As opposed to my normal jump into the fray with both feet that I normally use on here I've actually put some thought into how I would respond to this.

 

First let me say that while I don't "support" gay marriage and did vote for the amendment defining marriage here a few years ago I'm not opposed to some legal protection for same-sex couples. I don't understand why it has to be called marriage. I'm in the boat that it doesn't affect me so whatever.

 

Now to the meat of the issue. In finest Obama form he has voted "present" on the issue. By taking the stance that he has he can now go to his base of supporters and say he agrees with them on the issue but he can also go to the states and say he agrees that they should decide (on a tangent don't you believe that the people in Arizona or the AGs that brought the suit over Obamacare are wondering about the consistency of Obama's belief in state's right's but I digress). A win win for him and nothing changes.

 

IMVHO if he truly felt the way he avowed rather then just trying to make political points he should have immediately started pushing congress for the repeal of DOMA rather then his spineless non defense of it and he should have instructed the Pentagon to immediately start recognizing same sex couples as married if they were in fact married in states that have legalized it and give those partners exactly the same benefits that hetero couples get. That would have been a truly courageous stance. It would probably be political suicide but it would have been courageous.

 

Lastly I'm no where near in the category that thinks all gays are just child predators in disguise and that by allowing same sex marriage it will open the door to open child endangerment, nor do I believe that this is in any way validation for perverts like those in NAMBLA so the argument that it will harm children in that way holds no water for me. But what happens if a devout Muslim or Fundamental Mormon brings a suit looking for legal recognition of a polygamous marriage? How can anyone who supports gay marriage oppose it, as long as consenting adults are involved? Obama used the term evolving regarding his stance on the issue, I would say that with this the very definition of marriage is evolving. 50 years ago inter racial marriage was illegal, 50 years from now will polygamous marriage be legal here? I honestly don't see how anyone who supports same sex unions could oppose plural marriage if they want to be really consistent.

Sorry double post

I agree All Tell that Obama really did nothing here. He made a political statement but will leave the action to someone else.

I wonder if any of the posters here on BGP are openly Gay ?

...First let me say that while I don't "support" gay marriage and did vote for the amendment defining marriage here a few years ago I'm not opposed to some legal protection for same-sex couples. I don't understand why it has to be called marriage. I'm in the boat that it doesn't affect me so whatever.

 

...

 

Lastly I'm no where near in the category that thinks all gays are just child predators in disguise and that by allowing same sex marriage it will open the door to open child endangerment, nor do I believe that this is in any way validation for perverts like those in NAMBLA so the argument that it will harm children in that way holds no water for me. But what happens if a devout Muslim or Fundamental Mormon brings a suit looking for legal recognition of a polygamous marriage? How can anyone who supports gay marriage oppose it, as long as consenting adults are involved? Obama used the term evolving regarding his stance on the issue, I would say that with this the very definition of marriage is evolving. 50 years ago inter racial marriage was illegal, 50 years from now will polygamous marriage be legal here? I honestly don't see how anyone who supports same sex unions could oppose plural marriage if they want to be really consistent.

 

It's a rare event, All Tell. You and I seem to agree entirely on an issue! Well, at least the part that I've reposted here.

 

I'm all for keeping marriage as a religious institution and letting civil unions be how we govern the legal end of it. If one church recognized gay marriage and another doesn't, that would be okay with me.

I wonder if any of the posters here on BGP are openly Gay ?

 

I wondered the same thing.

All Tell, the key word would be "TWO" adults if someone else thinks since gays can marry that it now means people can lobby for more than one husband or wife. That is how I answer your last sentence, I am okay with same sex marriage as it only means two adults, not multiple.

I wondered the same thing.

 

I am well, but I am sure even open ones would ignore these threads after seeing the hate by many.

All Tell, the key word would be "TWO" adults if someone else thinks since gays can marry that it now means people can lobby for more than one husband or wife. That is how I answer your last sentence, I am okay with same sex marriage as it only means two adults, not multiple.

 

If it can evolve from 2 same race adults of different sexes, to two adults of different sex regardless to race, to two adults regardless of sex then why not more then 2 consenting adults? If there is no rationale to limit marriage to different sexes then what is the rationale to limit it to 2?

If it can evolve from 2 same race adults of different sexes, to two adults of different sex regardless to race, to two adults regardless of sex then why not more then 2 consenting adults? If there is no rationale to limit marriage to different sexes then what is the rationale to limit it to 2?

But all examples have one thing in common, the word "two". :sssh:

That doesn't mean that it can't "evolve" does it? If the definition of the people that are allowed to marry each other can (and should) evolve then why can't the number of people that can (or should) marry each other evolve? If you are arguing that it can't happen because of social norms while at the same time saying that social norms mean nothing when talking about same-sex marriage isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

Not at all. The constent thingis "two", if groups of people (straight) are allowed to do something, then all groups should be able to allowed, I mean one adult marrying another adult. Two adult people. To me, saying that soon after you could marry as many people you want is the same as some of the ultru-conservatives saying it will lead to people marrying animals.

Not at all. The constent thingis "two", if groups of people (straight) are allowed to do something, then all groups should be able to allowed, I mean one adult marrying another adult. Two adult people. To me, saying that soon after you could marry as many people you want is the same as some of the ultru-conservatives saying it will lead to people marrying animals.

 

In my mind where we differ is in the constant. You say it's 2, I say it's adults. I will really love watching the same people that throw out as irrelevant the argument that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman but then in the same breath will say marriage has traditionally been between 2 people. I'd venture to say that through history there has been ample evidence of plural marriage and in fact it is still an accepted practice in many parts of the world. I know I'm just a know nothing conservative but I really see a huge disconnect in your logic and with all due respect I see your position being every bit as wrong headed as you see those who oppose same sex marriage.

All Tell, you do bring up a good point. I, too, think that the important word is "adult" and not "two."

 

I'm not sure that I'd be opposed to plural marriage (for others, not me!) if marriage becomes a purely religious institution and for government purposes we moved to granting civil unions.

But all examples have one thing in common, the word "two". :sssh:

 

For NOW. 50 years ago when the thought of people of two different races marrying each other was a heated topic, the "one thing in common" was that it was a man and woman marrying each other. Those "one things in common" seem to becoming less and less common. Hence while I really think the legality of plural marriage will become an issue again in the not too distant future.