Comments on: Clinton Would Extend Same-Sex Benefits

Democrat Says She'd Also Eliminate Husband's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy

[rational_1]

Gotta go - it''s been fun talking with you guys.

[rational_1]

Because marriage is a contract and in my view telling a minority group that they can not have the benefits that the majority has for reasons that smack of bigotry is wrong and arguably unconstitutional.
Posted by taddles at 05:18 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think this ultimately comes down to your definition of a marriage versus that of the guy next to you. To you it''s, based on my interpretation of what you''ve written, apparently just a societal contract, nothing more. (So you couldn''t reasonably deny me my 5 wives, right?). To the next guy it''s something considerably deeper, involving oaths, the raising of children, etc. The guy next to him thinks it''s a religious sacrament and that the civil part, where the state becomes involved, is completely irrelevant. So, each person is likely to view marriage differently and consequently each person could rightly expect to hold a different view of whether g ays (not falling for that again) should be allowed to marry. So the really big question is whose view should set policy?

[taddles-2009]

"So, you highlight a Supreme Court ruling that tells me why I can''''t marry 5 people concurrently but condemn any legal statement that prevents two men from marrying one another. Why is that?

Posted by rational_1 at 04:50 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


I think polygamy laws are hold overs that really have no affect on society one way or the other, we wouldn''t devolve into anarchy if you were allowed to have your harem. Although I''m sure the shine would wear off that apple real soon. Also there is not much push to change polygamy laws because there is not a minority that is really affected.

In the case of gay marriage, ithere is a minority that is being discriminated against with really no better justification than bigotry.

[taddles-2009]

"I can think of a great argument.... group ***, yeah baby! {grin}

Posted by rational_1 at 05:03 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


Your call but unless they all go to their separate homes at night and leave me alone with a pizza and a 6-pack would you really want 5 women around you all the time??? One isn''t bad enough?

[taddles-2009]

"Why is that?

Posted by rational_1 at 04:50 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


Because marriage is a contract and in my view telling a minority group that they can not have the benefits that the majority has for reasons that smack of bigotry is wrong and arguably unconstitutional.

[rational_1]

But there is less of an argument for polygamy...
Posted by jon2012 at 05:00 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I can think of a great argument.... group s ex, yeah baby! {grin}
Posted by rational_1 at 05:03 PM : Apr 04, 2008
You can get those things outside of marriage anyway.
Posted by jon2012 at 05:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

You''re a better man than I Gunga Din!

[jon2012-2009]

But there is less of an argument for polygamy...
Posted by jon2012 at 05:00 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I can think of a great argument.... group ***, yeah baby! {grin}
Posted by rational_1 at 05:03 PM : Apr 04, 2008

You can get those things outside of marriage anyway.

[jon2012-2009]

"If same gender marriage is legally permitted, it will establish a legal precedent that permits brother to marry sister as long as they agree to adopt.

Posted by TracyMorg_an at 04:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


First off, what has adoption to do with anything, and second how does two men getting married justify changing the laws on incest? that''''s like saying that if two men are allowed to get married people will be allowed to shoot each other.
Posted by taddles at 04:47 PM : Apr 04, 2008

The brain of TracyMorg_an is clearly on autopilot. I see that a lot from these right-wing nuts. Tracy, don''t you think it''s time to disengage?

[rational_1]

But there is less of an argument for polygamy...
Posted by jon2012 at 05:00 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I can think of a great argument.... group ***, yeah baby! {grin}

[jon2012-2009]

Actually I don''''t see any reason why polygamy should be outlawed if marriage is just a state contract between or among people of legal age. Seriously, I don''''t see any problems with it from a state perspective.

Posted by rational_1 at 04:41 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I don''t see a problem either. If everything is consensual and there is sufficient finances to ensure proper care and education for the offsprings, why not? But there is less of an argument for polygamy in our society because you can marry and divorce, you can have ex-wives and so on.