The radical rightwing's real reason for opposing gay marriage

[jallman]

No. The right once conferred (viz., the freedom to marry, or not to marry) cannot be "infringed by the State" under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).

Yet the equal protection clause is a clear mandate that the state cannot deny rights based on moral, ethnic, or political affiliation. I am currently looking up the case you referenced at the moment so I will get back to that in a bit.

 

[Ausonius]

Marriage is generally defined as a contract between a man and a woman - although some state laws use the term “persons capable of contracting” (or similar language), that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex - and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few person realize the predominant interest of the state until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. In this regard, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, viz. marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

On the other hand, the federal government has no interest in any of these things. There is no express provision in the Constitution for government regulation of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant to the pursuit of happiness, but rather it is a power reserved the states and the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

 

[jallman]

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

Not to dismiss the rest of your eloquent and well thought post, but this really is the key to the whole argument. Even as a proponent of "gay marriage" I have a strong religious disagreement with gay men and women demanding the rites of the Church to be conformed to their moral assertions. Note...when I say Church, I do mean the Catholic church as I adhere to that faith.

As a gay man, I understand and accept the fact that practice of my personal sexual preferences is in direct opposition to the Vatican and what is deemed moral or immoral by my Church. I would never deign to assert that my personal choices are to be made policy of a thousands year old doctrine. "Marriage" as a sacrament of the Church is to be decided by the Church and its dogma, not me and my personal moral conviction that what I am doing is ok. Marriage should be left up to the Church; if truly separated from the state this is not a problem for anyone of rational thought.

However, when it comes to the application of benefits, if the State is truly separated from the Church, then there is no logical reason not to extend those same benefits and rights to me and mine. I do not wish to undermine the institution of the family and of marriage as a sacrament. I really dont. All I want is a way for my partner and I to be recognized as a legitimatly legal coupling with all the benefits afforded to any other (currently heterosexual) couple with no argument from the state, a financial institution, or contestant to my will. I dont mind still arguing the morality of it till the sun burns out as long as I have that bare minimum comfort.

 

[millsy]

This is ridiculous. First of all, benefits approved by the majority shouldn't ever be considered an applied right. The nature of our government requires that the application of laws must be based on the understanding of those that votes for those laws. It is sinister to turn something like social security into something that was not approved by those that fund it through judicial fiat.

Furthermore, We deny the greatest of all rights based on the moral disapproval of the masses. Your liberty and even life is at risk everytime you violate certain moral provisions.

This isn't just social security and health benefits. There are many rights that go along with being married.

You are arguing pretty hard against gay marriage on the grounds that you're a libertarian and you don't think the government should be involved in marriage in anyway.

Can I ask you, and I know you can't detect my tone of voice and I want to be careful here, just completely out of curiosity, I swear there is no accusation in this whatsoever. Do you fight this hard at getting the government out of straight marriage. I believe you that you are against it, but is it just an opinion or do you fight against it with the same........gusto?

 

[nineplus]

All I want is a way for my partner and I to be recognized as a legitimatly legal coupling with all the benefits afforded to any other (currently heterosexual) couple with no argument from the state, a financial institution, or contestant to my will. I dont mind still arguing the morality of it till the sun burns out as long as I have that bare minimum comfort

how interesting, since I could say the very same thing about my poly marriage.........you know, that hippy lovefest thing I've lived in for 21 years.

and more than the financial perks, we'd really just liked the *security* perks extended to hetero marriages. we'd like to KNOW we can make medical decisions for each other w/o outside family interference. we'd like to KNOW our wills will be honored when we die. we'd like to KNOW our children won't be left to be fought over and potentially split up by biology in the end, if the three of us passed together.

shoot, just to have the POA's we've made up to be taken more seriously would be nice............or to just not keep having to wonder what we've legal/financial lophole we've not planned for...........yeah, I'd happily argue morality until the sun burned out too.

 

[millsy]

how interesting, since I could say the very same thing about my poly marriage.........you know, that hippy lovefest thing I've lived in for 21 years.

and more than the financial perks, we'd really just liked the *security* perks extended to hetero marriages. we'd like to KNOW we can make medical decisions for each other w/o outside family interference. we'd like to KNOW our wills will be honored when we die. we'd like to KNOW our children won't be left to be fought over and potentially split up by biology in the end, if the three of us passed together.

shoot, just to have the POA's we've made up to be taken more seriously would be nice............or to just not keep having to wonder what we've legal/financial lophole we've not planned for...........yeah, I'd happily argue morality until the sun burned out too.

AH, touche, the slippery slope argument.

Polygamy is about the subjugation and exploitation of women by men. That is another form of opression. It can not be argued that gay marriage will lead to polygamy.

 

[Ausonius]

The “slippery slope” argument is not a valid way of positing the debate for reason that (1) it begs the question, and (2) mischaracterizes the issue. To say that the sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality, petitio principii, begs the question (viz. the conclusion that same-sex unions are illegal or illegitimate is assumed in the premise), while mischaracterizing gays and lesbians (without mentioning them) by labeling them as immoral. Such circular reasoning is illogical for it is premised upon a presupposed bias or prejudice rather than facts susceptible of proof; and it is inherently unfair because it at once postures the proponent of same-sex unions as against the sanctity of marriage and in favor of immorality. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light. Sadly, this is the way the debate of this very important issue has been going.

 

[FallingPianos]

...To say that the sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality...

that happened a long time ago, when the state got involved with marriage in the first place. there is no sanctity in state marriage. allowing same sex couples to legally marry cant cause any more loss of sanctity. the churches are not forced to perform these marriages, nor should they be.

 

[nineplus]

Polygamy is about the subjugation and exploitation of women by men. That is another form of opression.

so all polygamy is about the oppression of women or just polygyny (1 man, multiple women)?? what about where religion isn't a factor and/or the women are bisexual? and how about polyandry (1 woman, multiple men)?? is this too about the opression of women or would the reverse be true and this be about the oppression of men? what about if the men were bi?

there are a great many configurations of poly relationships.........some in V's or W's and others in triads or quads............some open to outside relationships (similarly to an open mono marriage) and others completely closed to the group. are you saying all of this, regardless of configuration, religions leanings, educational levels etc is all about oppressing women?

 

[jallman]

so all polygamy is about the oppression of women or just polygyny (1 man, multiple women)?? what about where religion isn't a factor and/or the women are bisexual? and how about polyandry (1 woman, multiple men)?? is this too about the opression of women or would the reverse be true and this be about the oppression of men? what about if the men were bi?

there are a great many configurations of poly relationships.........some in V's or W's and others in triads or quads............some open to outside relationships (similarly to an open mono marriage) and others completely closed to the group. are you saying all of this, regardless of configuration, religions leanings, educational levels etc is all about oppressing women?

See, this is where I get really confused and my little brain starts to fry. How do you begin to define the "rules of engagement" legally for such a complex interaction between so many people? I am sure you must have given this some thought and I really would like to know how you comprehend and find comfort in such a situation. I dont mean to hijack the thread, but I really want to know...how do you interact and expect that any defined set of rules could encompass such a contract?

My questions may seem very direct and interrogating, but I really dont mean it that way. Answer only what you feel comfortable, please.

 

[nineplus]

My questions may seem very direct and interrogating, but I really dont mean it that way. Answer only what you feel comfortable, please.

your question is a valid one............very, very valid..........and unfortunately I'm going to disappoint you, because I don't have all the answers and therefore won't claim to

this is discussed constantly in the poly community and most of us agree, gay marriage will NOT create a slippery slope into poly marriage.......at least not the quickie slippery slope some fear. the *issues* aren't these same at all, at least not in terms of practicalities............but many of the concepts used to argue for gay marriage rights really can and should (at least imho) be used to argue for poly marriage as well.

in practical terms, the most straightforward way to level the playing field would be to get rid of marriage rights for everyone............hetero, homo, mony and poly alike. I'm not sure that could or would ever happen, so aside from that, I'm the first to agree poly marriage would/will be a complicated nut to crack.

using my own life as an example (just one example, one configuration, one mindset) I can say marriage would be a very good thing for us. we have all paid into social security for years, but our spouses will never receive any benefits. we all have separate wills, leaving everything to each other, but we have no guarantee these will be honored at the time of our death. we have POA's made up, giving each other the ability to make medical decisions on each others behalf, but in reality we don't know if these would stand up to an extended family member butting in. two of our children's birth certificates have a non-bio father listed (too complicated to bore you with in this post) which gives him rights the bio father doesn't have. the bio father of those two children has to carry a POA to get medical help for all of our children, including the two that are legitimately his (they are all *his*, but you know what I mean)...........this POA has yet to stand up during an emergency room visit. each time they have withheld treatment until one of the other two of us could be contacted by phone. I could go on and on about the difficulties living in a non-legalized marriage causes, but you know them yourself so I'm not going to bother.

for us a legal 3-way marriage would make loads of sense. we've been together for 21 years, so it's not like we're some fly by night arrangement. we are well educated, financially stable and play active roles in our community. we are by no means hippies and haven't chosen this lifestyle based on religion. if I could marry both my husbands (it's the most appropriate word for us, so I do use it) we could enjoy the same protective umbrella most families live under. instead, we spend loads of time trying to plug all potential legal holes and glancing over our shoulder. it's a bit insane when you consider we've already long since been together longer than the average mono marriage in our society.

most of the poly persons we know live in triads such as ours...........either mfm triads, or fmf triads. we do know one quad (we met them at a poly conference) and through the web we've met several V's (3 persons but only 1 is relating to the other 2) and one long term W (same idea as a V, but 5 people are involved). none of these relationships are new or short term or anything less than very marriage-like.........and none are hippy sexual free-for-alls. these are all serious, family minded adults who are only looking for the same legal protections offered other loving adults in our society.

how should it work exactly? I'm not sure. I do know of poly families who have incorporated, but that only covers the financial interests of persons involved, not custodial type stuff. I would most definitely agree with whoever said the governmental type financial perks should just be split up between those who've married into the relationship..........but some things (mostly things to do with divorces) get a little trickier to imagine. ultimately the children found in these situations would need to be closely protected from the strong lean towards bio-ownership we often see in our courts. I can tell you from personal experience, my children DO have two fathers. there is absolutely no his and mine plus his and mine going on over here.........no step parenting or anything of the kind. these children would be soooooooooooo distraught if their access to one parent was eliminated via the divorce courts carrying a bias towards biology.

I do agree with you it's complicated. I won't see we see eye-to-eye because I have lived within the poly community for too long to view them all through hippy type stereotypes. from what I've seen the level of education is actually quite high, as is the commitment to loving family relationships. gay marriage and poly marriage aren't at all equal in terms of legal complications, but the same reasoning for wanting marriage rights is alive and well within the poly community...........mostly because of the same vulnerable feeling you voiced yourself earlier in the thread.

so take marriage rights/perks/responsibilities/protections away from everyone or yes, the poly world will continue to see legal recognition for the relationships we are already living within. the process will be much slower and much more complicated than with gay marriage, at least imho, but it's only natural we'd want to live on an equal playing field with other loving, committed adults in our society.

 

[jallman]

your question is a valid one............very, very valid..........and unfortunately I'm going to disappoint you, because I don't have all the answers and therefore won't claim to

this is discussed constantly in the poly community and most of us agree, gay marriage will NOT create a slippery slope into poly marriage.......at least not the quickie slippery slope some fear. the *issues* aren't these same at all, at least not in terms of practicalities............but many of the concepts used to argue for gay marriage rights really can and should (at least imho) be used to argue for poly marriage as well.

in practical terms, the most straightforward way to level the playing field would be to get rid of marriage rights for everyone............hetero, homo, mony and poly alike. I'm not sure that could or would ever happen, so aside from that, I'm the first to agree poly marriage would/will be a complicated nut to crack.

using my own life as an example (just one example, one configuration, one mindset) I can say marriage would be a very good thing for us. we have all paid into social security for years, but our spouses will never receive any benefits. we all have separate wills, leaving everything to each other, but we have no guarantee these will be honored at the time of our death. we have POA's made up, giving each other the ability to make medical decisions on each others behalf, but in reality we don't know if these would stand up to an extended family member butting in. two of our children's birth certificates have a non-bio father listed (too complicated to bore you with in this post) which gives him rights the bio father doesn't have. the bio father of those two children has to carry a POA to get medical help for all of our children, including the two that are legitimately his (they are all *his*, but you know what I mean)...........this POA has yet to stand up during an emergency room visit. each time they have withheld treatment until one of the other two of us could be contacted by phone. I could go on and on about the difficulties living in a non-legalized marriage causes, but you know them yourself so I'm not going to bother.

for us a legal 3-way marriage would make loads of sense. we've been together for 21 years, so it's not like we're some fly by night arrangement. we are well educated, financially stable and play active roles in our community. we are by no means hippies and haven't chosen this lifestyle based on religion. if I could marry both my husbands (it's the most appropriate word for us, so I do use it) we could enjoy the same protective umbrella most families live under. instead, we spend loads of time trying to plug all potential legal holes and glancing over our shoulder. it's a bit insane when you consider we've already long since been together longer than the average mono marriage in our society.

most of the poly persons we know live in triads such as ours...........either mfm triads, or fmf triads. we do know one quad (we met them at a poly conference) and through the web we've met several V's (3 persons but only 1 is relating to the other 2) and one long term W (same idea as a V, but 5 people are involved). none of these relationships are new or short term or anything less than very marriage-like.........and none are hippy sexual free-for-alls. these are all serious, family minded adults who are only looking for the same legal protections offered other loving adults in our society.

how should it work exactly? I'm not sure. I do know of poly families who have incorporated, but that only covers the financial interests of persons involved, not custodial type stuff. I would most definitely agree with whoever said the governmental type financial perks should just be split up between those who've married into the relationship..........but some things (mostly things to do with divorces) get a little trickier to imagine. ultimately the children found in these situations would need to be closely protected from the strong lean towards bio-ownership we often see in our courts. I can tell you from personal experience, my children DO have two fathers. there is absolutely no his and mine plus his and mine going on over here.........no step parenting or anything of the kind. these children would be soooooooooooo distraught if their access to one parent was eliminated via the divorce courts carrying a bias towards biology.

I do agree with you it's complicated. I won't see we see eye-to-eye because I have lived within the poly community for too long to view them all through hippy type stereotypes. from what I've seen the level of education is actually quite high, as is the commitment to loving family relationships. gay marriage and poly marriage aren't at all equal in terms of legal complications, but the same reasoning for wanting marriage rights is alive and well within the poly community...........mostly because of the same vulnerable feeling you voiced yourself earlier in the thread.

so take marriage rights/perks/responsibilities/protections away from everyone or yes, the poly world will continue to see legal recognition for the relationships we are already living within. the process will be much slower and much more complicated than with gay marriage, at least imho, but it's only natural we'd want to live on an equal playing field with other loving, committed adults in our society.

Hey, wait...I am sorry. I think you took my tongue in cheek comment about hippies a little too seriously. I was making what seems now to be a feeble attempt at humor and I dont want you to think that my comment was meant as anything more than a quick jab to make a point in my favor. I apologize that it was made at, what now seems, your expense.

That out of the way, I feel we cannot abolish the legal contract of marriage just to favor those who wish to actually re-write the entire concept. What I am in favor of is a compromise allowing two alpha partners to take responsibility of the family. It really is the only way I can see it working legally. Now granted, that is only because I, perhaps in my myopic view of relationships, cannot concieve of group marriage where all parties are actually equal and the binding attractions being mutual for everyone. Like I said, thats just me though.

I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and effort in explaining your personal situation and it leaves a lot for me to mentally digest. For the sake of maintaining this thread's integrity, would you be interested in discussing this further in another, more appropriate thread?

 

[millsy]

so all polygamy is about the oppression of women or just polygyny (1 man, multiple women)?? what about where religion isn't a factor and/or the women are bisexual? and how about polyandry (1 woman, multiple men)?? is this too about the opression of women or would the reverse be true and this be about the oppression of men? what about if the men were bi?

there are a great many configurations of poly relationships.........some in V's or W's and others in triads or quads............some open to outside relationships (similarly to an open mono marriage) and others completely closed to the group. are you saying all of this, regardless of configuration, religions leanings, educational levels etc is all about oppressing women?

you are right, not all poly relationships are oppressive to women. But in North America, where women are fighting an uphill battle to start, a polygamous relationship is oppressive. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been so broad in my brush strokes.

 

[jamespol]

See a lot of the arguments for gay marriage can be applied to polygamy.

People tell me all the time that god hates gay people. I do not care what a book that is hundreds of years ago says, I am still not convinced that god hates gay people. Basically I see Jesus as god and the bible as a bunch of pieces of paper with a book covering. You see the bible has been written in hundreds of languages, and often when you translate the words lose their meanings, and it often depends on who translates the words.

If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, it should be able to. It is not up to a bible thumper in rural Mississippi to tell Massachusetts what to do.

 

[nineplus]

I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and effort in explaining your personal situation and it leaves a lot for me to mentally digest. For the sake of maintaining this thread's integrity, would you be interested in discussing this further in another, more appropriate thread?

yes, another thread, another time would be fine.........I really didn't wish to swipe this thread for the poly-marriage cause either. once it comes up, it's hard for me not to run with it though lol

there really can be a balance of power between three people.........or more. it's all about who is there, why they are there and whether or not needs are being met. most people don't wish to be unbalanced. relationships become unbalanced for loads of reasons, but generally not because people wish them to be............so knowing the potential for unbalance, I've watched many poly families pay intensely close attention to power issues and this attention pays off in a fair, well balanced relationship between them.

and your apology is accepted. it was never a matter of offense as much as a dislike of allowing unfair stereotypes to stand unchallenged

 

[nineplus]

you are right, not all poly relationships are oppressive to women. But in North America, where women are fighting an uphill battle to start, a polygamous relationship is oppressive. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been so broad in my brush strokes.

I'd be the first to admit women are forging uphill still in our society

I do not see how a supportive, intimate, loving relationship with several other persons (of whatever gender) is going to hold them back from this uphill inertia...........unless you're asserting that all matings of women to men (1, 2, 3 or 10) are problematic.

I'm *married* (w/o legal backing of course) to two men and am not held back by either..........in fact both are much more feministic than myself, to be quite honest. I am well educated and free to engage in whatever pursuits I wish with their complete backing. just how am I being oppressed?

if you're referring to the religious form of poly where an older man marries scads of younger, often related, usually under educated, generally still minors at the time of their marriage wives, proceeds to divorce each in turn (so he won't go to jail) and allows each to collect welfare, food stamps etc and forces them to live in close confines with little life opportunities and/or exposure to the outside world, you are missing out on the secular poly community entirely. there you find women with educations and careers who aren't the least bit sheltered, nor have they ended up in their poly relationship because it was the only life choice they could make. it's unfair to bias against the whole group because of the actions of one faction, at least imho.

 

[nineplus]

If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, it should be able to. It is not up to a bible thumper in rural Mississippi to tell Massachusetts what to do.

I agree with this concept in theory, but what happens when someone crosses state lines? does their marriage dissolve?

and while I understand we can just chalk this up to choice.........meaning they don't really have to move to bible thumperville if they choose not to right??

but doesn't that get us right back into some persons having greater rights than others in our society??

and doesn't this put a greater potential strain/complication on the children of these ambiguous marriages when they dissolve?? if parent A simply takes said kiddos and moves to bible thumperland they are officially single again right? does parent B suddenly have no rights to said kiddos??

see how this could be more complicated than it initially sounds?

 

[alphamale]

Interesting article:

So are the numbers skewed or are viewpoints changing?

I believe it's a fallacy to lump this as a left v right debate anyway. Yes, there are large chunks that can be divided along those lines, but there's enough crossover that makes the blanket statement incorrect.

The point was that it is tradition for liberals to call the conservative position on many issues, supported by either majorities or large minorities, the position of the "radical, extreme, far out, way way out on a limb, right rightwing".

 

[millsy]

I'd be the first to admit women are forging uphill still in our society

I do not see how a supportive, intimate, loving relationship with several other persons (of whatever gender) is going to hold them back from this uphill inertia...........unless you're asserting that all matings of women to men (1, 2, 3 or 10) are problematic.

I'm *married* (w/o legal backing of course) to two men and am not held back by either..........in fact both are much more feministic than myself, to be quite honest. I am well educated and free to engage in whatever pursuits I wish with their complete backing. just how am I being oppressed?

if you're referring to the religious form of poly where an older man marries scads of younger, often related, usually under educated, generally still minors at the time of their marriage wives, proceeds to divorce each in turn (so he won't go to jail) and allows each to collect welfare, food stamps etc and forces them to live in close confines with little life opportunities and/or exposure to the outside world, you are missing out on the secular poly community entirely. there you find women with educations and careers who aren't the least bit sheltered, nor have they ended up in their poly relationship because it was the only life choice they could make. it's unfair to bias against the whole group because of the actions of one faction, at least imho.

You're a woman who's married to two men? That puts you in position of power. You are dependent in no way whatsoever to either ONE because you have a fully capable OTHER sitting right around the corner. Also they have to Vie for your attention. I have no problem with that scenario.

If it's the other way around however (and this is what you were alluding to in your second example I believe) then women are again kept under a man's thumb. And I believe when people outside of the "poly" world think of polygamy this is what comes to mind. I am completely against this.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to see poly marriages legalized because I believe the second scenario going to be more prevalent.

If anybody wants to call my a hypocrite for thinking it's OK for women be in a position of power, but not men, read a history book. Putting a woman in a position of power levels the playing Field, it doesn't tilt it.

 

[KCConservative]

But.....one criticism if I might. I really don't like your new signature (and I know that you probably don't care what I like).....but come on. The guys been out of office for 6 years. Why are you guys on the right still so obsessed with his sexual escapades? He's not going to be re-elected.

You're asking the wrong person. Ask the author of the quote.

 

[nineplus]

You're a woman who's married to two men? That puts you in position of power. You are dependent in no way whatsoever to either ONE because you have a fully capable OTHER sitting right around the corner. Also they have to Vie for your attention. I have no problem with that scenario.

If it's the other way around however (and this is what you were alluding to in your second example I believe) then women are again kept under a man's thumb. And I believe when people outside of the "poly" world think of polygamy this is what comes to mind. I am completely against this.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to see poly marriages legalized because I believe the second scenario going to be more prevalent.

If anybody wants to call my a hypocrite for thinking it's OK for women be in a position of power, but not men, read a history book. Putting a woman in a position of power levels the playing Field, it doesn't tilt it.

I have no intention of name calling, and I appreciate your continued perspective, but I do wish to open your eyes to other potentials if you're still willing to listen.

There isn't me with my two guys form of poly and one man with many oppressed wives type of poly and nothing else. Yes, I'm with two men, but no, they don't vie for my attention and to be quite frank I'm not dependent financially on EITHER one. There are plenty of other women like me out there in poly relationships (with one man or two men or in groups of women or whatever) who aren't dependent on the other persons they are intimate with. There isn't just my type of "okay" poly and the religious form of poly is my point.

And, for whatever it is worth, bisexuality is a common theme with secular poly. I am NOT claiming it's always present, but my point is that many women really wish for the FMF triad type of arrangement (one man, two women) because of their bisexual orientation. These are not religious women, necessary, nor are they dependent on the man. I can assure you there is all sorts of configurations among poly seculars and I've never seen anything even remotely close to women being oppressed in these relationships.

When you look at the extremely religious versions of poly as your only example, it's easy to see why such a strong bias can be held against poly relationships. I'm positive I'd feel the same way because I do NOT like seeing young girls married off by their parents to older men because of some religious conviction. I don't like to see their opportunities limited by the confines of their marriage and/or churches. It isn't fair to judge other poly relationships via this standard, however, because there are loads and loads of secular poly persons out there living quite differently from what you fear.

And in terms of saying my marriage wouldn't bother you, but you wouldn't wish to legalize poly because of how other relationships might be, think about it this way...........should all marriage be illegal because some men leave their families high and dry? Or because some men hit? Or keep their wives on a short leash? Or, or, or..........all the things we know to go on in our society in mono marriages? It's like throwing at the baby with the bath water when you look at the worst possible example and react based solely on that premise.

 

[Donkey1499]

You're asking the wrong person. Ask the author of the quote.

Perjury is not sub sandwich either......

 

[ChristopherHall]

Here's my issue. If Gay Marriage were legalized, homosexuality would have to be taught in public schools as being a valid alternative lifestyle. In addition we may see laws, as in Canada, where a minister cannot preach that homosexuality is a sin.

If gays married, how could we keep the public schools from becoming indoctrination camps for liberal values that directly contradict the family values taught at home by traditional parents?

If gays married, how could we prevent pastors, churches, mosques, etc. from being sued for "hate speech" or discrimination when merely teaching the values of their faith in regards to sexuality?

I fear that legalization of gay marriage would open a war against traditional religious faith in the courts. I also believe that traditional families holding traditional family values would become second class citizens.

It would disrupt our entire social fabric.

 

[Donkey1499]

Here's my issue. If Gay Marriage were legalized, homosexuality would have to be taught in public schools as being a valid alternative lifestyle. In addition we may see laws, as in Canada, where a minister cannot preach that homosexuality is a sin.

If gays married, how could we keep the public schools from becoming indoctrination camps for liberal values that directly contradict the family values taught at home by traditional parents?

If gays married, how could we prevent pastors, churches, mosques, etc. from being sued for "hate speech" or discrimination when merely teaching the values of their faith in regards to sexuality?

I fear that legalization of gay marriage would open a war against traditional religious faith in the courts. I also believe that traditional families holding traditional family values would become second class citizens.

It would disrupt our entire social fabric.

Uh, reality czech! most schools out there are liberal indoctrinated, at least the colleges anyway. It's just the way things are. And about homosexualism being forced down the throats of our youngins as an accepted alternative lifestyle, it's already being done and is quite successful. But just because it's taught to be accepted it doesn't mean that they have to be gay. That's what's great about America. The diversity and the choices one can make. Although some have too many freedoms, but that's for another thread.

 

[ChristopherHall]

Uh, reality czech! most schools out there are liberal indoctrinated, at least the colleges anyway. It's just the way things are. And about homosexualism being forced down the throats of our youngins as an accepted alternative lifestyle, it's already being done and is quite successful. But just because it's taught to be accepted it doesn't mean that they have to be gay. That's what's great about America. The diversity and the choices one can make. Although some have too many freedoms, but that's for another thread.

I'm primarily talking about Middle School and High School level education. Yes, the schools do have a liberal bent when it comes to favoring government programs and the like. Most Middle and High Schools in our area do not actually teach that homosexuality is acceptable as part of the official curriculum. If expressed at all it's expressed as the teacher's opinion. However if gay marriage became legal curriculum advancing homosexual acceptance would sweep the nation.

You also didn't answer my question regarding how legalization of gay marriage would lead to a wave of "hate speech" and discrimination charges against traditional religious institutions of all more conservative faiths.