The INDEFENSIBLE Defense of Marriage Act

[Bob Kohm]

So IOW, whoever doesn't post in this thread is a bigot

Sadly we do have a few of them.

[In the Corn]

Sadly we do have a few of them.

Come on, name names.

[Stephen]

Posting in order to renew my Non-Bigot exemption.

[DJBeasties]

We all love turtles in here

[JudeBaldo]

Posting in order to renew my Non-Bigot exemption.

LOL. Don't you like musicals? Then there's no way you're a bigot. Well except maybe when it comes to good taste. ;-)

[johnnya24]

... and in a slightly related story:

Alan Turing Refused Pardon For Gay Sex Act Conviction in 1952

Government refuses to grant a pardon because (a) the law says it's if an act was considered a crime at the time of sentencing, then a pardon should not be awarded, or (b) they don't want to have to pardon 1000's of others who may be in the same situation, or have been convicted of other outdated laws.

[Bob Kohm]

Come on, name names.

That's OK, they know who they are

[Stephen]

LOL. Don't you like musicals? Then there's no way you're a bigot. Well except maybe when it comes to good taste. ;-)

Touche!

Or was it Douche! I'm not sure.

[In the Corn]

That's OK, they know who they are

That's the problem no one thinks they are. Sometimes you have to confront them.

[JudeBaldo]

Touche!

Or was it Douche! I'm not sure.

LOL nice.

[Fresno Bob]

Damn iPad, it's next to impossible to post pics of lipstick lesbians kissing from it.....ok, I like the skater dykes too.....

[Judge Jude]

from the peanut gallery, yet has a bag of popcorn ready:

assuming we settle in completely on marriage is any two people who want to sign up (and I will lose no sleep over this change).

- What would be the rationale for not allowing three people to enter into a marriage together?

"Because marriage is about TWO people - any two people."
"Ok, but I thought it was two opposite-sex people until a minute ago, and that was narrow-minded. But limiting this to two people is NOT narrow-minded?"

It reminds me a little of the health care mandate of having to buy insurance - if you support the concept, you need that revenue. But since when does the government get to force you to buy ANYTHING (car insurance doesn't count, obviously) - and do we really want to go down that road? I don't know.

I totally get why gay couples want the same marital status. But are they going to then shut the door behind them - no three-person weddings?

Mostly philosophical stuff here, obviously. I think the pro-gay marriage folks are getting off too easy here.

Where does the line get drawn - and why?

Those who pushed for status quo on basis of opposite genders are bigots, but insisting on only 2 people being in a marriage is perfectly tolerant? Discuss.

[DMT]

JJ, what are you talking about regarding government not forcing us to buy anything? Your exception for car insurance is the most blatant contradiction, but what are taxes but forced payments to fund our government?

As for your comparison of gay marriage to polygamy, on a personal level, I have no problem with either. However, from a societal perspective, linking two lives is complicated enough, increasing that number beyond two would make family law exponentially more complex.

[Judge Jude]

Well, plenty of people don't pay any federal income taxes.
And if you want to live off your own land, how much taxes are you paying?
Car insurance is not a contradiction because if you don't buy a car, you don't have to pay any car insurance.

"As for your comparison of gay marriage to polygamy, on a personal level, I have no problem with either. However, from a societal perspective, linking two lives is complicated enough, increasing that number beyond two would make family law exponentially more complex."

I understand your point, but opponents of same-sex marriage also said that traditional marriage was complicated enough, etc.

Seems like sometimes, people want to say that gaining their own rights is no problem, but yeah, maybe the next step is too far.
Seems a little convenient.

Overall, I agree with you, but not sure I could win on merits against someone advocating for 3-person marriage.

I think it's clear that I don't have a firm agenda here; I do hope to walk this through until I see why one barrier must fall but the next one should remain. I'm seeing that same agenda, one step shorter, collapsing upon itself. How do we get comfortable with the exact dividing line?

separate by race, no
separate by gender, no
separate by number - whoa, of course we do. It's only right...

[Teenwolf]

While I doubt that allowing gay marriage is the first step towards people having 7 wives or marrying their livestock, why should we care? Marriage itself is a pretty outdated patriarchal tradition in need of a massive overhaul.

Also, people would never be allowed to marry multiple people or animals because it would create too many possible tax loopholes. Pretty straightforward.