Should we widen the definition of mar...

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-23-2004
Should we widen the definition of mar...
11
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 10:20am
Who should be allowed to marry or enter into civil unions?

Only one man and one woman, both consenting adults.

Any two people, both consenting adults.

Same-sex couples and polygamists, all consenting adults.

Any two people or group of people, all consenting adults.

You will be able to change your vote.




Edited 11/7/2004 6:39 pm ET ET by kathyb1974

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 11:23am

I can't vote.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 11:53am

Exactly.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Avatar for mom2noodles
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 2:29pm

I agree as well.

Carrie, Mom of Alex & Anna

 <

Avatar for kynvelyn2
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2003
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 2:38pm
The first thing you have to do is decide whether you want this to be a legal issue or a religious issue.

No "Marriage Licenses" should be issued by the states if the various religions want to claim it as a right or sacrament. In this case, if one wants a marriage certificate, it should be issued by one's own church and only have the priveleges bestowed by one's own church.

If marriage is to be a legal issue, then the religions need to relinquish all objections based solely on religious grounds. In which case, it is a legal contract to be entered into by 2 concenting adult humans who are not other wise related by blood.

Using this definition, you cannot argue slippery slope - ie: poligamy (you have defined how many may enter into this contract), humans marrying animals or inanimate objects (because neither animals, nor inanimate objects are able to enter into a binding contract), brothers marrying sisters (because there are logical, genetic reasons to prohibit such a marriage - unless you are going to order one or both participants to be steralized)

(Well, I suppose you could argue them, but then again, you can argue anything you want to.)

If you are going relegate gays to civil unions, then not only should they be able to have the same (equal) rights as hetro-marriages, but those rights should be as easily obtained. In otherwords, by going to the license bureau and obtaining this civil union, they will immediately have all the rights that they are entitled to without having to enlist lawyers and go to court.

Just my $.02

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2003
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 9:01pm
--If marriage is to be a legal issue, then the religions need to relinquish all objections based solely on religious grounds. In which case, it is a legal contract to be entered into by 2 concenting adult humans who are not other wise related by blood.--

This is your definition of what marriage should be. Why would your definition be used and not someone who wants a group marriage? Or someone who wants it to be one man and one woman? I know I keep coming back to this (on other threads) but I havn't heard an answer that convinces me yet.

Avatar for kynvelyn2
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2003
Sun, 11-07-2004 - 10:54pm
Let's say we use the definition of one man/one woman. What is to prevent a brother and sister? Or a father and a daughter? Slippery slope arguments can be used on either side.

The definition of two adult humans limits the number of participants in the contract to two. As does the one man/one woman. (No polygamy)

The definiton of concenting adult humans limits the participants to .... humans; as does the one man/one woman. (No marriages with dogs or cars)

The definition of humans who are not otherwise related by blood limits the possibility of procreating children with severe genetic anomalies; one man/one woman in and of itself does not do this. (No dads with daughters, or genetic brothers and sisters)

(Did I miss a ridiculous, slippery arguement in there)

This definition does not exclude from one group of people one set of rights, and then promise different (but equivelent) rights but at a higher price in both time and money.



Maybe I am saying this badly... It's late for me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2003
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 12:08am
But why two only? Who gets to decide the number? Why is 2 better than 3 or 4?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 2:13am
***Standing up and applauding***

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-23-2004
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 3:31pm
<<<<>>>>

There are already state laws limiting what relatives are allowed to marry each other, different in different states, some are first cousins, some second cousins, I think there are other ones too.

KathyB

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-19-2004
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 3:33pm
No ;0)

Pages