Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Gay Marriage and the law of unintended consequences...

Thoran · 12-03-2003, 10:20 AM

A week or two ago when the decision in Maryland regarding Gay Marriage came out, I recall having a brief debate with my wife regarding the dangers of the decision. As I thought about it I knew the idea bothered me, but we both have gay friends and they're all great people... why shouldn't they be afforded all the rights of other couples in long term relationships? In the end, I concluded that my concern isn't so much with the idea of Gays being married (or legally partnered or whatever you want to call it), but rather with the resulting weakening of the concept of "Marrige" that would result from stretching a term that has meant "man and woman" for a very long time. Once you step away from this limited definition... where does the stepping stop? I framed this question with a problem for my wife (who was holding the position that there's nothing at all wrong with the idea of Gay marriage, and it should be allowed). "What is the difference between allowing gay men to marry and allowing polygamy?". The answer: not much. In the first case we're changing "a man and women" to "two loving partners"... in the second case we're changing "two loving partners" to "two or more loving partners".

And just to prove that I'm not the only human capable of connecting 1 and 1 to get 2... this article pops out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/0....ap/index.html

Jen tried to argue that Gay marriage would still be between two people and thus was different than polygamy... but that's a red herring. Gay Marrige is different from traditional marriage too, yet our courts have determined that they can't say it's wrong, so from what position can the courts choose to say that one difference is fine and another is not. They seem to be saying that our government should not be in the business of defining and ordering the private lives of people... but if that's the case then how do they justify anti-polygamy laws. Seems to me they can't.

Now I'm assuming all parties are consenting adults, what happens the first time a polygamist goes to Maryland courts using the Gay ruling as prescedent to say the courts should stay out of thier private life?

What comes after that... lonely old women marrying their cats? [img]smile.gif[/img]

12-03-2003, 10:20 AM	#1
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 57 Posts: 2,109	A week or two ago when the decision in Maryland regarding Gay Marriage came out, I recall having a brief debate with my wife regarding the dangers of the decision. As I thought about it I knew the idea bothered me, but we both have gay friends and they're all great people... why shouldn't they be afforded all the rights of other couples in long term relationships? In the end, I concluded that my concern isn't so much with the idea of Gays being married (or legally partnered or whatever you want to call it), but rather with the resulting weakening of the concept of "Marrige" that would result from stretching a term that has meant "man and woman" for a very long time. Once you step away from this limited definition... where does the stepping stop? I framed this question with a problem for my wife (who was holding the position that there's nothing at all wrong with the idea of Gay marriage, and it should be allowed). "What is the difference between allowing gay men to marry and allowing polygamy?". The answer: not much. In the first case we're changing "a man and women" to "two loving partners"... in the second case we're changing "two loving partners" to "two or more loving partners". And just to prove that I'm not the only human capable of connecting 1 and 1 to get 2... this article pops out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/0....ap/index.html Jen tried to argue that Gay marriage would still be between two people and thus was different than polygamy... but that's a red herring. Gay Marrige is different from traditional marriage too, yet our courts have determined that they can't say it's wrong, so from what position can the courts choose to say that one difference is fine and another is not. They seem to be saying that our government should not be in the business of defining and ordering the private lives of people... but if that's the case then how do they justify anti-polygamy laws. Seems to me they can't. Now I'm assuming all parties are consenting adults, what happens the first time a polygamist goes to Maryland courts using the Gay ruling as prescedent to say the courts should stay out of thier private life? What comes after that... lonely old women marrying their cats? [img]smile.gif[/img]