Would "gay marriage" open a door that should stay shut?

On another message board that I frequent that deals with politics and social issues the subject of gay marriage comes up semi-often and one of the most interesting takes on why someone didn't want to see it happen was because if we were to change the definition of marriage meaning 1 man and 1 woman it would open the door for other types of arrangements (such as polygamy) that many people, even supporters of gay marriage, find to be unacceptable.

As I haven't seen this angle brought up here (possible I missed it, I'm new...) I thought I'd toss it out there and see what others think.

For the record, I'll give my position on gay marriage so that any hidden agenda I may be harboring will be exposed. Personally, I don't think the state should be in the marriage business. I think that what we now call marriage should be redefined as a civil union and any 2 people* should be allowed to get one. If you want to be married I think that should be a separate deal that is between the parties involved and the church/whatever organization chooses to sanction the marriage.

* Uh oh, now I've gone and left the door open for blood relatives to get hitched, this is complicated stuff. :)

Anyway, if you choose to respond this I'd really appreciate it if you could stay to the main subject and leave picking apart my personal position for another time/thread (feel free to start it if it'll make your day brighter) as I only included it for background and transparency.


Discuss!

Not to pick your comments apart (LOL) but unless I'm mistaken, it's legal for blood relatives to marry in some states.

And you're right. I don't think polygamy has been discussed here before. I think we can all agree that polygamy would be an entirely different debate, although there probably will not be an agreement on the percentages of people on either side of that one. Does leagizing gay marriage open the door to polygamy? Maybe. But certainly not immediately. Would any state that is against gay marriage even entertain the thought of legalizing polygamy? Doubtful.

For the record, I'm straight and married, but I support gay rights and gay marriage.

Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'll write to my congressperson this simple comment:
Don't same sex couples have a right to a bitter, messy divorce?

Polygamy? Sure. Why not? As long as everyone is loving and accepting, go for it. "Love." Isn't that what it's all about?



On a side note, I always get a chuckle when I hear people talk about gays like it's a disease. If it really were a disease, wouldn't you be happy that they are taking themselves out of the gene pool?

It doesn't have to open the door to other forms of marriage. In Canada, the 'bill' that legalized same-sex marriage is called the Civil Marriage Act.

It's main highlight is this definition of marriage:

"Marriage - certain aspects of capacity

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. "

No polygamy.

You'd be surprised how little market there is for polygamy.

I will say this. What you do at the courthouse or a drive up chapel is what I would term a civil union. What I would term a marriage is a religious celebration between two people stating their intentions before God. I am all for gay couples who choose that lifestyle and wish to spend the rest of their life with their partner to be able to sign up for joint health insurance accounts, be able to file their taxes jointly and all that stuff, but to ask a preacher to perform a celebration of Holy Matrimony, when the church he is serving is blantantly against that, is asking to much and is a direct violation of my religious freedom.

Gabes -

How would a gay church marriage, between two people you do not know and have never met, be against YOUR religious freedom?

Would it be correct to assume that you're not against a gay church wedding if the church itself is not against gay marriage?

Quote: Gabes22

[..] but to ask a preacher to perform a celebration of Holy Matrimony, when the church he is serving is blantantly against that, is asking to much and is a direct violation of my religious freedom.

I'm against compelling a church of any kind to perform any ceremony that goes against its institutional beliefs. That would be a violation of religious freedom. But merely asking a church or a priest, as long as they can refuse, is not even unethical (unless it's done as nuissance).

Teddy Bear, correct, if said church were not against Gay Marriage, I am not against it, but if a couple decides to get married in say the Catholic Church, which I am a member of, I am wholeheartedly against it.

I am all for asking for things. But just be prepared to be shot down by said church. I know in the Catholic Church, in which I belong, priests won't even do an outdoor wedding (as we tried to get last October).

Quote: Nareed

I'm against compelling a church of any kind to perform any ceremony that goes against its institutional beliefs. That would be a violation of religious freedom. But merely asking a church or a priest, as long as they can refuse, is not even unethical (unless it's done as nuissance).

You should all move to Canada:

" Religious officials

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. "

I think it opens the door to Slavery again. Historically, one could say that both Slavery and Same-Sex marriage are not expressly prohibited in the Bible. Though there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and many stories about indebted servitude.

Gabes -

I'm kinda surprised that you would look for an outdoor wedding. A Catholic wedding requires a mass, which means an indoor church wedding.


dwheatley -

While I don't know of any specific law, why would anyone want to force an officiant to do their wedding if the officiant was reluctant to perform?

Quote: dwheatley

You should all move to Canada:

" Religious officials

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. "

Wasn't the inclusion of a similar statement the last thing needed to get New York to recognize same-sex marriages? IIRC, it was one vote short of passage in one of the houses of New York's legislature, because a couple of members were afraid that, as written, if a church refused to marry a same-sex couple, it could have its tax-exempt status revoked on discrimination grounds.

Besides - if you think your church has a problem because of this, go form another church. Isn't "I have a problem with the existing religions" the reason pretty much every church exists?

Life is so short. You should live it however you want. Whatever brings peace and harmony.

I am gay tolerant.

Quote: Abram27

I am gay tolerant.

Although I'm straight myself and I like women. By the way, babes from the MFC sex cam categorysatisfy me the best. It's hard to find a sexual partner during quarantine, so webcams are the best option.

LGBT and the Church are never united when it comes to believing in same-sex relationships. And that makes me sad.

Moreover, to all of the above, I can add the fact that gay relationships and as a phenomenon in general - have ALWAYS existed throughout the history of mankind, in all cultures. To deny that this is strange, unnatural, at least not far-fetched

If I understand the question, forgive if not, the union of two people (whether religious, civil or otherwise) allows two people to decide to be a recognised couple and (say) live together (there may be other things such as tax implications etc.). Some topics on this subject include which kinds of unions are allowed for same/different sex couples, whether all such unions are treated the same by the state. But the question is whether allowing same sex unions would lead to more polygamy.

Assuming this is a mathematical question, besides it is a mathematical forum....

On the surface I can see a mathematical difference, all else being equal, between a couple "XX" and a couple "XY" turning into XXX XXY or XYY. Assuming a couple wanted to turn into a threesome (where I live you can't marry a third person, but let's assume you live in a country where you can) then for a "XX" couple to add another "X" both parties, presumably, would be relatively willing. It seems less likely, unless an arrangement to allow a natural parent, to go to "XXY". However for a "XY" couple it is likely that "X" might be happy with an extra "Y", but "Y" might not. So at a guess it seems more likely that "XX" pairs would turn into a triple than "XY".

Personally take it normally. Believe that this is the business of every person. However, I don't like that it is being popularized and wants us to think it's cool.