Ask Your Question today
If you support gay marriage, would you support a two husbands two wives marriage? Guy A would be legally married to guy B, woman A & woman B. Guy B to guy A and women A & B. Women A to woman B and guys A & B, and so on.
| no, marriage is one man & one woman | 31 | |
| I support gay marriage but not multiple marriage | 74 | |
| I would support this kind of marriage | 54 |
Oppps I just strolled into the retard convention, I shall take my leave.
If I understand you, which I think I do through the aid of creating a mental diagram, I would think it was kind of weird but there's nothing wrong with it. They can do whatever the hell they want. A marriage is just words on a piece of paper, it isn't something that can be "moral" or "immoral". Just words.
If they are all of legal age and are willing to take part in this kind of marriage then it is none of my concern. Let people live their lives the way they want to and you just live your life. That is my idea about most things.
I'd support marriages of more than two people but (forgive me for speaking like a politician), there are certain rights granted by marriage (and tax breaks in my country). The laws were written with a two-person marriage in mind and should be re-examined. For instance, it's possible that by entering into a 25-person marriage, you could avoid tax completely (just as you can currently do by starting your own religion).
What the hell, this makes no sense to me:S! I don't understand who's marrying who. And I don't see how marrying more than one person, if this is what this post is about, has got anything to do with gay marriage.
The State is meant to handle the problems that affect a society, it couldn't be held responsible for dealing with the particular problems that affect every single citizen and practically no other. That is because of obvious physical limitations. The State can't be present everywhere, and you can't have as many laws as individuals. The State does the best it can and that's that.
Gay people are a significant part of society, that's why the limitations their lives face when they can't get married should be a concern for the law. If someday human interaction evolved to the point of 4-people relationships being a social reality, then the law should be adapted to the new circumstances. But if you tell me there are 3 quartets of people engaging in such relationships in the whole country, I'd say the law has bigger concerns, and for that reason and no other, I wouldn't support that marriage granted by the state. The limitations their lives face because they can't get married legally are a personal matter that they should resolve on their own.
They may always have the exact same celebration as a couple getting married and share a home and everything and I don't think anyone would oppose it. But it's not possible to modify the laws for issues of such small reach. If we were to adjust the laws for the particular situation of every single individual, we would be all dead before we had finished that task, and then new individuals would be around, with newer issues. It would simply not be possible.
What in the world are you talking about? Evidence for gay being a product of evolution is bad at best, how would that promote survival of the fittest? What 3 quarters are you talking about. Last census showed that even the "10% gay theory" is bunk. What are you talking about, gays are not a significant "part of society" if anything they are a burden with annually more that 50% of new HIV cases being men that have sex with men; they are a health risk and cost our medical system billions in self inflicted problem.
I'll use small words.
2 guys and 2 women are all married (i.e. each of them has 3 spouses, 1 of the same gender, 2 of the opposite)
If you support the redefining of the word marriage, from 1 male/1 female to 1 male/1 male or 1 female/1 female - than do you support redefining it to the above example?
(was that really that hard to understand?)