Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Knockernail, Jan 29, 2007.
Reading about this in another thread, i wonder it.
I know here is possible. Anywhere else?
They are in the UK too.
As I understand it, same-sex marriage is legal in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and one of the States of the USA (Massachusetts). There is also legal recognition of civil unions (similar to marriage but generally with fewer rights) in New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, France and probably elsewhere too. I believe the UK doesn't call recognised same-sex relationships "marriage" but the rights are similar or perhaps the same.Some Australian States recognise same-sex "de facto" (or "common law") relationships but the Federal government does not, except for immigration purposes.
To elf's list, I'm proud to add South Africa:
In November 2006, South Africa became the first nation on the African continent to fully legalize same-sex marriage (source). I say "fully" because back in 2002, they passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other countries; if you got married in Massachusetts, for example, and moved to South Africa, they'd continue to recognize your married status. Now, South Africans can get married at home.
I really haven't formed an opinion about gay marriage in a secular sense as of yet. Obviously, a church can recognize any marriage it decides to but what do governments recongnize is basically what is still the open question (here in the U.S).
If we can have same sex marriage recognized, why shouldn't a man be able to marry four women; or four men marry one woman; or four men marry four women? I mean why does the marriage rationale get to stop at same sex couple? Or why is age of consent 18 and not 16 or 15 when it comes to marriage?
I mean aren't we religiously descriminating against moslems, mormons and some christians when we tell them how many people they can marry?
Hell, if they let me marry 10 people at a time of any gender, I may start a business to marry foreigners so they can come to the States and become citizens.:biggrin1:
I know this is provocative. I'm just listening for the calm, rational response to think about in order to finally form my opinion on the matter.
And New Jersey, no?
This is such a right-wing talking point. Did you hear this on Falafel O'Really's show?
There's an enormous difference between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on number. No one asks, "Why shouldn't a man be able to take four parking spaces?" or "Why shouldn't a man be able to take the standard deduction twelve times on his taxes?"
In the United States, there are 1,138 benefits that are granted to married heterosexual couples, that are denied to same-sex couples. (source: this is an 18-page PDF.) Many of these benefits would be made more complicated, expensive, or even impossible, to administer to multiple partners. (If I married a million women, then got hospitalized, would the hospital have to admit them all to visiting hours?!)
Telling people to how many people they can provide the legal benefits of marriage, is just cost-effective and practical, but not discriminatory. Dictating that you can provide these benefits to this person with the hoo-hah, but not that person with the peener violates fundamental principles of equality.
They band same-sex marriage in missouri
You spell pretty good for a Cro-Magnon.
Of course they did! They're still trying to teach you guys to capitalize the name of states.
You are missing the point in part. It is illegal to marry a minor and polygamy is illegal. Why should society recognize gay marriage and not multiple partner marriages or marriages between 16 year olds? Were these just arbitrarily chosen norms?
As far as I'm concerned couples should only be given monetary benefits if they have children, otherwise what is point? The benefits given heterosexual couples had a rationale when high birth rates were the norm and men and women had gender based roles to fulfill (which discriminated against women).
As a single, childless person why should I pay for couples who have no children? And even if they have children why should I pay for it?
And Vermont -- I have a couple of lesbian friends who went there for their own marriage right before New Year's.
How dare you say that! Every person should have the right to marry, and have children with whomever they please, so fuck you for saying otherwise. Try walking a mile in someone else's shoes before you open your mouth and spew bullshit. I bet your a typical male that thinks lesbians should be married though eh...
Mine was a thoughtful post asking for reasoned responses to reasonable questions. Just because they are difficult to answer doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked.
I'm for not supporting heterosexual couples and their children too in the interest of fairness if it works out that way.
So according to you polygamy is okay? It is in fact almost working that way. Men get multiple women pregnant and women have children by multiple men. It's all good.
Polygamy isn't the same as a gay marraige... do you can't even begin to compare the two.. it is a union between two men, women, or man and women together... not multiples.
I think (actually I know) you're the one missing the point.
I really can't see myself making it any clearer, so I'll just post again what Mindseye wrote:
Don't give yourself that much credit there, captain.
Oh, my. You spell pretty good for a Cro-Magnon, too.
LOL, and don't they look cute together!
I'd tell them to get married, but you know how the world feels about gay Cro-Magnon marriage...
I say let them marry if they like. As more than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, then go for it!
I have a saying.... "if your happy...then don't get married."
I don't get why christians are blocking this, and I don't get why gays would want to get married. You're both nuts in my mind!
This thread is hilarious.