Quoth_The _Raven said:
Yes, because I imagine legalising gay marriage is going to make
you want to immediately run out and marry the next girl that passes - or group of random individuals, or your brother, or a goat - rather than some pretty tennis player.
My heart will always be for Andy, you blasphemer!
I'm not sure and condoning homosexuality would create more members of other sexual minorities; however, I do believe that those people and their sexual practices would become more accepted in the public eye.
Unlike you,I have no problem with same sex or polygamous relationships, but my morals aren't so fluid that I have the immediate urge to run out and do something I previously didn't agree with just because the government says I can, so I don't have any reason to fear them. I don't know anyone like that, actually. Do you?
Not at all, and I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that legalizing gay marraige will instently transform formerly monogamous heterosexuals into polygamists, etc. I am saying that those sexual minorities which are out there already will be more accepted in the public eye, even to the point of wanting their "civil rights" upheld by altering the definiton of marraige to fit their particular needs.
Allowing homosexuals the right to legally recognised marriages legalises a union between two people. Just like interracial marriage. While I can see how someone could stretch the comparison to incest due purely to the numbers presumed to be involved - and I stress the word stretch, because frankly I think it's small minded, bigoted idiocy to even compare the two things - it doesn't apply to polygamy. Pesonally I have no issue with more than two people in a loving relationship, but I fail to see the natural progression from homosexuality to polygamy, just because a bunch of people claim it exists.
The progression goes something like this, as I've been explaining...as lilithu has pointed out, if we make one change to marraige, why not more? We're eliminating the importance of the genders of the people involved in a marraige, why not change the number of people involved? Who said marraige had to be confined to just two people? I mean, sheesh, not too long ago we allowed gays to marry, why can't I get married to TWO people that I love?
I'll bet it results in homosexuals being married, with the legal rights that go along with that, instead of living together, being denied even the right to make their own legal arrangements at their own expense, being denied the right to see their partner in hospital, being at risk of having their children taken from their care if the legally recognised custodial parent is killed.
I think the long term effect might be something like homosexual couples being able to feel that they, their relationship and their family is more legally secure and protected.
What a shocking and horrible concept.Makes my blood run cold at the thought.
And I'll bet the results of polygamists and incestuus couples being married, with the legal rights that go along with that, instead of living together, being denied even the right to make their own legal arrangements at their own expense, being deind the right to see their partner(s) in the hospital, being at risk of having their children taken from their care, etc. I think the long term effect will be that they will be able to feel that they, their relationship and their family is more legally secure and protected. What a shocking and horrible concept