Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
...first off its my opinion, so you are welcome to state your own, but there is no need to attack mine. my point of view is that God made marriage as a thing for a man and a wife, in certain ways men and women fit together (not just in a physical sense). what complicates it is that people want to get married because they get financial benefits and society is more accepting of married people. why does a gay couple need to get married? i still think guys having sex together is not what God intended, but if they want to then thats what they want to do. why get married? same thing with marrying multiple partners, why marriage? cant they just commit to the other person? isnt marriage a commitment to one other person? a guy is supposed to just have sex with his wife, not other women(or men). same thing the other way around. again, my opinion/beliefs here.
the argument of course is that people should be allowed to do what they want...come up with a new term or something for a permanent(how permanent is marriage nowadays tho) union that isnt marriage but essentially the same thing. if people want to get married, who is the governement to stop them as consenting adults, as was stated by another poster. its a valid argument, which is why im not going to protest it or something, but i would still vote against it. i hope that makes sense.
|
And this is a great example of the type of arguments that were raised against gay marriage and that, when they failed, paved the way for the polygamy argument.
Calgaryrocks' point comes from a religious view of marriage. But, one religion shouldn't dictate the laws of a secular state, nor the practices of another religion. So the argument from religion fails with respect to polygamy just as it failed with respect to gay marriage.
The next argument is the tradition argument. Marriage was always between two people: a man and a woman. That argument was rejected with respect to gay marriage, which effectively redefined marriage as between two people, regardless of gender. But if marriage can be between two men or two women, why not two men
and two women? The argument that "marriage has always been between two people" is just as fragile as the one-man-one-woman argument.
Power imbalances and abusive scenarios aside, what basis remains for rejecting a 3 way marriage?