Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 13)

I'm not saying it should be dismissed, just that I disagree about its relevance to this issue.  I'm not saying the government shouldn't or can't legislate with regards to marriage.  Obviously it does.  I think polygamy may be an interesting discussion on its own, but when it is brought into this discussion it is usually for one purpose.  A society must be capable of updating its laws to reflect the change of social mores over time.  Arguing against the ability to change simply because of what it might lead to is what bothers me.  We are talking about one change, and there is a precedent that on this issue a single change can be made without freefalling into a slew of other changes.  I guess that's my point - not to degrade the importance of the polygamy discussion as its own topic. 

Also, I disagree on the method being used here.  I hate to generalize, but I'm going to stick my neck out here and hope I don't get flamed too bad.  It seems like a lot of the same people (general public - I'm not being specific to BT'ers on either side here) who are opposed to gay marriage tend to be pro life as well.  Not all.  Some, many, whatever.  Do these people support a Federal ban on gay marriage but argue in favor of States' rights for abortion legislation?  Does anyone see the inconsistency there?  To me this is more about state and federal power than anything else.

You act under an assumption that I necesarily agree with the illegality of polygamy.  I don't.

Furthermore, it IS straying from the argument, because we're not discussing a proposed constitutional amendment to ban polygamy.

Well, the proposed amendment would define what marriage is, a union between one man and one woman. In effect, it would prohibit polygamy.

I have to hand it to proponents of gay marriage that they have succeeded in defining this issue as a "ban on gay marriage" when I think it would more rightly be thought of as a "definition of what marriage is".

hangloose, I do see the inconsistency. It's partly why I still haven't voted in this poll. I believe that abortion and capital punishment are state's rights issues. I'm also comfortable with marriage laws being state's rights issues.

What concerns me is that some future SCOTUS will take away the right of the states to set marriage laws, just as a previous SCOTUS has taken away the right of the states to set abortion laws.

So how do you protect from that? How do you protect the states from some future SCOTUS that could rule that it is unconstitutional for the states to declare that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman?

I have no problem with polygamy.  I think as long as all parties are 18+ (thus allowing them, and only them, to legal enter into a binding contract) then they should be allowed to get married or whatever we want to call it.  As long as everyone is a legal, consenting adult...why do we care?  I don't understand the group marriage thing, but some people don't get gay marriage.  So long as all parties actually involved in the marriage are happy with it, more power to them. 

It seems like now marriages are important mostly for health/legal/financial reasons...that's where the major benefits are.  Yes, it's good that you love each other, but that doesn't make getting married important.  So, let people define their legal family however they want...it's easier than the mountain of paperwork we would need to do it otherwise.  Who cares who's definition of marriage it is?  Let marriage be some happy religious event, and civil unions be a legal binding contract declaring people a "couple" or "group" or whatever where they're able to make decisions for each other and inherit each others stuff and all that good stuff.