1. The first is a matter of constitutional law, meaning that everyone is to be treated equally under the law. So, again extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples would achieve this. It levels the playing field. As I implied in the previous entry, this is not an “extra” thing being asked for–it is giving us all a seat at the same constitutional table (regardless if some of the other people at the table are uncomfortable with it). The institution of TWO-PERSON CIVIL MARRIAGE is already a given. So gays and lesbians deserve equal access to the already-existing institution of CIVIL MARRIAGE.

2. The question of why a three-person marriage is not ok is less a matter of constitutional law, because it doesn’t necessarily address issues of equality. If all people (straight and gay), were allowed to marry ONE person, then you could see how the ability to marry another person is an “extra” thing. A polygamist isn’t being treated unfairly (in my opinion) at this point, because no one has the freedom to marry more than one person.

My person opinion (based on nothing but my own thoughts and not on law at all) is that polygamy does not encourage equal partnership. My limited understanding is that most of these arrangements are with one guy and his multiple wives. To me this elevates the man to be above the women and I think that we can all agree that even if the women are ok with this arrangement, it certainly doesn’t treat them as equal to the man. I don’t know anyone in these arrangements so that’s just my opinion. Bottom line though, I support marriage for gay people and DON’T support polygamy for the same reason: to ensure that people are treated equally and fairly.

What I think you are saying is that same sex arrangements have no marriage while a future polygamous arrangement already enjoys the benefits of marriage. I can see why you think this is not fair. This still makes it an opposite sexed same sexed issue though.

Since you believe that two people of the same sex can marry each other, can three people of the same sex marry each other? If you think we should not allow a same sexed threesome, what principle allows the same sex couple but not the threesome to marry?

Gay men and lesbians want to marry the ONE person of their choice. And the fact that this one person is of the same gender has previously made them ineligible. But otherwise they would be eligible: they are of legal age, they aren’t a close relative, etc.

So, polygamy does not apply here. Being able to marry MORE THAN ONE PERSON would be, for lack of a better word, a bonus. The gay man who can’t marry his male partner gets no one, but the polygamist man who wants to marry a second wife, gets to keep his one, original wife.

So, the principle would be that the gay man and lesbian should not be discriminated against (and by that I mean “separated’) due to their sexual orientation. They shouldn’t be discriminated against by not allowing them to marry the ONE person of their choice.

So, polygamy is really a separate issue. Gay men and lesbians just want to have access to the same civil institution that straight people already have. Polygamy is much more about choice. A man who wants to marry more than one woman isn’t saying that he isn’t attracted to his first wife–he just wants more than one wife. While a gay man or lesbian (not including bisexuals for the moment) will not be attracted to a person of the opposite gender. So if you deny them the freedom to marry a same-sex partner, then you are denying them the ability to be treated the same as a straight person (since marrying an opposite-sex partner is not a realistic option).

So, the principle is that everyone gets to marry at least ONE person of their choice. ONE of the reasons that courts are ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is that there is no legitimate state interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry. So, it’s not a slippery slope as many on your side seem to want to imply. The case for any of these other arrangements would be going beyond the scope of the courts–gays and lesbian are looking for a seat at the same table and to be treated equally.

Also, I found it funny that beetlebee got that Chris was saying that bad things happened as a result of “the rise of homosexuality’s acceptance.” This totally missed the point. Just goes to show you how perception equals reality.

And I was shocked that some recent post haven’t been more anti-gay. C’mon you can do it better than that! I’m sure that your condemnation of all things gay always makes you feel that much more loving inside. What a wasted amount of time and energy.

As you pointed out Modus, informed consent is needed in a marriage and you have acknowledged the presumption of paternity within a marriage.

This gets to the core of what marriage is, a both sexed arrangement with the presumption of paternity. Same sex marriage is non existent because it is single sexed and there is no presumption of paternity. Never do you presume that when you see two guys pushing a babies pram that the child is a product of their love together!

We could change laws and call same sex unions “marriages” but they would not correspond to what a marriage actually is. It would also cause confusion within society. When I tell people that I’m married it is assumed that I’m married to a person of the opposite sex. That is because the word marriage defines the type of relationship I have.