<p>And my argument is not against polygamy, it is for gay marriage. If you argue that polygamy should be legalized as a result of gay marriage being legalized, then either declare why it's wrong to be legalized or not argue if you think it's fine.</p>
<p>Right now, the term marriage is being regarded as a purely religious idea. While most of the nation knows differently, many religions feel threatened about using the word to pertain to such a "sinful" act.</p>
<p>I think that the rights are what are important. Lets take this one step at a time and progress toward the ultimate goal of marriage. We just got Civil Unions not long ago, so lets start working our way towards marriage, instead of leaping for it. Right now, the policy sure sounds like "Separate But Equal," which, of course, was overturned in Plessy V. Fergusson in . . . 1892, no? So, I see their decision to refuse calling it a "marriage" as unconstitutional in that sense. But lets work our way to the point of calling it a "marriage," instead of trying to force it so harshly on society. The day will come, but we're just going to have to be patient for it.</p>
<p>Oh ya. And on the whole polygamy thing. I think that what two (or more) CONSENTING adults want to do about matters of marriage should be left up to them. If gay marriage is passed, then I think polygamy is a valid practice to get passed, as well. It does not affect me in any shape is CONSENTING adults decided to follow such practices. I don't understand why these seem to be such a threat to the people.</p>
<p>Agree completely with dragon. I have no idea why what consenting adults do with their lives is anybody's business but their own.</p>
<p>And if we're going to let religion run our laws, then should we also no allow the consumption of shellfish which is also banned in the bible?</p>
<p>The only real argument against polygamy is how it'll totally mess with our current tax codes.</p>
<p>Just for people who want to argue against gay Marriage:</p>
<p>Most likely, you have no clue. Nobody does, unless your a homosexual. It's definitely not easy. In most cases (in my opinion), to be discriminated, for being yourself, something that you had no control over. To be given the right to marry, would make gays have more equality, which, they DO deserve.</p>
<p>It sucks. I certainly hate when people say being Gay is a choice. If you want to argue nurture, sure. But if how someone was raised <em>makes</em> them gay, how is it even their fault? And then there's the people that argue it is purely a choice. I just don't understand why so many people care. They don't realize the struggle. Equal rights. I think one day Scientists will find maybe a cause for being gay, and when they do, it will most likely help them.</p>
<p>And I said all of that above because MOST (not all) of the anti/gay marriage people feel being gay is a choice, or have negative feelings towards the gay community.</p>
<p>Agreed. It's weird that the entirity of society bases their judgement on something that's not even the truth. LAME! Society is silly.</p>
<p>to LMU10:
I was referring to the original event and how the people wanted that. and it was overturned and how some people feel that is unjust.</p>
<p>To jamesford:
freedom of religion and freedom from religion is not the same thing
freedom of religion is choice of religion that the state can not cite one religion as the main religion but it does not say that religion can not be apart of your governments
freedom from religion is state completely devoid of religion
I encourage you to talk to an apush teacher about this and I'm sure they would agree</p>
<p>^AP Gov would probably be able to explain it better.</p>
<p>"Freedom of Religion" is not in the Constitution.</p>
<p>hmm that's a good point. I was just thinking about movements affecting our government which have led to those changes in interpretation... if that makes sense. I just seem to discuss it more in that class... but of course at my school ap gov does nothing.</p>
<p>It's not in the Constitution, but it is in the Bill of Rights...your point?</p>
<p>Marie08: By imposing religious values on its people (ie "marriage is between a man and a woman"), the government is limiting a person's right to practice their religion free of the bonds of others'...thereby violating the First Amendment. </p>
<p>The way I see it is this. Religious arguments about marriage deemed invalid because of the separation of church and state, one would have to say that somehow gay couples' relationships are less valid than straight couples', and that gays do not deserve rights simply because of their sexual orientation (a trait which is undoubtedly inherent). If you say gays do deserve privileges like visitation for partners in the hospital and joint adoption, or civil unions, you're then breaking the law by denying them another privilege afforded to everybody else in a committed relationship: marriage.</p>
<p>Basically the anti-gay marriage people are just using religious and moral arguments to cover up their basic fear of everything that is different. It happened with interracial marriage. People came to their senses and now anybody who would oppose interracial marriage is deemed a bigot. Eventually the same thing will happen to gay marriage, and all the homophobes who are so adamantly opposed it now will pretend they never said any such thing.</p>
<p>Also, there is SUCH a difference between polygamy and gay marriage! You aren't born with an unchangeable polygamy "preference." You ARE born with a preference towards one sex or another. Saying you can't marry because of an inherent trait is wrong, like saying you can't marry because you're disabled or blonde; saying you can't marry a second woman is perfectly fine, legally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
freedom of religion and freedom from religion is not the same thing
freedom of religion is choice of religion that the state can not cite one religion as the main religion but it does not say that religion can not be apart of your governments
freedom from religion is state completely devoid of religion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I have the right to choose which religion I want to follow, then I have the right not to follow any religion at all. Freedom from religion is not state completely devoid of religion.</p>
<p>Oh well. I guess you should just look at it as getting one of the two things you wanted. We got president-elect Barack Obama, but lost Prop 8 in California. In the elections to come, it's only a matter of time before homosexuals get their rights. Once the older generation dies off (not that all of them oppose gays). </p>
<p>I mean, I can understand why religious people would vote that way, and honestly, I can't blame them for keeping their bind with God (speaking as a former Christian, now Agnostic)</p>
<p>As I said before, it's only a matter of time.</p>
<p>The basic problem with Prop 8 is that it shouldn't be on the ballot at all. People shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of civil rights--after all, had you asked people in the South to vote on Brown v. Board of Education, they would have turned it down by a huge margin. In fact 70% of Californians were against interracial marriage when it was deemed legal. What would happened had we let them vote on that? It's bull is what it is.</p>
<p>you realize people have different codes of morals/ethics and that you shouldn't consider someone a bigot/horrible person just 'cuz their view is different from yours.</p>
<p>I for one have absolutely no opinion on this subject (though i find the controversy and debate rather interesting) but you guys just sound silly when you try to defend your own stances by attacking the the other peoples moral opinion.</p>
<p>I want to say that I am against prop 8. okay?
I'm arguing my points to show that there is another way to look at things and people shouldn't just sum everyone in support of prop 8 as christians or mormons or religious zealots. I know gay people in support of it, atheists, democrats, republicans, religious groups, and straight people all in support-- not on a religious basis.</p>
<p>However, for those who believe religion is an acceptable reason, they are just in doing so.
Founding fathers believed that people needed a god or some other central figure in their government to guide them but that it shouldn't be an imposed god. So yes while you can say what if I want to believe my own religion, the argument of many of the founding fathers was that some god is better than no god. Many decisions in our history were made like that and many bettered our country. That was my point. That's a topic that professors spend years studying and is perhaps the best counter-argument for those who feel that any religious basis for prop 8 is wrong.</p>
<p>jamesford:
it does mean a state devoid of religion because thats how it was defined by the professor who wrote a thesis on that and first used those exact words. but i see what you mean, but thats the definition of it.</p>
<p>^ I still don't think you're making any sense (and you're not really writing very coherently). The Founding Fathers may have believed that there should be a God guiding peoples' lives, but that doesn't at all relate to the fact that they didn't want to impose religious values (whether it be God or the idea that marriage is Biblically defined as being between a man and a woman) on anybody. It doesn't matter what they personally thought about God, they expressly wrote that people should be able to decide for themselves, and that government should not be involved at all in that process. What you just said actually doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand: the Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom and separation of church and state, and therefore any arguments saying that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman because the Bible says so aren't valid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, there is SUCH a difference between polygamy and gay marriage! You aren't born with an unchangeable polygamy "preference." You ARE born with a preference towards one sex or another. Saying you can't marry because of an inherent trait is wrong, like saying you can't marry because you're disabled or blonde; saying you can't marry a second woman is perfectly fine, legally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why should your ability to get married depend on if you're born with a specific preference or not? Was my dad born with some preference to marry my mom, and that's why they can get married? What then about his first wife?</p>
<p>If we think people can fall out of love and then require a divorce, why can't our country believe it's possible for people to have a working loving relationship between three (or more) people?</p>
<p>I'm not totally against polygamy, I'm just saying, it can't be compared to gay marriage.</p>