Polygamy

[armaghniac]

First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.

Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.

Marriage isn't broken, there is no need to change it and it is an important thing and shouldn't be fiddled with lightly.

Secondly, any law that prevents ANY pairing from entering into marriage is very obviously defining "marriage". If you're not legally entitled to marry a person of another race, then any relationship you have with that person, even if you got legally married in another jurisdiction, cannot be considered a marriage under the law.

This is only playing with words. Prohibiting mixed race marriage had no relevance to the present debate.

If you're talking about marriage as defined by the catholic church or whatever, fine, just say so. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate however.

This has nothing particularly to do with the Catholic church, marriage isn't that different in different societies and religions.

And given that you've spent the last two weeks trying to make the case that gay couples should NOT be entitled to the fiscal and other benefits of marriage, how can you argue now that its merely about a label?

It is a label which describes a package of legal rights and obligations. My reference to it being a label was a reference to the fact that it is no way affects the conduct of the relationship itself, despite all the hype that people being together and so on. Prohibitions on mixed race marriages included people "living as man and wife" and so were intended to preclude the relationship, but then I'm sure that you know this very well.

[J70]

First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.

Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.

Marriage isn't broken, there is no need to change it and it is an important thing and shouldn't be fiddled with lightly.

Who is fiddling with it? We're extending the rights to another group of people. Those already entitled to it will not be affected in the slightest. Nothing is going to change for heterosexual marriage.

Unless you're finally going to explain how permitting gay marriage is going to "undermine" heterosexual marriage?

Secondly, any law that prevents ANY pairing from entering into marriage is very obviously defining "marriage". If you're not legally entitled to marry a person of another race, then any relationship you have with that person, even if you got legally married in another jurisdiction, cannot be considered a marriage under the law.

This is only playing with words. Prohibiting mixed race marriage had no relevance to the present debate.

Playing with words? You're the one going about changing the definition. I'm merely pointing out that it has been changed in the past, with no ill effect, once prejudice had been faced down. Just like it will this time.

If you're talking about marriage as defined by the catholic church or whatever, fine, just say so. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate however.

This has nothing particularly to do with the Catholic church, marriage isn't that different in different societies and religions.

Apart from those that currently and historically practiced various forms of polygamy

And given that you've spent the last two weeks trying to make the case that gay couples should NOT be entitled to the fiscal and other benefits of marriage, how can you argue now that its merely about a label?

It is a label which describes a package of legal rights and obligations. My reference to it being a label was a reference to the fact that it is no way affects the conduct of the relationship itself, despite all the hype that people being together and so on. Prohibitions on mixed race marriages included people "living as man and wife" and so were intended to preclude the relationship, but then I'm sure that you know this very well.

Well then its not "just" a label then, is it? And the whole point is that the gay couples will also be entitled to the extra privileges that heterosexual married people are.

On the second issue, my point stands. Opposition to gay marriage is motivated by prejudice. Whether or not society has left the opponents behind in the progress made in gay rights so far doesn't change that. Marriage is just another line in the sand for them. Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is against another race or against gay people.

BTW, why do you care whether or not gay couples get tax benefits?

[J70]

On the benefits issue, in the US, same-sex couples now receive the same protections as heterosexual couples under the Family and Medical Leave Act when caring for a spouse with a serious illness. Basically means they can take unpaid leave to look after their loved ones, but keep their job, just like other couples.

Just one very important reason that allowing same-sex couples to actually marry matters.

[seafoid]

First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.

Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.

Marriage isn't broken, there is no need to change it and it is an important thing and shouldn't be fiddled with lightly.

Smalltown boy was released in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuz94ZIPfJk

Life for gay people in Ireland and the UK has changed enormously since then, for the better.
They should be allowed to get married and share the benefits afforded to the rest of society

[armaghniac]

Q: What is the music at a polygamous wedding?
A: I do, I do, I do.

[Eamonnca1]

Q: What is the music at a polygamous wedding?
A: I do, I do, I do.

Excellent. Take the rest of the week off!

[armaghniac]

Q: What is the music at a polygamous wedding?
A: I do, I do, I do.

Excellent. Take the rest of the week off!

It being Saturday, I think I will.

[ludermor]

Not sure if this is the best place to put this link but it might make a few heads explode.
http://skeleton-love.diply.com/auntyacid/kissing-skeletons-love-has-no-labels/101140

[Eamonnca1]

If you'd found three girls doing that then it'd be the right thread. That's your assignment. Away you go.