That's not valid. - Edit 1
Before modification by Tom at 05/08/2010 05:32:34 PM
The limitation on adult/child marriage is because a child cannot legally consent to such a union and can be rejected out of hand.
Laws prohibiting close relations from marrying should, honestly, also be removed. It's probably not a good idea for them to have children, but really, if they consent they should be permitted to marry. The state has no business restricting that.
Finally, marriages of more than two people, while theoretically something that should be permitted if the government is legislating marriage, would require amendment of all existing laws regarding tax, insurance and other status. While employers accept paying for an employee's spouse, I think the idea that four spouses and twelve children could be added to a policy as a result of taking on a new employee would be difficult. Furthermore, constitutionally, marriage can be limited to two persons. To say that marriage is a socioeconomic union of two individuals does not hinder the rights of anyone, be they homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. If someone chooses to enter a more complicated living arrangement they need to find ways to accommodate that to existing law.
Finally, with respect to the point that gays can get married, just not to one another, is just blindly ignoring that the designations "homosexual" and "heterosexual" exist. It is akin to saying, "Blacks can go to schools - just not the same ones as whites" or "Women can get jobs, too - just not the same ones as men" or "Paraplegics shouldn't get any Medicare because they choose not to walk".
Laws prohibiting close relations from marrying should, honestly, also be removed. It's probably not a good idea for them to have children, but really, if they consent they should be permitted to marry. The state has no business restricting that.
Finally, marriages of more than two people, while theoretically something that should be permitted if the government is legislating marriage, would require amendment of all existing laws regarding tax, insurance and other status. While employers accept paying for an employee's spouse, I think the idea that four spouses and twelve children could be added to a policy as a result of taking on a new employee would be difficult. Furthermore, constitutionally, marriage can be limited to two persons. To say that marriage is a socioeconomic union of two individuals does not hinder the rights of anyone, be they homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. If someone chooses to enter a more complicated living arrangement they need to find ways to accommodate that to existing law.
Finally, with respect to the point that gays can get married, just not to one another, is just blindly ignoring that the designations "homosexual" and "heterosexual" exist. It is akin to saying, "Blacks can go to schools - just not the same ones as whites" or "Women can get jobs, too - just not the same ones as men" or "Paraplegics shouldn't get any Medicare because they choose not to walk".