Reply to I’m "closet" anti-LBGT

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "I’m "closet" anti-LBGT "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m OP. I am reading every single post and your thoughts are helpful to me. I had a feeling some people would suggest that I have gay/lesbian tendencies. Far, far from it. I am not a swinger. Neither do I fear or dislike LGBT people. I am just like most of the posters here – “normal”. There is one person I don’t care much for, that’s Rick Santorum. IMO, I think he really has major social (and political) issues. He is scary to me. But, you may recall that a few weeks ago Santorum had a back-n-forth exchange about gay marriage with a college student in NH, and I think he made some really valid points. Google it. One of his lines of questions was asking the students (and others in the audience) if they thought that people should be legally allowed to have multiple spouses. The audience’s response was a clear “no”. Well, Santorum went on from there… So, if you support gay marriage, do you also think that polygamy should be law?

Btw, the princess/princess book in the pre-school is totally crazy! That’s what I mean by “aggressive”.  
[/quote]

I support gay marriage, and I have absolutely no problem if we decide to legalize polygamy.  If consenting adults want to get married, and that marriage has no real negative effect on society, then I see no reason to ban it.

That said, I think there are real differences between gay marriage and polygamy.  First of all, practically speaking, our legal system is already set up to easily accommodate gay marriage.  Spousal benefits, divorce law, child support, insurance, inheritance, etc., it's all based on a two-party contract, and there's no reason why a same-sex couple should cause any hiccups to the system.  A marriage of three or more would be more difficult to accommodate -- how would we divide assets?  Who would get survivor benefits?  But I don't think that's an insurmountable obstacle.

I also think that the nature of a relationship between two people is different than one between three or more.  I think the type of intimacy and trust is probably different (again, not better or worse, but different).  But that's clearly no reason to ban polygamous marriage.

I know that, historically, polygamous marriages have lead to welfare fraud, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc.  But we have laws already on the books to deal with that.

So, yeah.  I have no problem with polygamous marriage.  But I don't see us legalizing it any time soon, simply because the demand isn't there.

Here's a question for you, OP -- if the "two princes" preschool book is "aggressive," is a book about a prince and a princess an example of the aggressive heterosexual agenda?[/quote]

OP responding. Thank you for your thoughts. I say "no" to your prince/princess heterosexual question. No "agenda" is needed -- it's an established tradition.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics