What does the "gay" lobby plan to do about the fact that "gay marriage" currently discriminates against bisexuals?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yeah, you are misreading. The statement “Views on marriage and what it has meant have been evolving for a few thousand years over time and geography” is not focused on same sex marriage. It’s talking about views of marriage in general. Changes in economic potential have an impact in how marriage is engaged. For more recent examples look at the changes in your people have engaged marriage in developing countries in which the middle class has been rising over the past few decades. Contrary to livingwordunity’s expression that marriage is being attacked I think it’s under change prior to the alleged attack and will continue to change after said attack is over.

Coincidentally TED Talks just put out a video talking about the evolution of marriage (perhaps because of Valentine’s day?).

youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZ6QB5TSfk

There was a recent conversation among my coworkers about marriage.** May of them view marriage as a business arrangement**. Even among the few that had been raised in a family that identified as Catholic the views on marriage were not sacramental. Most are paired up with another individual, some of them have children, but the count of those that have interest in getting married is pretty low. As one of them had said he didn’t think that it would be a good business decision. I myself have before questioned the good of marriage beyond the legal benefits that come with it. In general there seems to be an increasing trend of heterosexuals Going Solo and not carry much about marriage there’s increasing apathy about same sex couples getting married.

Historically, that is what it was.

 

[livingwordunity]

But this issue of bigamy addresses the flaw in the argument for homosexual marriage. Why should marriage be limited to just two individuals? If the argument that marriage should be limited to male-female is wrong, why isn’t the argument that it should be limited to 2 people wrong? If you are going to redefine something, you need to be able to defend what you don’t redefine (in this case marriage just being for 2 individuals).

Excellent point.

 

[marymary1975]

But this issue of bigamy addresses the flaw in the argument for homosexual marriage. Why should marriage be limited to just two individuals? If the argument that marriage should be limited to male-female is wrong, why isn’t the argument that it should be limited to 2 people wrong? If you are going to redefine something, you need to be able to defend what you don’t redefine (in this case marriage just being for 2 individuals).

Excellent point! The problem with the gay movement is that they are promoting gay marriage under “equiality” which means same right for “everyone” not only for them. Because they are using the umbrella of equality then unless they do support polygamist and polyamorous people they are being purely hypocrital as they don’t want any Equality. If they would want right only for them then they shouldn’t use the equality argument. But the way it stands right now using the equality story is nothing but hypocreay and a big flaw in the argument.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Excellent point! The problem with the gay movement is that they are promoting gay marriage under “equiality” which means same right for “everyone” not only for them. Because they are using the umbrella of equality then unless they do support polygamist and polyamorous people they are being purely hypocrital as they don’t want any Equality. If they would want right only for them then they shouldn’t use the equality argument. But the way it stands right now using the equality story is nothing but hypocreay and a big flaw in the argument.

They don’t agree with your strawman ergo they’re wrong?

Marriage is now about “love” between two people with children optional, it is unjust to exclude some pairs, but not others based solely on legal sex.

Either restore marriage to being about kids and being a durable relationship (instead of one which can easily be terminated) or stop violating the equal protection clause.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Either restore marriage to being about kids and being a durable relationship (instead of one which can easily be terminated) or stop violating the equal protection clause.

What does “restoring marriage to being about kids and being a durable relationship” entail? I think that choice sounds attractive to me, and I would like to pursue it. What do we have to do to achieve that? And if we do achieve it, does that mean we would not be violating the equal protection clause, as your dichotomy implies?

 

[livingwordunity]

The problem with the gay movement is that they are promoting gay marriage under “equiality” which means same right for “everyone” not only for them. Because they are using the umbrella of equality then unless they do support polygamist and polyamorous people they are being purely hypocrital as they don’t want any Equality. If they would want right only for them then they shouldn’t use the equality argument. But the way it stands right now using the equality story is nothing but hypocreay and a big flaw in the argument.

Exactly!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What does “restoring marriage to being about kids and being a durable relationship” entail? I think that choice sounds attractive to me, and I would like to pursue it. What do we have to do to achieve that? And if we do achieve it, does that mean we would not be violating the equal protection clause, as your dichotomy implies?

Get rid of abortion and no fault divorce as a start. Sadly the left will kill you for the former and both will kill you for the latter.