|
Post by jq on Nov 30, 2007 11:40:38 GMT -5
You are correct about the polygamy thing too. Whether people want to or not, in order to make marriage equal for all, that would need to be discussed as well. I disagree. I don't think polygamy would add equality. It lessens the value of the woman. It inherently places the man in a position of status over the woman and therefore degrades overall equality. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is unfair; gay marriage subscribes to the same monogamous code of ethics that comes with straight marriage. Polygamy is not the same, and allowing it would not increase equality, in a nation such as ours which is placed 67 in the world for women's equality.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 30, 2007 23:44:01 GMT -5
You are correct about the polygamy thing too. Whether people want to or not, in order to make marriage equal for all, that would need to be discussed as well. I disagree. I don't think polygamy would add equality. It lessens the value of the woman. It inherently places the man in a position of status over the woman and therefore degrades overall equality. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is unfair; gay marriage subscribes to the same monogamous code of ethics that comes with straight marriage. Polygamy is not the same, and allowing it would not increase equality, in a nation such as ours which is placed 67 in the world for women's equality. Far be it from me to disagree with jq, but I think that dealing with polygamy is important. I think that it's unfair to recognize one consenting relationship over another. To be honest I think that the analysis that polygamy limits the rights of women is pure bs. While it's true that the concept of traditional marriage combined with polygamy CAN be harmful, I don't think that it would be true under the new scope of government recognized relationships. Polyamory isn't simply man with multiple women, there are times that it's woman and multiple men. There is nothing wrong with that relationship and I don't think that the government should be in the business of limiting human relationships that are consensual.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Dec 1, 2007 3:31:27 GMT -5
I just think if it got legalized, there would be certain churches and religious groups pushing women into it. It has happened before and it could do it again.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Dec 1, 2007 4:30:29 GMT -5
Multiple partners of whatever gender is what I am referring to.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Dec 1, 2007 6:35:05 GMT -5
You are correct about the polygamy thing too. Whether people want to or not, in order to make marriage equal for all, that would need to be discussed as well. I disagree. I don't think polygamy would add equality. It lessens the value of the woman. It inherently places the man in a position of status over the woman and therefore degrades overall equality. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is unfair; gay marriage subscribes to the same monogamous code of ethics that comes with straight marriage. Polygamy is not the same, and allowing it would not increase equality, in a nation such as ours which is placed 67 in the world for women's equality. NO ONE DISAGREES WITH RED STATE REBEL! Ok, I'm kidding. Seriously - I am not actually comparing gay marriage to polygamy in terms of equality or morality. I brought it to question the definition of marriage - as defined by the Government. Current: One man and One Woman If gender is removed, it looks like this: One Person and One Person If we can take gender out of the definition, why not quantity? See what I mean? Many in tis country would object to polygamy based largely on what you have stated above, BUT - many people object to gay marriage as well. How does the government pick and choose which is Ok and which is not? In the spirit of freedom and equal rights, shouldn't the government get out of the business of telling us which is acceptable? Can of worms thing. Which shouldn't scare us or deter us - let's talk about it and sort it out. I think baby steps - the current pressing issue is that for gay couples there is no legal status - survivor benefits, health insurance, co ownership, etc. Civil Unions would fix that immediately - there would be a little uproar - but minor and it would blow over.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Dec 1, 2007 18:56:13 GMT -5
RSR, the problem is that states enacting civil unions fixes nothing. Look at Mass. We can see that the on a local/state level the couples are treated equally but when we examine the federal level we see that the couples are prevented from equal treatment because of DOMA. Federal DOMA prevents the recognition of ANY union between same sex partners.
So in it's current status, civil unions are little else than a band-aid on a gunshot wound.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Dec 1, 2007 20:07:13 GMT -5
There really should have been more uproar when DOMA got signed.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Dec 2, 2007 7:18:11 GMT -5
RSR, the problem is that states enacting civil unions fixes nothing. Look at Mass. We can see that the on a local/state level the couples are treated equally but when we examine the federal level we see that the couples are prevented from equal treatment because of DOMA. Federal DOMA prevents the recognition of ANY union between same sex partners. So in it's current status, civil unions are little else than a band-aid on a gunshot wound. True - we do need a federal answer to this. A Mass. civil union needs to be recognized by every other state - Either congress needs to repeal DOMA or Superme Court needs to consider the constitutionality (really big word) of it. Kizz makes a good point about DOMA - you would think that one of the Bush Presidents, or Reagan would have signed this one - not a democrat. I really think the Clinton DOMA signature and don't ask, don't tell policy hurt the cause more than any republican measure could have. It's kind of bi-partisan now. That's the past - we need to move forward - Members of the gay community and straight supporters of these measures need to stand up and battle with the strongest weapon that they have - their voting block. This is a perfect year to do it - with a democratic congress safe next year and the presidential election favoring democrats at the moment. Something like this: Dear Mrs. Clinton, Propose something meaningful, or our 5 million votes are staying home. Ran out of patience, Gay Community.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Dec 2, 2007 19:21:31 GMT -5
I can't imagine Hillary doing ANYTHING for the gay community. Appropriate little letter.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Dec 4, 2007 6:46:03 GMT -5
I don't think any of the Presidential candidates will - nor the congress. Too much of a hot button issue. These are pro's at avoiding things like this.
I think the best hope is the Supreme Court.
|
|