Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

getting married with animals..

I vote we leave marrying dogs and other animals to India http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html

[Alhamdulillah 0]

double post

Edited May 29, 2008 by Alhamdulillah

[eric&gen 0]

Getting married to animals? Sweet almaty can marry his donkey and the rest of the cat lovers in here can marry there pet cats lol.

[Sister Fracas 5]

#######? I just love the thought process that thinks allowing gays to marry turns into marrying animals...

[Alhamdulillah 0]

but but but but

if we allow gay marriages then why we should allow men marrying their sisters, or women getting married with animals..

No, but they should start allowing polygamous marriages now.

Why?

If it's not the govt's place to regulate marriage based on christian religious laws anymore then they should do away with the one they made to prevent those from other religions of having more than one spouse.

There's no public debate going on right now in regard to the rights of polygamists to have multiple spouses. Part of the reason for that is that I would imagine there are a different set of problems to consider in regard to multiple marriage - specifically how marriage could be used fraudulently (for tax purposes) for the purpose of evading immigration laws, or indeed for the purposes of exploitation.

Marriage is/can be used for all these purposes anyway. It's not likely to increase just because plural marriage is legalized.

However, it would be good for the more than 100,000 polygamists in this country right now, if the other wives had certain rights equal to the first wife and didn't have to live in fear of going to prison or being deported in the event she seeks help from the police because of an abusive husband.

Gay marriage can be used for the same exact fraudulent reasons you listed... in fact wasn't there a movie about that recently?

There is no public debate right now about the rights of polygamists because the govt is busy enforcing it's bogus law against them and locking them up. They're not free to have huge flaming parades to draw attention to their plight.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Alhamdulillah

[eric&gen 0]

Might as well allow long distance gay lovers to file for visa so they can bring gay immigrants over lol.

[chri'stina 190]

but but but but

if we allow gay marriages then why we should allow men marrying their sisters, or women getting married with animals..

No, but they should start allowing polygamous marriages now.

Why?

If it's not the govt's place to regulate marriage based on christian religious laws anymore then they should do away with the one they made to prevent those from other religions of having more than one spouse.

There's no public debate going on right now in regard to the rights of polygamists to have multiple spouses. Part of the reason for that is that I would imagine there are a different set of problems to consider in regard to multiple marriage - specifically how marriage could be used fraudulently (for tax purposes) for the purpose of evading immigration laws, or indeed for the purposes of exploitation.

To me, why does a public debate have to be the reason to consider something? I am not for polygamist marriages but the argument that b/c something isn't being widely debated then it's not an issue doesn't make sense to me. If marriage is going to be redefined, it's only going to be so that homosexuals can marry b/c they are making more noise about it than polygamists? Or do ppl still support that marriage is between 2 ppl only, even if they are supporting homosexual marriage? There has been much more polygamy(multiple marriage) in history it seems than homosexual marriage. So what's the diff between supporting one over the other? How do you explain it to a polygamist?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well any marriage "can" be used for the purposes of fraud, but the problems I'd say are magnified when you add multiple partners into the mix. Not only would it require changes to a whole raft of existing laws but it would make enforcement and detection of potential fraud rather more difficult. That may change of course if society moves to a totally different model - currently however it would not be unfair to suggest that monogamous (hetero or otherwise) marriage offers far fewer challenges and is far less controversial than permitting a man to have a harem (though this is idea is fundamentally sexist when you think about it - as what you're talking about essentially permits a man to have X number of wives while a woman can only have one husband). True polygamy would surely destroy the concept of marriage altogether - as I say its far more controversial (on quite a few more levels) than it first appears. In short, whether or not polygamy should be legal - it doesn't have much of a bearing on gay marriage, because that "marriage" doesn't fundamentally change the institution of a monogamous relationship.

I'd also point out the obvious - that on a national level 100,000 people is a relative handful... If that 100,000 builds support to justify their cause there may well be a national dialog about that too - as I said though, this requires a greater change to the institution of marriage (and indeed the institutions that support it) than what we are really talking about here.

[Sister Fracas 5]

To me, why does a public debate have to be the reason to consider something? I am not for polygamist marriages but the argument that b/c something isn't being widely debated then it's not an issue doesn't make sense to me. If marriage is going to be redefined, it's only going to be so that homosexuals can marry b/c they are making more noise about it than polygamists? Or do ppl still support that marriage is between 2 ppl only, even if they are supporting homosexual marriage? There has been much more polygamy(multiple marriage) in history it seems than homosexual marriage. So what's the diff between supporting one over the other? How do you explain it to a polygamist?

Isn't that precisely how things are changed though...through public debate, outcry, etc. If the polygamists want to lobby for their rights, let 'em do it.

I wonder though how many people would make the leap to marrying animals from marrying multiple people....

[jundp 191]

Marriage is/can be used for all these purposes anyway. It's not likely to increase just because plural marriage is legalized.

However, it would be good for the more than 100,000 polygamists in this country right now, if the other wives had certain rights equal to the first wife and didn't have to live in fear of going to prison or being deported in the event she seeks help from the police because of an abusive husband.

Gay marriage can be used for the same exact fraudulent reasons you listed... in fact wasn't there a movie about that recently?

There is no public debate right now about the rights of polygamists because the govt is busy enforcing it's bogus law against them and locking them up. They're not free to have huge flaming parades to draw attention to their plight.

1. 100,000 is a small number compared to the number of homosexual couples in this country. And while I agree with you that if the government is using "Christian law" to make the law it is wrong no matter how you look at it. Yet I wonder how someone can be so anti-gay yet be perfectly content with the idea of multiple wives.

2. How is it a bogus law?

3. They are most assuredly free to have "flaiming parades to draw attention to their plight" as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America (the right to peaceably assemble). They may not choose to apply for a parade permit, but they are free to do so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To me, why does a public debate have to be the reason to consider something? I am not for polygamist marriages but the argument that b/c something isn't being widely debated then it's not an issue doesn't make sense to me. If marriage is going to be redefined, it's only going to be so that homosexuals can marry b/c they are making more noise about it than polygamists? Or do ppl still support that marriage is between 2 ppl only, even if they are supporting homosexual marriage? There has been much more polygamy(multiple marriage) in history it seems than homosexual marriage. So what's the diff between supporting one over the other? How do you explain it to a polygamist?

Isn't that precisely how things are changed though...through public debate, outcry, etc. If the polygamists want to lobby for their rights, let 'em do it.

I wonder though how many people would make the leap to marrying animals from marrying multiple people....

Absolutely. This may indeed be what happens eventually. Today however that issue isn't on the table. The big stumbling block I'd imagine is that Polygamy tends to be associated with archaic relgious groups that are quite far from an identifiable mainstream.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

[MissStacey 1]

I think it is fantastic news. I totally support gay marriage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

#######? I just love the thought process that thinks allowing gays to marry turns into marrying animals...

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.