For God's sake!

[mudesi]

It's really very simple, people.

The government currently allows two people, one of each sex, to enter into a legal contract called "marriage", where certain rights regarding ownership of assets, judicial protections, taxation, etcetera are granted.

This is discriminatory against people who are gay. One class of people are being denied rights granted to another class of people. It's about equality.

This argument is completely bullet proof. Gay marriage is a no brainer. There is nothing to argue about, there is no other side, there is only what there is. Bringing polygamy into it is nothing more than a change of subject. A red herring. A slippery slope logical fallacy.

Stop playing into their hands.

[uppityperson]

1. k&r

[jimshoes]

2. Is there any way to approach such a partnership

in the form of a corporation of sorts. A legal business decision to share everything or some things including health issues, etc. Sort of a "Life Business". I haven't looked into this but perhaps approaching it in a way that avoids marriage all together might be the way to go.

[alphafemale]

3. And now that marriages are recognized in some states, It is unconstitution for other states to....

not recognize them.

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1

Unless I'm totally misreading that...and I suppose I could be.

But wasn't that the reason behind overturning miscegenation laws in the SCOTUS case "Loving vs Virginia?"

[Skittles]

4. hard to believe so many idiots just don't get it, huh ?

worse when they don't even KNOW it's bigotry

[Agony]

5. It IS really really simple...Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Me? I'd leave out the God part tho...

[Rhiannon12866]

6. I agree. What does one have to do with the other? Makes no sense to me...

Legalizing gay marriage is the next logical step in ensuring equality for all of our citizens. Polygamy is a throwback to a couple of hundred years ago when women had no rights, were viewed as property and had no legal rights at all. Who, in their right mind, would condone a return to that? Women in this country fought and died to gain equality and for their right to vote. Do we want to question that decision, too? :crazy:

[smoogatz]

7. Well, there are two ways to look at it. One is based in the Constitution,

in which case the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment would apply, i.e.: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". If that's your outlook--that the U.S. Constitution is actually the law of the land and all within the jurisdictions of the state are guaranteed equal treatment under the law--then yeah, it's a done deal, discussion over. But let's say your outlook is more Biblical in nature, and you believe in protecting and supporting traditional marriage. Well, in the Bible traditional marriage is often polygamous: Old Testament superstars like David, Abraham, Solomon and yes, Moses ALL had multiple wives. So if we're supporting traditional marriage as described in the Bible, we're really supporting polygamy.

[yardwork]

8. Then let the people who want to live in a country ruled by Biblical tenets go form their own country

The United States has a Constitution.

[mondo joe]

9. When you consider all the money and time used to try to keep couples from marrying,

it's really, really sad.

There could have instead been happy married couples, and money to devote to real needs.

[Prophet 451]

10. Actually, you missed something

The standard response is that gay people already enjoy the same right to marry as anyone else, that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

To save you the trouble of constructing a rebuttal, I brought my own:
Firstly, the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" is comparatively recent. There is evidence of occasional same-sex marriages in Europe right through the Middle Ages and any number of societies practiced and still do practice polygamy. Secondly, the same arguement could be as easily applied to interracial marriages, that the law already allowed them the same rights as everyone else to marry someone of their own ethnicity. We did not allow that dodge then and we should not allow it now. Thirdly, there is a reason the phrase "one size fits all" appears in no known constitution, statute or legal ruling. Under the legal principle of mutatis mutandis (roughly "with due alteration of details"), the law has always taken circumstances into account when they were significant enough to render current law obsolete. Fourthly, Loving V Virginia defined marriage as a "fundemental human right". Granted, that case pertained to interacial marriage but see the above arguement. Fifthly, if the state has the right to say I can only marry a woman, it also has the right to say I can only marry some women; or this woman; or this aardvaark. Allowing the state to define who can marry creates a dangerous legal precedent.

Finally, the love between two men or two women is of the same quality as the love between husband and wife. It is so rare in this world to find the one, that one person who completes you. When it does happen, we have no right, legal or moral, to place obstacles in the way. My faith describes creation as a wild dance and if some of us dance with the same sex and some dance with the opposite sex, it's all good. The important part is love, not the transitory physical bodies that love is between.