First of all, I really don't care if they do change it for numbers. If you are against it, then you should show why it's bad. But most importantly is the fact that the law doesn't currently allow for polygamist marriage. It does allow for certain groups of two people to get married, but it discriminates against other groups of two consenting adults to married. It's really a simple case of injustice. Changing the definition of marriage doesn't matter at all. It has changed multiple times over the centuries. Plus when the change is more just, I would think people would welcome it. So the numbers argument isn't even related to marriage as it currently stands. The fact that it picks one group to discriminate against while bestowing the right on another group is very relevant.
you said it was hypocritical. Wait I forgot you are the king of the hypocrits. WTF was I thinking. this is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. You are expanding you idea that it is ok to change one aspect but not to change another. There is no difference.
there are no groups of people that can marry multiple people. there are groups of people that can marry one person while there are other groups of people that cannot marry one person. how hard is that to understand?
1.How is it hypocritical of me? I don't understand why I'm the King of "hypocrits" but if you make me a t-shirt that says that I promise to wear it. 2. I'm not changing any part except that part that makes outlawing same sex marriage unfair and discrimination. I'm sticking to the topic and not dragging in polygamy or anything else. Again I really don't care if polygamy is made legal. But it is a separate issue because Polygamists aren't being discriminated against. It's not like there is one group of polygamists allowed to marry, and another group of polygamists not allowed to marry. If there were I would be championing making those rights equal as well. The fact is that there are laws allowing certain pairs of consenting adults to marry, and forbidding other pairs of consenting adults to marry based on nothing but who the people are. Why are you trying to drag changing the numbers into the debate? That isn't part of what makes many current marriage laws discriminatory. But you still haven't answered my question. Why is it bad to change the definition of marriage when the change is a more enlightened, equal and just definition? This is especially true since the definition of marriage has already changed multiple times in its evolution. Many words change their definition over time, or at least add to it. Just look at the word "gay". It has certainly changed.
You are changing the wrong variable. You cannot keep the "one person" in your explanation as being the same. They are not equal thus cannot be used like that in logic. But quick question for you. I get the equality argument, but that is just the obvious injustice, if you are going to change it, rebuild it from the bottom up.
I just remember this huge post where you specifically called out something then vanished when it was found out you did the exact same thing. I realize you are cherry picking out the part you want. That is where my problem lies. It isn't like there is one group of homo allowed to marry and another not. This is not a valid argument. agreed but this same logic applies to plural marriage. You have not given any valid arument that supports that position. Changing the definition and not looking at it objectively but only politically it wrong. Politically the gay community is putting pressure to have themselves added, but exclude plural marriage. I cannot find any moral justification for that.
What's with the polygamy strawman? Why can't that be a different thread? Focus here, fmullegun: is there a secular reason for excluding homosexuals from the institution of civil marriage or not?
No moral grounds for me, but my morals are not everyones. There is logistical reasons of should we expand the religion/state relationship I think. What country do you live in BTW?
I think you have me confused. If I disappeared from a conversation point my attention to it, and I will happily go back. There have been numerous times when I've admitted I was wrong as well as acknowledged the other side of an argument. It is possible that I forgot about that thread, got sidetracked, someone else gave a better argument echoing my own feelings on the subject, went away or something. If you remember what the topic was I will try and go back and look for it. I'm not cherry picking I'm talking about what makes it discrimination. I've pointed out THERE ARE NO LAWS ALLOWING GROUPS TO MARRY. THERE ARE LAWS ALLOWING PAIRS TO MARRY. That's why I'm talking about the marriage of pairs of people. It is like one pair of consenting adults is allowed to marry, and another group is not. Your statement makes it seem like that it's only discrimination of one group of homosexuals can marry but another group can't. No. The logic doesn't apply to plural marriage at all. The reason is because there is no law on the books allowing people to enter into the group marriage. Right now the laws on that are fair. Nobody, regardless of sexual preference, race or anything else can enter into group marriages. Those laws are applied equally across the board. The laws regarding marriage of pairs of consenting adults are not applied equally. One group of consenting adults can marry, and one group isn't allowed to. I'm not looking at it politically, but in terms of justice and being against discrimination. The laws on group marriage are applied equally to all citizens. The laws on marriage between pairs of consenting adults are applied differently to different people. There is no moral justification for doing that.
Not when it has to do with the government. Government has an interest in marriage, sets rules having to do with marriage (and dissolution of the marriage), and policies based on marital status (tax rates, etc). Since we are supposed to have separation of church and state, the religious reasons for not allowing gay marriage cannot be brought into the discussion. So, is there a secular reason to refuse to allow homosexuals to marry or not? If not, then the government should have no choice but to enforce the 14th amendment and allow homosexuals to unite. I am perfectly OK with calling it "civil unions," but you are not allowed to deny a group of people the same rights that other groups have.
No it's not - while religions have incorporated marriage into their traditions, the act of marriage is a combination of many institutions. In many cultures, marriage is primarily an economic institution.
I think it is so crazy this is done on a state level. I guess that's the way it's going to be until some critical mass is achieved and the SC eventually steps in...but it's still nuts. Even if that's the path interracial marriage took. Conceptually its boggling to me that a couple is legally married in certain states, but cease to be so when they cross a state line.
Come on, I know you're capable of having an intelligent discussion on this issue. Let's focus on civil marriage only--why should homosexuals be excluded from it?
Actually -- it is becoming this. If you live in Iowa you can get married. If you live in California, you cannot (unless you did so during a brief window in which case it's OK). Politicians are spineless!
