[DanDaMan]

The Democratic Party is for gay marriage, because they believe that people that love each other should be allowed to marry. Do you support gay marriage and if so, do you support polygamy and marriage between family members if they love each other?

[froggo]

homosexual marriage-yes.
polygamous marriage-no, although I have no problem with polyamorous relationships, I just think marriage between multiple people can get complicated.
incestual marriage- yes.

[DanDaMan]

homosexual marriage-yes.
polygamous marriage-no, although I have no problem with polyamorous relationships, I just think marriage between multiple people can get complicated.
incestual marriage- yes.

So then you think "because they love each other" is an invalid reason. Correct?
Please explain valid reasons to let gay marriage then.

[froggo]

It is not about love of each other, people can love without a little certificate saying so. It is about being able to recieve all the benefits marriage brings. Who gets married for sentimental reasons anymore?

[DanDaMan]

It is not about love of each other, people can love without a little certificate saying so. It is about being able to recieve all the benefits marriage brings.

Polygamists would still be entitled to equal benefits of marriage.
So that rules that out.

[froggo]

As I said it is not the same.
Let us use divorce for example.
Two people separate. Everything gets split.
Let us imagine 12 partners all divorced, partner A, B and C stay married, partner D stays married to Partner A and Partner E, but to no one else. Partner F and G stay married to Partner B but not to each other, etc.
So you know how overly complicated something like this would be to figure out?
Better to just let them all stay unmarried and just manage their own finances separately.

[DanDaMan]

As I said it is not the same.
Let us use divorce for example.
Two people separate. Everything gets split.
Let us imagine 12 partners all divorced, partner A, B and C stay married, partner D stays married to Partner A and Partner E, but to no one else. Partner F and G stay married to Partner B but not to each other, etc.
So you know how overly complicated something like this would be to figure out?
Better to just let them all stay unmarried and just manage their own finances separately.

Actually, it is the same.
Lawyers get rich and the judge decides it all.
Divorce will be messy no matter what.

Therefore, I fail to see any valid logic for your reason.

[froggo]

aye aye cap-i-tan.

[Jackal]

Homosexual Marriages - Sure. But I believe in letting the masses decide.
Polygamy - No.
Incest - No.

The only reason why I am against the Gay Rights movement is that they claim their human rights are being violated by not being allowed to marry the one they love. On the other hand many are pro-choice, which clearly violates the human right of the baby inside the mother.

[Gitana]

Actually, the real issue is their legal rights in the US.

[Jackal]

Actually, the real issue is their legal rights in the US.

Yes, but they claim its a violation of human rights not to do so. At least that is what the Gay club at my university always protests about.

[Gitana]

Well, in the sense of equality, yes.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

The Democratic Party is for gay marriage, because they believe that people that love each other should be allowed to marry. Do you support gay marriage and if so, do you support polygamy and marriage between family members if they love each other?

In what way will it affect you? Why do you care? Gay relationships will exist with or without the piece of paper so how does it affect your life?

[DanDaMan]

Homosexual Marriages - Sure. But I believe in letting the masses decide.
Polygamy - No.
Incest - No.

Why did you discriminate against the polygamists & the incest!
Do they not get equal rights like homosexuals that have the right to marry who they love!

I find your position extremely prejudiced and not equal to all!

[Wolfman]

The thing some people may or may not realise: marriage between first cousins is legal in several states. And if you add states that have it legal under conditions, it's almost the whole country.

Enough of that:
Gays: there is no reason not to. Therefor, I'm all for it
Polygamy: Against it. See the post of Froggo for my reasons. Added to it is the legal mess of the benefits that come with marriage. Also, it is mainly practiced (to my knowledge) by peoples who have an amassingly low oppion of women. The two seem to coincide quite a bit. And Mormons just creap me out.
Incest: it is a proven fact that incestous relationships produce childern with severe mental or physical disabilities. So, there should be some kind of law concerning how closing two people can be related before they can get married. Not to mention how unconfortable family reunions would be after a divorce. **shudders**

[DanDaMan]

Gays: there is no reason not to. Therefor, I'm all for it
Polygamy: Against it. See the post of Froggo for my reasons. Added to it is the legal mess of the benefits that come with marriage. Also, it is mainly practiced (to my knowledge) by peoples who have an amassingly low oppion of women. The two seem to coincide quite a bit. And Mormons just creap me out.

Just because you THINK divorce would be messy is not enough.
You unjustly discriminate against those that can come to a amicable solution.
So that justification FAILS.

Incest: it is a proven fact that incestous relationships produce childern with severe mental or physical disabilities. So, there should be some kind of law concerning how closing two people can be related before they can get married. Not to mention how unconfortable family reunions would be after a divorce. **shudders**

This is about the gay right to marry on the sole fact of love.
Not about the consequences.

[Gitana]

Actually, you have to prove why they should be denied the right to marry.

Oh, and your OP is wrong; they want legal rights, not "the right to love." No law can prevent that.

[DanDaMan]

Oh, and your OP is wrong; they want legal rights, not "the right to love." No law can prevent that.

No. Their argument FOR the right to marriage is because the can love each other.

Which is why polygamists should be allowed to marry.
Which is why marriage within a family has the same standing regardless of the consequences.

It's the premise for allowing it. That's the topic.

[froggo]

No. Their argument FOR the right to marriage is because the can love each other.

None of us vile disgusting liberals here have said that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because of "love"

You are clearly wrong in your claim.

[Gitana]

You start topics with false premises designed to force people to follow a script.

The battle for gays is to achieve legal marriage recognition so that they have equal spousal/contractual legal rights as hetro couples.