Hey CT! We agree on something!
Technically, and legally, marriage shouldn’t be run by the government since it is a religious institution.

and you have nailed it, as polygamy is a unique angle, and many arguments could run similar to this, but it doesn’t make the right to gay marriage any less valid, i mean ‘traditional’ polygamy is more like ‘traditional’ marriage than it is gay marriage, so should we ban all traditional marriage to prevent it. i’m not aware of much rampant gay polygamy

i personally have no argument against polygamy for consenting adults on a personal level. i do understand why polygamy is illegal, because it typically involves the exploitation of women and i do wrestle with how to prevent that. unfortunately even non-polygamous marriages can run into this problem. i can see how it could potentially get real complicated on a state level with the unique rights and differing laws then applied to groups of people.

but again, the two forms of relationships are very different so they can’t be lumped together.

my overall personal belief is that marriage shouldn’t be a part of the state’s duties.

Nathan posts some new news pertaining to this topic.

Some people murmur in agreement.

(IF) Some people throw out some original thoughts, it makes us all think about.

(ELSE) Some people throw out the same arguments they said in the last point. (THEN) Some people respond back to them in the same way the responded in the last post.

Comments slow down.

I love how you gloss over incestual relationships and polygamy because you have no argument. On one hand you say WE are discriminating against gay people, but here you are discriminating against people that want to have more than one wife.

So wait…how are they “clearly entirely different”? Just because you say that doesn’t make it true. Instead you know that it ruins your entire argument.

denise> you talk as if all private companies can do as they please and treat any group any way it wants, and that is not the case. and while diversity is nice, especially for minorities, and the acceptance of diversity is even better for them, this is not what the issue is; the issue is the state granting the same rights to everyone. when a private company operates in the public domain, it has to abide by numerous laws to allow equal rights for all, it works in all our interests. in this case, diversity of sites available increased as eharmony created another site so i don’t see your point in that regard. preferences of people don’t override companies – although the tend to guide them – but legal rights do.

what is truly ugly though, is that you are trying to equate gay realtionships to that of of incest(relatives) or sexual assault(adults&minors). a gay relationship is no different than any other, between two consenting adults. the other examples are clearly entirely different. it is also easy to say let the market solve it, when your not the one who is on the other end as the victim. it is the beautiful thing about this country, we strive to give and protect the rights of all, not just the rights of the majority or powerful, nor do the majority get to inflict their beliefs on the minority. there are many states in which such does occur though. and non-conforming opinions are not affected. no law has been passed to force onces opinion and there is no legal right to coerce anothers belief. this is the mix-up in the argument you make, giving rights to one does not constrict or restrict the rights of others. two homosexual people on a dating site or getting married don’t prevent anyone from having an opinion on disagreeing with the practice, or from having a heterosexual marriage or dating site.

Judy> one is homophobic when they view homosexuality with a prejudice, a prejudice that somehow an act involving homosexuals is somehow beneath that of the same act commited by heterosexuals, like a relationship or a marriage. why is a gay wedding not appropriate for children whereas a straight wedding is? what exactly is the difference, or where is the harm to children seeing two people express their love and devotion to one another? children in school are shown examples of all sorts of behaviors, but that doesn’t harm them. why would telling a child about homosexuality harm them anymore than explaining heterosexuality at an age appropriate level? parents have all sorts of values and beliefs different than examples given in school, but that doesn’t harm children. and taking your example for your word, is there any indication that Massachusetts youth are somehow now damaged or harmed? and parents have never had any legal right of notification about what goes on in school, outside of detailed sex education in some instances. you do raise a good point, does a parent get to certify every piece of information presented in school?

as far as the strength of family, this has nothing to do with the states granting of marriage. no one is required to start a family with children when married, nor does the state require them to remain married if they do. in fact the state requires nothing but a signature and fee to get married; you can be the worst parent ever, no problem. numerous numbers of different family compositions exist today, but no factual studies have come forth to show that the determining factor of a strong family is that it is headed by people of the opposite sex regardless of all other conditions. while you may feel your situation ‘works best’ there has never been any current law, and still isn’t on enforcing this belief. we also start getting into a contradictory area here, if one doesn’t want the state allowing gay marriage because they feel the state forces others rights or views on them, should the state be allowed to force its views on how families should be composed and run? this is generally a personal thing.

If it wasn’t, then what were they fighting for?

I find it unfortunate that in a country where we are free to disagree, the preferences of one may be used to override the rights of a private company to operate according to its conscience through litigation. If it is discrimination (and we all discriminate–still no dating sites providing services to minors, matches between relatives, matches between adults and children), then the market should be left free to work and those who disagree with eharmony can patronize another service. The current approach represents to dominance of a litigiously-based form of totalitarianism where non-conforming opinions are homogenized to agree with those willing to find a lawyer to commit a little financial blackmail.