the government must make the bill, which for some reason I think you would be OK with

Edit:
The article says it all. Read it over again....

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships. So get ready. Today gay marriage supporters' mantra is, "How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?" Down the road it may be, "How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?" If we don't answer the first question with resolve -- making clear that "one man-one woman" is at the heart of marriage in Minnesota -- we may not have a chance to answer the second.

[JuanDenver]

[QUOTE=ouchies]

Originally Posted by SeniorDiscount

im American...

I wasnt aware that Americans can not challenge existing laws

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by SeniorDiscount

I wasnt aware that Americans can not challenge existing laws

lol yeah i think i said that somewhere in this thread...

bah im "tiard" too...

[okdude]

Originally Posted by SeniorDiscount

Well, physcally speaking because Im tiard of typing and I dont feel like responding to a rant:

You can foot the bill when Bill who works for your company needs to have braces on his 600 children. If you dont do it, youll be taken to court and be sued till your innards liquefies. Then ultimately, the government must make the bill, which for some reason I think you would be OK with

oh, the 2 great ass arguements always found here

label the post(a rant)
label the poster (big government liberal)

but the reason you gave is good. But if that one polygamistis not in a polygamy relationship, they will have kids too in another relationship. That exaggerated 600 children will divide to other normal' families

[Uncle Bob]

I don't know if polygamy would be a bad thing if legalized. I doubt there would be many women who would take advantage of sharing a husband.

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by okdude

oh, the 2 great ass arguements always found here

label the post(a rant)
label the poster (big government liberal)

but the reason you gave is good. But if that one polygamistis not in a polygamy relationship, they will have kids too in another relationship. That exaggerated 600 children will divide to other normal' families

you have to understand that we need to draw the line for a reason. if you open the door to polygamy and homosexual marriages, you are pretty much constructing the foundation for the arguments that will be made by OTHER sexual minorities...

imagine THESE ppl getting to marry who/what they want...
www.beastforum.com

now i personally have NO problem with homosexuality or polygamy, but the fact of the matter is I really do not want our government acknowledging the union of a man and his hamster.

[okdude]

Originally Posted by ouchies

you have to understand that we need to draw the line for a reason. if you open the door to polygamy and homosexual marriages, you are pretty much constructing the foundation for the arguments that will be made by OTHER sexual minorities...

imagine THESE ppl getting to marry who/what they want...
www.beastforum.com

now i personally have NO problem with homosexuality or polygamy, but the fact of the matter is I really do not want our government acknowledging the union of a man and his hamster.

again, animals doesn't meet one of the two criterias I mentioned

Originally Posted by okdude

first, its slippery sloppery bull****.
second, true, not every one who is against it is homophobic, but there are real homophoics and real bigots who will hide behind these excuses because it doesn't look as bad for them.

third, so what the hell has it to do with you when three or four people want to marry together. It is ****ing stupid imo, but as long as they are all consenting and are capable of consenting, who the **** am I to interfere or control their lives.

And same goes for incest, the ultimate disgust,but as long as they are consenting and are capable of consenting, who am I to stop them.

And since some dumbass is going to bring up kids and animals, let's look at the two criterias again, are they are all consenting, animals out. what about kids? well, the capable of consenting takes care of that.

These two criteria takes care of everything and that should be the way. Otherwise, any ****head can go around preventing consenting people from getting together. Like interracial marriages. Or me preventing ppl from having anal sex. I don't like anal sex and if not for these two criterias, I would go around stopping anal sex loving heterosexual couples from getting together. But my disgust or disapproval does not entitle me to interfere with somebody else's life, does it?

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by okdude

again

Originally Posted by ouchies

besides anyone can argue that your defintion of "consent" is simply constructed to discriminate against their sexual minority...

Originally Posted by ouchies

but you are still discriminating...

either NO sexual minority is entitled to marriage or ALL of them are entitled to marriage.

you cant discriminate against pedophiles and not discriminate against gays and then turn around and accuse heteros for discriminating against homosexuals...

ditto

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by ouchies

you have to understand that we need to draw the line for a reason. if you open the door to polygamy and homosexual marriages, you are pretty much constructing the foundation for the arguments that will be made by OTHER sexual minorities...

imagine THESE ppl getting to marry who/what they want...
www.beastforum.com

now i personally have NO problem with homosexuality or polygamy, but the fact of the matter is I really do not want our government acknowledging the union of a man and his hamster.

I've posted this over and over again, but look around both this country and the world right now. The stupid are rapidly outbreeding the smart. If someone wants to marry their hamster/cow/dolphin/ etc, I think we should definitely allow it and then celebrate that they won't be polluting the planet by spreading their genes.

[okdude]

Originally Posted by ouchies

ditto

again in bold, unless they want to change the the consenting age of kids .

Originally Posted by okdude

first, its slippery sloppery bull****.
second, true, not every one who is against it is homophobic, but there are real homophoics and real bigots who will hide behind these excuses because it doesn't look as bad for them.


third, so what the hell has it to do with you when three or four people want to marry together. It is ****ing stupid imo, but as long as they are all consenting and are capable of consenting, who the **** am I to interfere or control their lives.

And same goes for incest, the ultimate disgust,but as long as they are consenting and are capable of consenting, who am I to stop them.

And since some dumbass is going to bring up kids and animals, let's look at the two criterias again, are they are all consenting, animals out. what about kids? well, the capable of consenting takes care of that.

These two criteria takes care of everything and that should be the way. Otherwise, any ****head can go around preventing consenting people from getting together. Like interracial marriages. Or me preventing ppl from having anal sex. I don't like anal sex and if not for these two criterias, I would go around stopping anal sex loving heterosexual couples from getting together. But my disgust or disapproval does not entitle me to interfere with somebody else's life, does it?

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by okdude

again in bold, unless they want to change the the consenting age of kids .

now what if pedophiles argue that the age for "consent" is meant to discriminate against their "sexuality"? legally speaking you cannot pick and choose which minorites you cater too...

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by mlc82

I've posted this over and over again, but look around both this country and the world right now. The stupid are rapidly outbreeding the smart. If someone wants to marry their hamster/cow/dolphin/ etc, I think we should definitely allow it and then celebrate that they won't be polluting the planet by spreading their genes.

and let's completely disregard animal rights while we're at it

[okdude]

Originally Posted by ouchies

now what if pedophiles argue that the age for "consent" is meant to discriminate against their "sexuality"? legally speaking you cannot pick and choose which minorites you cater too...

They can argue discrimination if they like, but as long as one party is incapable of consenting, they can't.

[ouchies]

Originally Posted by okdude

They can argue discrimination if they like, but as long as one party is incapable of consenting, they can't.

but who really defines "consent"? me? you? the horny 40 year old pedophile?

on what LEGAL basis is homosexuality "okay" and not pedophilia?