Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'

[billisonboard]

"The only thing I don't fully have an answer for is the "slippery slope" argument that brings it to polygamy."

Why shouldn't a group of consenting adults be able to have a civil union?

[joynerk]

Mudflap, I agree that gay "marriage" is more than just two people being able to show their commitment to others (paraphrased from dezilooo's comment). But they also want the (financial & legal) benefits associated with traditional, recognized marriages.

[billisonboard]

"But they also want the (financial & legal) benefits associated with traditional, recognized marriages."

True, as American citizens they want the same benefits received by of other citizens in a legally committed relationship. Why shouldn't they get them?

[Deleted]

Although I'm a fairly conservative guy I have a pretty libertarian streak on issues like this.

Just because there is gay marriage doesn't mean churches have to accept it, but it does allow certain legal protections that gay couples should have just like straight people, such as health care coverage, wills, stuff like that.

If you want to call it 'civil union', 'almost marriage' whatever doesn't matter to me...just sad that you shoudln't be able to have certain legal protections because of the person you choose to love.

[chiver78]

Dec 25, 2010 21:00:50 GMT -5 @saver74 said:

just sad that you shouldn't be able to have certain legal protections because of the person you choose to love.

thank you. that is exactly the point of the issue.

[joynerk]

Dec 25, 2010 22:27:29 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Dec 25, 2010 21:00:50 GMT -5 @saver74 said:

just sad that you shouldn't be able to have certain legal protections because of the person you choose to love.

thank you. that is exactly the point of the issue.

What you said!

[sanityjones]

While I do not support the GLT lifestyle for various reasons I do recognize the futility of a government attempting to legislate morality. billisonboard brings up a valid concern with the slippery slope argument, and it is deserving of consideration in this debate IMO. What separates the institution of gay marriage from polygamy or what would traditionally be categorized as incest? Although this issue has been heavily politicized I tend to view it primarily as a social issue rather than a political one, therefore it reduces down to a State licensing issue rather than a constitutional one, IMO.

[joynerk]

Dec 25, 2010 22:46:07 GMT -5 @sanityjones said:

While I do not support the GLT lifestyle for various reasons I do recognize the futility of a government attempting to legislate morality. billisonboard brings up a valid concern with the slippery slope argument, and it is deserving of consideration in this debate IMO. What separates the institution of gay marriage from polygamy or what would traditionally be categorized as incest? Although this issue has been heavily politicized I tend to view it primarily as a social issue rather than a political one, therefore it reduces down to a State licensing issue rather than a constitutional one, IMO.

Well, I'd say in those examples you listed, there are clear boundaries that would still be in effect with a recognized "civil union". The closest argument I see is with polygamy - whereas marriage is now "one man, one woman", couldn't (if we used the civil union terms listed in pp - as separate but equal to marriage) we use terminology something like "sacred between two people"?? That would thereby exclude a union of anything more than two consenting adults.

The incest, I just don't see the correlation. However, if you speaking of "slippery slope" as amalgamous to "gateway drug" for letting all the crazies sic their lawyers on the supreme court?? Then maybe.

[billisonboard]

What separates the institution of gay marriage from polygamy or what would traditionally be categorized as incest?

What separates the institution of traditional marriage from polygamy? You have consenting adults entering into a contractual agreement.

What separates the institution of gay or traditional marriage from incest? The compelling state interest of genetic problems with offspring from incestuous sex.

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2010 23:27:58 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What separates the institution of gay marriage from polygamy or what would traditionally be categorized as incest?

What separates the institution of traditional marriage from polygamy? You have consenting adults entering into a contractual agreement.

What separates the institution of gay or traditional marriage from incest? The compelling state interest of genetic problems with offspring from incestuous sex.

Obviously you need to make the more inclusive marriage laws only applicable to 2 people...not 3 not 4 but 2.

As for incest there are already laws against that, I don't know what that would have to do with gay marriage. Are there any advoctes for incest marriage out there? I think thats a pretty big red herring.

[sanityjones]

I'm not trying to create a red herring out of incest, but merely address another posters comment that it is just sad that you shouldn't be able to have certain legal protections because of the person you choose to love. In addressing The compelling state interest of genetic problems with offspring from incestuous sex, it seems that there may be links to homosexuality and aids? Are there advocates for incest out there? Probably not........but where were the mainstream advocates for gay marriage 60 years ago? A certain segment of today's society is calling for a departure from (or option to) the State sponsored "traditional marriage" in favor of a "recognized civil union". What will tomorrow's generation be advocating as an addendum to recognized civil unions?

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2010 23:40:55 GMT -5 @sanityjones said:

I'm not trying to create a red herring out of incest, but merely address another posters comment that it is just sad that you shouldn't be able to have certain legal protections because of the person you choose to love. In addressing The compelling state interest of genetic problems with offspring from incestuous sex, it seems that there may be links to homosexuality and aids? Are there advocates for incest out there? Probably not........but where were the mainstream advocates for gay marriage 60 years ago?

Public opinion and society evolves...at one point black people weren't allowed to vote or marry people of other races.

Its going to be for another generation to decide about legal 'incest marriage' and what that might mean for society.

Just because 'thats the way it always been' doesn't make it the way it always should be.

[billisonboard]

"Obviously you need to make the more inclusive marriage laws only applicable to 2 people...not 3 not 4 but 2."

Why?

[billisonboard]

"...it seems that there may be links to homosexuality and aids"

Myth totally blown out of the water years ago.

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2010 0:01:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"Obviously you need to make the more inclusive marriage laws only applicable to 2 people...not 3 not 4 but 2."

Why?

I am for the legal advantages of marriage, straight or gay, why make a mockery of marriage and have 50 people be 'married'...do you then get to claim 50 dependents on your taxes?

Two would be reasonable to keep it from getting absurd.

[deziloooooo]

Lots of things have happened in sixty years..while not all good, think our wars, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia and on and on..so much good has come about in personal and peoples freedoms, the slow doing away with prejudices , and in sixty years from now, for those young now who will still be here as the senior, seniors, how they may marvel...possible the times will change, poligamy will/may be accepted. Incest, there I doubt it..though in some form censensual..same age types , cousins, just possible...brother/sister /parents..hope not..but I wonder.
IMHO the gay marriage, that will be accepted , with all the rights that a marriage contract gives heterosexual partners today..no more, no less.

[sanityjones]

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2064227%2F&ei=kc0WTbfAIuDsnQeQzZmpDg&usg=AFQjCNHU4t2nx4_wzl_ZYHfPgJYZ6XVsXg

What's wrong with marrying your cousin? - By William Saletan


Look' I'm not pro incest, I merely brought it up as a hypothetical. Sheesh.

[deziloooooo]

Actually love my cousins..don't want to marry them...the thing is the closeness , the genes, not healthy for the off spring..not automatic but there is a risk..

[billisonboard]

"Two would be reasonable to keep it from getting absurd."

IYHO of course.

"50 people be 'married'...do you then get to claim 50 dependents on your taxes?

Why not? Of course, the collective would have had to make enough money to support that number of people. Would it work to their advantage to combine all of that income into one return? I'm not a tax expert but I don't see it.

[Deleted]

'cousin marriage' seems to be basically legal now...all you have to do is go to one of the states that allow it.

www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

[sanityjones]

Dec 26, 2010 0:21:13 GMT -5 @saver74 said:

'cousin marriage' seems to be basically legal now...all you have to do is go to one of the states that allow it.

www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

Glad to see that, now we just need it to catch on socially so it can be politicized.

[Tennesseer]

but where were the mainstream advocates for gay marriage 60 years ago?

Where were the mainstream advocates for black civil rights or interracial marriage 70 years ago? They weren't there either. Blacks were freed from slavery 100 years earlier but were still treated as second-class citizens up until the 1960s.

Mainstream society was perfectly content for gays to remain out of sight until the Stonewall Riots in the summer of 1969. Most every family either had a family member who was gay or knew someone else who had a gay family member. These family members simply were not spoken of outside of the home.

Gays started to realize that they entitled to the same civil rights as the rest of America. It has only been 40 years since gays decided enough was enough and slowly but surely, most Americans are believing that too

Society and mores evolve over time. What was not conventional 100 years ago is today conventional.

[goldenrun]

The word "marriage" DOES matter, which is exactly why gay people insist that we have the right to marry and use that word. Churches do not have to marry a gay couple, but the civil authorities must be mandated to do so, IF civil rights are to be afforded to all citizens.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy; it is not a slippery slope.
Marriage is a civil contract, which is why those who can now "marry" must get a license to do so.
BTW, gay people CAN give birth to children....

[Deleted]

I also want to point out that I'm very unhappy about how the commonwealth (born and raised in MA) came about allowing gay marriage. The Supreme court over here decided that we needed a law allowing gay marriage and ordered the legislature to write it and pass it and ordered the Governor to sign it into law and even gave them a deadline.

Even if you're for gay-marriage, you have to agree that this is completely wrong and should never have happened. The court completely over-stepped its boundaries in a scary and dangerous way.

I look at it that the court rules on what is legal & not legal. They decide if something the government does is legal or not legal. They decided that the government was depriving certain citizens from rights that others had & ordered the legislature to "fix" it. Sounds to me like they were doing their job. Very similar to them ordering that African Americans be allowed to get the same education & be allowed to vote. Of course that's just my opinion.

[mudflap81]

Why shouldn't a group of consenting adults be able to have a civil union?

Many of the rights given to marriage are to make the transition of property ownership from one person (the dead spouse) to a second one (the living spouse) quick, simple, and free. If there are 3, 4, or 5 survivors, who does it go to? Will there be lawsuits if one person gets more than the others? Does everything go to one (the most "senior" spouse)? Wills are routinely challenged for these reasons between siblings and children.

As for incest there are already laws against that, I don't know what that would have to do with gay marriage. Are there any advoctes for incest marriage out there? I think thats a pretty big red herring.

Yes, yes there are these groups. And yes they are filing suits in states that are passing gay marriage.

Myth totally blown out of the water years ago.

Was once very true for a few years in the early 80's, but has not been true for 25 years. Aids was decimating the gay community (including my family) before it spread to the population at large.

True, as American citizens they want the same benefits received by of other citizens in a legally committed relationship. Why shouldn't they get them

I've watched people on tv say this, but I've never actually met a single person who is against a homosexual couple receiving the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple. I've met a lot of people (myself included) who are against having to get permission from the government and pay a fee in order to be allowed to conduct a private Church ceremony. Yes, it all comes down to the word.

Also, every person I've ever met that's against gay marriage has no problem taking the existing laws and 1) changing the word "marriage" into something else and 2) changing the "man and woman" to "two people."

[billisonboard]

re: message #54
Yes there will be lawsuits as there are now when marriages fall apart. Good pre-nups (compelling state interest would require them for multiple partner marriages) would work to minimize.

I don't understand why one has to get permission and pay a fee to conduct a private Church ceremony. I know you do have to do that to get paperwork from the government, fill it out, and then file it with them. But why to just have a ceremony?

[chiver78]

Dec 26, 2010 14:13:21 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I also want to point out that I'm very unhappy about how the commonwealth (born and raised in MA) came about allowing gay marriage. The Supreme court over here decided that we needed a law allowing gay marriage and ordered the legislature to write it and pass it and ordered the Governor to sign it into law and even gave them a deadline.

Even if you're for gay-marriage, you have to agree that this is completely wrong and should never have happened. The court completely over-stepped its boundaries in a scary and dangerous way.

I look at it that the court rules on what is legal & not legal. They decide if something the government does is legal or not legal. They decided that the government was depriving certain citizens from rights that others had & ordered the legislature to "fix" it. Sounds to me like they were doing their job. Very similar to them ordering that African Americans be allowed to get the same education & be allowed to vote. Of course that's just my opinion.

where's that thumbs up emo from the old board?

[chiver78]

Dec 26, 2010 16:38:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

re: message #54
Yes there will be lawsuits as there are now when marriages fall apart. Good pre-nups (compelling state interest would require them for multiple partner marriages) would work to minimize.

I don't understand why one has to get permission and pay a fee to conduct a private Church ceremony. I know you do have to do that to get paperwork from the government, fill it out, and then file it with them. But why to just have a ceremony?

to have that ceremony recognized by the government to ensure those legal protections afforded to married couples are in place.

what I would say to those people that complain about the fee is that it must be nice to have to pay a fee in order to get married, when so many people in this country (and world) can't marry the one they love.

[billisonboard]

"to have that ceremony recognized by the government to ensure those legal protections afforded to married couples are in place."

So you are paying a fee to the government for a benefit received through the government, not to have a private ceremony.

[chiver78]

Dec 26, 2010 17:01:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"to have that ceremony recognized by the government to ensure those legal protections afforded to married couples are in place."

So you are paying a fee to the government for a benefit received through the government, not to have a private ceremony.

right, otherwise you'd just be married by a JP. since you want to be married in your church, you would be paying to have your religious ceremony recognized. if you are married by a JP, you are paying for the JP's time and services. that's how I understood it, anyway.