No! Just wondering how does gay marriage supporter approach this. If pro-gay marriage supporters broaden the traditional concept of marriage by saying it's not just for the opposite sex, where would they draw the line since there are other kinds of marriages that does exists in other parts of the world. That's the arguments I hear from anti-gay marriage. Wanted to get some feedback, that's all and pass it along to people I know...
Simple reason.
Prohibitions against gay marriage are discrimination on the basis of gender.
First, let's go back a bit, to Loving -vs- Virginia.
Once upon a time, it was illegal in many states for Caucasians and Blacks to Marry. If John (Caucasian) wanted to marry Jane (Black), it was against the law. The supreme court ruled this an illegal discrimination on the basis of race. Just because caucasians could marry members of their own race, and blacks could marry members of their own race, didn't mean they were free from discrimination. It applies at the specific level. If John can't marry Jane because he's white and she's black, but if he were black then he could marry Jane, then it's discrimination, see? The law is being applied to him differently, in the specific, because of his race.
If I want to marry Jane, I can. If I want to marry John, I can't. The reason I can't marry John is because I'm male. If I were female, I could marry John. It's discrimination on the basis of gender. It doesn't matter that men and women can marry members of the opposite gender, that doesn't free it from the discrimination.
In specific, the only reason I can't marry John is my gender. Hence, it's simple sex discrimination when applied specifically.
Now... polygamy...
What's the discrimination if I want to marry two women? It's not race, nor gender, nor even religion (no religion is being treated differently, no one could marry two people at the same time).
At best, you could argue discrimination against marital status If I'm married to Jane, and want to marry John, then it's my marital status that keeps me from being treated the same.
Marital status doesn't rise to the same level. There are some protections, on a state by state basis, but even then they're fairly limited to things like employment.
So while I'm neither arguring for, nor against, legalization of polygamy, I am arguing that it's in a very different category and the same legal arguments available to gay marriage proponents aren't available to polygamy opponents (because they're not analogies).
Where is the limit if WE NEED TO BROADEN THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE?
Well sister /brother/ cousin marrige should remain illegal for genetic reasons, other than that I see no problem with 3 way (or more) marriges.
Op whats your concern exactly? What bugs you about letting marrige evolve with our culture?
Your argument is inaccurate. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not gender discrimination. No gender is prohibited from marrying. All persons of either gender are only permitted to marry persons of thr opposite gender. As such the law is non disriminatory as to gender. The law is discriminatory as to sexual persuasion. Though all people are only permitted to marry persons of the opposite gender and in tbat it applys to all people equally, homosexuals are prohibited from marrying the person that they love and choose because of their sexual orientation while straight people can marry the partner of their choosing simply because they are straight. It has nothiing to do with gender discrimination.
If we legalize gay marriage, why can't 2 women and a man get marry or why can't a brother and sister get marry? And why does marriage have to be in 2? There are plenty of cultures where men have many wives and perhaps less common women with many husbands. There are marriages between minors and adults and between 2 minors! Is there is an age limit needs to be concern? Even if UNION have all the rights and benefits of a marriage, it wouldn't be the same concept as a marriage, correct? Where is the limit if WE NEED TO BROADEN THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE?
You just define interracial dating as a perversion ...
I understand exactly what you were saying, it's just wrong.
Following your logic, laws against interracial marriage weren't racial discrimination (even though the court used that exact phrase in their ruling striking down the law).
By your logic, the laws against interracial marriage were actually descriminatatory on the basis of sexual orientation (and not race) because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites so everyone was being treated equally. The only people who couldn't marry were the people with sexual orientations of preferring people of different races.
I know you're having trouble comprehending it. I know it feels wierd that something which is, in practice, gender discrimination could have an effect that's only felt by people of a certain sexual orientation.
But when you try to get married, it's your gender they're checking, not your orientation. There's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a gay woman(the discrimination is on the basis of gender). Similarly, as a straight man, I couldn't walk into a courthouse and marry another straight man for the insurance benefits (because, again, the discrimination is on the basis of gender, not sexual orientation).
The laws presumed the racial superiority of whites and inferiority of blacks.
why can't a brother and sister get marry?
How many people do you know that have long lasting 3-some (or more) relationships?And why does marriage have to be in 2?
Some would argue that minors that are generally not equipped enough in terms of maturity to make these decisions. And why not let kids just be kids?There are marriages between minors and adults and between 2 minors! Is there is an age limit needs to be concern?
I believe the word incest comes to mind. I pose another question, why would a brother and sister want to marry?
How many people do you know that have long lasting 3-some (or more) relationships?
Some would argue that minors that are generally not equipped enough in terms of maturity to make these decisions. And why not let kids just be kids?
Are you also pro humans marrying animals or inanimate objects?