crispybits wrote:But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.
Again, what's the convincing case that the government should not GTFO? At some point in history, the government was not involved in marriage; at some point in history, that changed (based primarily, I think, on the influence of Christianity on the government of the United States).
The only reason my opinion is unreasonable is because it's easier to have the government involvement that we currently have. It would be difficult to undo what's already been done. I happen to think that's a shitty reason.
crispybits wrote:(1) Is, by your own admission, unrealistic and therefore an irrational position unless you can overcome the objections. By your example about the person in that hospital being my long term girlfriend, if the decision is to have a 30% survival rate and be able to have kids in future, or a 95% survival rate and no chance of kids in future, then how long do I need to have been with her to make that kind of decision? 1 year? 5 years? 2 weeks? Where is the line arbitrarily drawn in law as a blanket point of true commitment for every relationship? Or should there be a contract people can willingly enter into that forms the line?
Unrealstic because it wouldn't happen; not unrealistic because it couldn't happen. As to your example, why is the line arbitrarily drawn at marriage? What makes you think marrige is a truly committed relationship?
crispybits wrote:(2) Because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. To take away existing rights you have to provide a good argument for taking them away. The argument has already been had about whether they should be granted and they were granted. That's not set in stone, but to withdraw them again you need a decent argument why it should happen.
They aren't rights dude. There are no "marriage rights." Stop referring to them as rights. When you refer to them as rights you give them a status that those items do not have. I've made a decent argument why it shouldn't happen. The way that those contractual relaitonships and benefits are currently defined, two people who are of the same gender who are in a relationship, more than two people who are in a relationship, and within the last century, two people who are of different races, could not enjoy those benefits. Would it be harder to take them away? Yes. I think it would be better to take them away. I like BBS's idea.
crispybits wrote:(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.
I agree. Symm's argument is that because so many people think polygamy is "ew gross" then likening it to gay marriage denigrates gay marriage. Rick Santorum (a conservative Republican politician) once linked gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality. He was (and is, I'm pretty sure) an idiot. I think that's where Symm gets his uproar over polygamy. That and he can point to statistics about abusive relationships and polygamy (much like premio points to AIDS as why gays shouldn't get married).