Who should be allowed to marry?

[stormkroe]

I'm mainly interested in seeing where the majority is drawing the line here these days, as well as reasons 'why' and 'why not'.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oooh got my lawnchair and popcorn.. K go.

Really? Search didn't reveal this thread many times over?

 

[stormkroe]

Oooh got my lawnchair and popcorn.. K go.

Really? Search didn't reveal this thread many times over?

You clicked before I finished teh poll

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You clicked before I finished teh poll

My bad. I was giddy envisioning the coming funliness this thread is guaranteed to deliver.

 

[Matt1970]

First to vote.

 

[cubby1223]

 

[chucky2]

Marry? Clearly a man and woman, just like its always been. Zero reason to change.

Civil Union? New legal term of Garriage? Gays no problem, same rights as married couples.

Done.

 

[nickbits]

No one

 

[trenchfoot]

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what the prevailing moral delineation is between gay/les marriages and polygamous relationships. BTW, I voted for gay/lesbian, but who knows, attitudes change over time, and my personal views may change in the future just as my acceptance of gay/lesbian marriages did.

 

[nanette1985]

No one

This. Marriage is a thing of the past. Outdated.

 

[nextJin]

Anyone should be able to marry whomever they want based on their beliefs and church. The Federal government should have no say whatso ever in this, denying people of that fundamental right means they are not truly free.

 

[stormkroe]

I'd like those in support of extra-traditional marriage to explain why they stop at gay/les and don't support multiples or close family? I know SOME posters probably have no problem with #4 either, but the question still stands.

 

[K1052]

Marry? Clearly a man and woman, just like its always been. Zero reason to change.

Civil Union? New legal term of Garriage? Gays no problem, same rights as married couples.

Done.

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

 

[sandorski]

I'd like those in support of extra-traditional marriage to explain why they stop at gay/les and don't support multiples or close family? I know SOME posters probably have no problem with #4 either, but the question still stands.

1 Man/1 Woman is in itself "extra-traditional". In fact, it is very difficult to find any "Traditional" form of Marriage.

 

[Acanthus]

Everyone, who gives a shit, it's not your life.

 

[sourn]

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

This..

There really isn't much else to say. It really is this simple.

If the religious nut jobs still don't like it make it strictly that. A religious thing with zero benefits other then the guy/woman gets a ring on the finger.

As far as churches go, it is in their right to choose who to marry or not to.

 

[gevorg]

Just abolish the state's involvement and regulation of people's relationships. Problem solved.

 

[LunarRay]

Oh... heck...

We need a Federal Marriage Commission. The Commissioner and the rest of the board members should be nominated by the various religious leaders, The Congress, the President and approved by a three member panel composed of high ranking Taliban leaders.

 

[etrigan420]

Oh... heck...

We need a Federal Marriage Commission. The Commissioner and the rest of the board members should be nominated by the various religious leaders, The Congress, the President and approved by a three member panel composed of high ranking Taliban leaders.

You forgot the most important aspect...it needs a Czar.

The Marriage Czar.

In the spirit and tradition of reaching across (or around ) the aisle, I nominate Newt.

 

[chucky2]

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

Absolutely. Just no Gov forms should have 'Married?' as an option for a garried person to check. That would be the Gov recognizing a gay union the same as a traditional marriage - clearly not the same.

The forms/systems should instead of changed to be 'Civil Union?', and...done.

Chuck

 

[nehalem256]

This poll is objectphobic. What do you have against people who want to have a loving relationship with their toaster, couch, or stuffed bear? ^_^

 

[cybrsage]

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

Agreed, get the government out of marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what the prevailing moral delineation is between gay/les marriages and polygamous relationships. BTW, I voted for gay/lesbian, but who knows, attitudes change over time, and my personal views may change in the future just as my acceptance of gay/lesbian marriages did.

It would be too difficult for the government to update the forms. If you can call that an issue of "morality".

But then again, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-as-three-parents-on-babys-birth-certificate/

:whiste:

 

[cybrsage]

This..

There really isn't much else to say. It really is this simple.

If the religious nut jobs still don't like it make it strictly that. A religious thing with zero benefits other then the guy/woman gets a ring on the finger.

As far as churches go, it is in their right to choose who to marry or not to.

You would be surprised at the number of non-religious who refuse to let go of the word marriage and actually want the government to have MORE involvement in it.

 

[piasabird]

It is all about the tax laws. Gays want all the money and none of the responsibility.