Loading 0 Votes - +

RE: Why not?

Are you saying they should specify two, or was that a slip up? Because really, why should the government care if there are more?

Not a slip up. We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two. Adding another person creates a lot of new situations that we don’t currently have processes to deal with. The added complexity in a legal relationship between three (or more) people is a great deal more than is perhaps obvious.

Would you oppose using something other than “marriage” as that name?…

Not really. Partnership. Legal Union. Marriage. I don’t care as long as there’s one set of rules for them across the board so groups can’t work around extending the benefits to the participants in said unions. If your church wants to “marry” (or “seal”) you, then you are married. But the legal term is independent. Though it is entirely possible that I am overlooking a downside to this. It’s hard to take the goggles off.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Votes  - +
RE: Why not? by Jackson

Are you saying they should specify two

Just a cheeky follow-up, I think the structure of the union should be based on how many people are involved in decision making for the union, not how many penises are present. I pretty much feel that since we already have rules for two person legal unions and those rules are largely unaffected by the sexual organs of the participants, it’s a low-risk change.

0 Votes  - +
RE: Why not? by Brandon

I don’t think you’re overlooking a down side from a legal standpoint. Now, if you believe homosexuality is a sin and that it’s the government’s duty to discourage all sin, then you’d think differently. I think we are on the page on all that, though, so I’ll move on.

The thing that’s interesting to me is that your position is very close to so many others, but it turns into a big hullaballoo just because you’re okay with using the word marriage and others aren’t.

We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two.

I think this argument is a little weak – unless you’re willing to give up (or at least severely water down) all of the “freedom” and “right” stuff.

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

Dzhokar Tsarnaev deserves due process?

33 votes, 4 comments