4 ms·

Please define "equal marriage". Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their

by notsony 11y ago

Please define "equal marriage". Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their daughter? Do you support marriage involving polygamous relationships? Can three or four people can be married?

jliptzin 11y ago
He is clearly talking about same-sex marriage. And if you're trying to make a slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage, that's been done 1,000 times before and it hasn't served the "family values" crowd too well lately.
- notsony 11y ago
  > He is clearly talking about same-sex marriage. How do we know that? When did the word equality mean only heterosexual or homosexual couples? It's a marketing myth that "gay marriage" is the same thing as "marriage equality". They are not the same, they are two very different things.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > How do we know that? Because marriage equality is a well-established term with a clear unambiguous usage in political discussions. Sort of like "pro-life" and "pro-choice", which could (divorced from context) each have a wide variety of possible meanings, but which, in the actual context of modern American political debate, have very specific meanings in terms of particular opposing positions regarding abortion policy. > It's a marketing myth that "gay marriage" is the same thing as "marriage equality". It would be more accurate to say that "marriage equality" is a brand that has been established by advocates of legal marriage without distinction based on the sex of the partners.
intopieces 11y ago
The parent comment to yours refers to same-sex marriage between two people. Please don't be disingenuous. There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. You knew full well before you typed your comment what the person was talking about.
- notsony 11y ago
  > There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. So you want to dismiss the ideas above because they belong to a minority and are not supported by the majority? Wow, you sound like a bigot. Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of people advocating for... same-sex marriage.
  - tdkl 11y ago
    Same-sex marriage doesn't result in higher risk for offspring with serious disadvantages.
  - nitid_name 11y ago
    It's not germane to this discussion. The previous poster only brought it up to draw parallels between a straight person being for allowing gay marriage and a non-smoker being for legalization.
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
I am not the OP, but I have no problem with any of those scenarios. Given how much those scenarios would be outliers I see no reason they would adversely impact anything.
- mc32 11y ago
  Totally off topic, but I recall a guy who killed his father because his father disapproved of his relationship with his dog. I think that was in Maine somewhere. Guy was obviously not quite sane. He'd signed the dog's testimony with a pawprint.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Yes, marriage, as far as it needs to be a government-sanctioned thing for wherever reason, should be a partnership of 2 or more consenting entities that are legally allowed to enter contracts. Like an LLC kind thing - the whole point, as far as government goes, is to provide asset management, is it not? Adding arbitrary restrictions is inelegant.
- notsony 11y ago
  This. Why can't more people see it the way you have described? True marriage equality does not discriminate. As it stands, the campaign for "marriage equality" is deceptive and has only been concerned with marriage between homosexuals - other minority groups be damned!
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > the campaign for "marriage equality" is deceptive and has only been concerned with marriage between homosexuals No, its not. Marriage where one or both partners are homosexuals is legally permitted (and has often occurred) without marriage equality.
    - pnut 11y ago
      According to Chief Justice John Roberts, not exactly a liberal, marriage availability to homosexuals per the method you are describing amounts to sexual discrimination. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/gender-bias-could-tip-chief-justice-roberts-into-ruling-for-gay-marriage.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/gender-bias-could-tip-c...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Please define "equal marriage". Equal marriage is when the government doesn't discriminate by sex in who people are permitted to marry.
pstuart 11y ago
Replying to your other comment here because it was too deep to respond. > Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of people advocating for... same-sex marriage. Is 1991 a "few years ago"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii
- notsony 11y ago
  So there was a court case in 1991 but average joe would not have known about it or cared about it. Compare that to the daily news headlines and social media discussion that exists today.
  - pstuart 11y ago
    The average joe cares about sports and celebrities. What's your point? Or are you just a homophobic troll?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zaccus 11y ago
None of the above scenarios affect me in any way. If all parties are consenting adults, then I don't see what the issue is.

by notsony 11y ago

jliptzin 11y ago

He is clearly talking about same-sex marriage. And if you're trying to make a slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage, that's been done 1,000 times before and it hasn't served the "family values" crowd too well lately.

notsony 11y ago
> He is clearly talking about same-sex marriage. How do we know that? When did the word equality mean only heterosexual or homosexual couples? It's a marketing myth that "gay marriage" is the same thing as "marriage equality". They are not the same, they are two very different things.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > How do we know that? Because marriage equality is a well-established term with a clear unambiguous usage in political discussions. Sort of like "pro-life" and "pro-choice", which could (divorced from context) each have a wide variety of possible meanings, but which, in the actual context of modern American political debate, have very specific meanings in terms of particular opposing positions regarding abortion policy. > It's a marketing myth that "gay marriage" is the same thing as "marriage equality". It would be more accurate to say that "marriage equality" is a brand that has been established by advocates of legal marriage without distinction based on the sex of the partners.

intopieces 11y ago

The parent comment to yours refers to same-sex marriage between two people. Please don't be disingenuous. There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. You knew full well before you typed your comment what the person was talking about.

notsony 11y ago
> There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. So you want to dismiss the ideas above because they belong to a minority and are not supported by the majority? Wow, you sound like a bigot. Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of people advocating for... same-sex marriage.
- tdkl 11y ago
  Same-sex marriage doesn't result in higher risk for offspring with serious disadvantages.
- nitid_name 11y ago
  It's not germane to this discussion. The previous poster only brought it up to draw parallels between a straight person being for allowing gay marriage and a non-smoker being for legalization.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

I am not the OP, but I have no problem with any of those scenarios. Given how much those scenarios would be outliers I see no reason they would adversely impact anything.

mc32 11y ago
Totally off topic, but I recall a guy who killed his father because his father disapproved of his relationship with his dog. I think that was in Maine somewhere. Guy was obviously not quite sane. He'd signed the dog's testimony with a pawprint.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Yes, marriage, as far as it needs to be a government-sanctioned thing for wherever reason, should be a partnership of 2 or more consenting entities that are legally allowed to enter contracts. Like an LLC kind thing - the whole point, as far as government goes, is to provide asset management, is it not? Adding arbitrary restrictions is inelegant.

notsony 11y ago
This. Why can't more people see it the way you have described? True marriage equality does not discriminate. As it stands, the campaign for "marriage equality" is deceptive and has only been concerned with marriage between homosexuals - other minority groups be damned!
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > the campaign for "marriage equality" is deceptive and has only been concerned with marriage between homosexuals No, its not. Marriage where one or both partners are homosexuals is legally permitted (and has often occurred) without marriage equality.
  - pnut 11y ago
    According to Chief Justice John Roberts, not exactly a liberal, marriage availability to homosexuals per the method you are describing amounts to sexual discrimination. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/gender-bias-could-tip-chief-justice-roberts-into-ruling-for-gay-marriage.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/gender-bias-could-tip-c...

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Please define "equal marriage". Equal marriage is when the government doesn't discriminate by sex in who people are permitted to marry.

pstuart 11y ago

Replying to your other comment here because it was too deep to respond. > Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of people advocating for... same-sex marriage. Is 1991 a "few years ago"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii

notsony 11y ago
So there was a court case in 1991 but average joe would not have known about it or cared about it. Compare that to the daily news headlines and social media discussion that exists today.
- pstuart 11y ago
  The average joe cares about sports and celebrities. What's your point? Or are you just a homophobic troll?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zaccus 11y ago

None of the above scenarios affect me in any way. If all parties are consenting adults, then I don't see what the issue is.