California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

To the first point- they have ever right to express themselves. What I am saying is that it would be too much to expect legal unions to be extended to cover situations where a union of 3+ would be considered.

Why not? Polygamist think differently on this issue.

And so I am saying you have to draw the line at couples- and in doing so one is making a judgement call.....

Which is exactly what "pro"-heterosexual marriage people are doing. They are drawing the line at the one man / one woman definition of marriage.

My justification...- you can't please everybody...

I feel just as justified in my beliefs as you do yours. And to the second part, I agree.

This is where I draw the line, others draw it elsewhere.

The placement of my line is at a different position than yours

As to your second point, I appreciate that religion is the equation for some people- but history has shown very well where that leads.

Which is where? Some people are very comforted by their religion.

....- but with the very kind of people most who think "religion is the equation" don't think have a right to decent treatment at all.

This is the problem with bringing the Bible into a discussion about government policy. Often the Bible itself contains teachings which demonstrate why it should not be used in the formation of government policy that discriminates against any part of the citizenry. That is not part of- to be overly simplistic and general about it- Judeo-Christian morality.

Ya know, there is this law firm in town that advertises that they "base" their court proceedings on the Bible.

I feel that we (US) are a nation that while explicitly does not bring the Bible into our laws and governing practices, we do so sometimes implicitly.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Why not? Polygamist think differently on this issue.

I am coming at this from a societal perspective.

Same sex unions are about giving couples certain legal protections that married couples enjoy. It is about facilitating couples buying homes and comingling their finances without having to spend a fortune on legal documents to protect their assets from blood heirs in the event of death- many of whom may well loathe and detest their relative's lifestyle.

It is about someone being able to visit his/her partner in the hospital or carry out that person's medical wishes when that partner's family wants to perhaps do something entirely different.

I have been shocked to see how some gay friends of mine have been treated by their significant others' family- especially in times of emergency. The sheer hatred and ignorance of some people can even overcome their love for their own children or siblings.

This is where I think the debate has to come from- and there are two sides to it- since hard facts and realities can be looked at in light of what is best for a society's citizens and society at large.

But my contention is that certain key protections are offered to many citizens without being detrimental to society at large. On the contrary, it encourages and promotes more stability- financial and otherwise- in the gay community.

I would argue polygamy is a different story. By nature, humans are a species that tend to be monogamous. Sure a lot of people play around, but we are not generally a polygamous species. And polygamy would very much disrupt how our society is structured- especially in the area of marital law.

And history certainly shows that polygamy lends itself to more of a property arrangement. One need only look at certain fanantical branches of the Mormon Church. Polygamy goes hand in hand with statutory rape, the abuse and expulsion of younger men who would be competition for wives and the ultimate result is a few powerful men with all the money, all the women and a scary kind of domination over an entire community.

It is on those grounds that I would argue society should never endorse or permit polygamous unions. While I am sure there are cases where a handful of people would be perfectly happy and mature about a polygamous union, any benefit or fairness their from the perspective of society at large is outweighed by the very real fact that such unions would, in many cases, be abused to create legalized nightmares such as I have outlined which already exist in more than a few instances even though illegal.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I am coming at this from a societal perspective.



And history certainly shows that polygamy....

Yeah, umm....I was just trying to be a bit funny here.

[nate2512]

Technically polygamist are multiple two person relationships.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yeah, umm....I was just trying to be a bit funny here.

Ah I see. But all the same, I think if gay unions ever becomes widely legalized, cries for rights to polygamous unions will not be far behind.