Would you have a second wife?

[daman]

If 3 adults want to marry each other, why can't it be so?

[Miyabi]

This doesn't belong here, it belongs in Rants and Stuff


EDIT:

Also, in response to the question at hand.

It is for the same reason's many people didn't want to allow gays to marry.  The things they are associated with through ignorance.  Many people hear polygamy and instantly associate it with marrying young girls off that aren't willing to be wed at that point in time.  The same way people hear the word gay and instantly assume pedophilia.

[Wolfstar]

No, but not for a religious reason.  I have yet to connect with someone on the level that I think would be necessary for a marriage to work long-term, and then maintaining that relationship, growing and understanding each other together takes a lifetime as well.  In short, if I married twice, I don't think I could maintain the relationship in a way that would be fair to both women.

Just me knowing how I am.  I don't condemn it, I just don't think I could handle it.

[Eerongal]

No, *I* probably wouldn't, however, I personally think people should be allowed to if they want to. This goes into the realm of people pushing their views off on others, as a side note, I also think gays should be allowed to wed.

[IngtarWhoStoleChristmas]

Not a chance. I have one, that's all I can handle thank you very much!

[Miyabi]

No, *I* probably wouldn't, however, I personally think people should be allowed to if they want to. This goes into the realm of people pushing their views off on others, as a side note, I also think gays should be allowed to wed.

They're staring to. Soon it will be everywhere. I assume it won't too long after that polygamy gets more attention.

[Eerongal]

No, *I* probably wouldn't, however, I personally think people should be allowed to if they want to. This goes into the realm of people pushing their views off on others, as a side note, I also think gays should be allowed to wed.

They're staring to. Soon it will be everywhere. I assume it won't too long after that polygamy gets more attention.

yeah, but it seems like everytime they get a step ahead, something and/or someone comes along and forces them back again.

[Miyabi]

Well right now we have basically a completely liberal govenment and the way states are moving for gay marriag now is through the courts. (will link when I'm on a computer). This way is much better and more efficient. Polygamists would do well to move this way as well.

[Patriotic Kaz]

I understand why the law is the way it is man is jealous ect. the chances of it working are very slim... still I voted maybe

[Miyabi]

Here is a link that is talking about the recent pass of gay marriage legislation in Vermont.  I can't find the one that spent a good portion talking about how it was passed.  This one mentions it briefly, but it isn't the one I initially read.

[Eerongal]

Here is a link that is talking about the recent pass of gay marriage legislation in Vermont.  I can't find the one that spent a good portion talking about how it was passed.  This one mentions it briefly, but it isn't the one I initially read.

heh, anyone else find it funny that the article is like "Vermont barely passes same-sex marriage proposal. In other news, Sweden passes same proposal by a landslide."

[Eleaneth]

Really, I don't think it's the government's place to define marriage. I think the best system would be for the government to hand out civil unions for anyone who wants to live together and merge their finances. Then churches and individuals can get married and then go get a civil union from the government. That also means that everyone can choose how they define marriage.

[Skar]

An excellent solution Eleaneth.  My own mental struggles with the issue have arrived at pretty much the same place.

Unfortunately, in other forums, when I bring up the idea of removing government's role in 'marriage' altogether (leaving 'marriage' solely to religious institutions and 'civil unions' solely to government) I have met with frothy hatred from the proponents of same-sex marriage.  From what I've seen and been told with great force, same-sex couples "Don't want civil unions, they want to be 'married'"

I'm curious to the opinions around here.  What is the same sex objection to marriage=religious civilunion=government proposal?

I suspect in some of the cases I've run across it's nothing more than a desire to stick it to those hateful bigoted straights, hah, look at me I'm gay and MARRIED how do you like them apples?

Is there a more reasoned objection?

[Eerongal]

An excellent solution Eleaneth.  My own mental struggles with the issue have arrived at pretty much the same place.

Unfortunately, in other forums, when I bring up the idea of removing government's role in 'marriage' altogether (leaving 'marriage' solely to religious institutions and 'civil unions' solely to government) I have met with frothy hatred from the proponents of same-sex marriage.  From what I've seen and been told with great force, same-sex couples "Don't want civil unions, they want to be 'married'"

I'm curious to the opinions around here.  What is the same sex objection to marriage=religious civilunion=government proposal?

I suspect in some of the cases I've run across it's nothing more than a desire to stick it to those hateful bigoted straights, hah, look at me I'm gay and MARRIED how do you like them apples?

Is there a more reasoned objection?

I think it's more of a "second class citizen" thing. That is, if they cant get *MARRIED* like everyone else, then they have to choose the alternative that they're restricted to, "Civil-Unions", which makes them feel discriminated against.

Personally, though, that wouldn't matter to me. If for whatever reason i wasnt allowed to get "Married", but i had the option for a "Civil-union", i'd do it. The reasoning would be like this: Does it function exactly like marriage, insofar as legal and fiscal obligations, and are we recognized as being "Together" and all that? If yes, then that's fine with me. A label doesnt mean anything to me, but im sure it does very much so to others.

Though, i wouldnt mind at all if "Marriage" became regulated by each individual religion, and "Civil-union" became a governmental thing. Personally, I think that's how it should be, anyways. Keeps religion out of the government, and the specifics of marriage is left up to the religion that governs their particular version, and the government can hand out the generic versions for those who don't care/can't.

[Silk]

Skar: I think the idea - and the name - of marriage is important to a lot of people. Marriage has connotations of intimacy etcetera that "civil union" does not.  You don't grow up looking forward to a nice, happy civil union one day; you grow up thinking that one day you'll be married.

Even if it's a distinction in name only, it's still a distinction for a lot of people.

Besides, if two same-sex people want to get married, if we're all equal, why should they have to call it something different?

(Note: I mean that last comment as a part of the mentality that I think goes into the marriage vs civil union debate, and not to reignite the same-sex marriage issue as a whole.)