Romney or Obama and why

[killerzX]

bluesinG said:

killerzX said:

bluesinG said:

killerzX said:

bluesinG said:

Mr Khan said:

killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

you keep defaulting to multiple women, one guy. that is not the only polygamist relationship. but going along you logic, you would be fine if the law was 5 women and 5 men can get married.

the chances of a homosexual couple completely loving each other and no one esle is very unlikely. so therefore, by your logic they should not be married.

but most of all, you have a completely ridiculous premise that marriage should only be legal if everyone loves each other 100% equally. you cant legislate that, you cant enforce that, there is no way to determine that. its impossible.

you have a very arbitrary definition of marriage, one that is often not met by both gay and heterosexual couples.

Let me clarify my position. My position is not that everyone needs to love each other 100% equally. My position is that the marriage partnership should not be *unequal by definition*.

Multiple women and one man would be *unequal by definition*, because all of the women would be sharing the one man. Multiple men and one woman would also be *unequal by definition*, because all of the men would be sharing the one man.

One man and one man is *not* unequal by definition. One woman and one woman is *not* unequal by definition.

Before moving on, do you accept that multiple men and one woman, or multiple women and one man, is an unequal partnership by definition?

let me debunk your very arbitrary definition. a definition that can not, could not be enforced. can not be measured by any standard. there is no way to say how much someone loves another. what if a married group of 2 men and one women claims that the each one loves each other 50%. man A loves man B 50% and woman 50%, Man B loves Man A 50% and woman 50%, woman loves man A 50% and man B 50%. that would be equal. but how do you measure that, how to you enforce that. how can you possibly legislate that.

i will debunk it using your own words:

Marriage is simply "the state of being united in a consensual or contractual relationship recognized by law."

 i will also quote Kaz

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.