Marriage Laws

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The state has a reason to limit marriage (as we currently know it) to two because the whole legal structure upon which marraige is based assumes two people. Things like the intestate disposition of property and the right to make end of life decisions would have to be completely reworked. If, however, a state were willing to do the work and make new laws to deal with the situation, then why not recognize polygomous unions? If we did recognize them, I'd have no problem calling them a marriage.

so we should be able to marry as many as we like, if we get off our collective ass and rework the laws?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I agree with you on the values idea, everyone's is different, hence my argument that laws cannot be passed to discriminate against those with differeing values.

See, this is the part that I just can't get past. If we can't pass laws that affect people with different values, than what laws can we pass? I can't think of any values out there that are completely and universally accepted by everyone.

[wig]

Why are all prison movie babes named Honey?

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by John Galt

we should.

REPRESSION REPRESSION. JOHN IS CALLING FOR REPRESSION!

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I love all these homophobic slippery-slope arguments. They're quite amusing. Keep 'em coming.

I love all these you must be homophobic if you don't agree with me arguments. They're very amusing, but please stop them.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well i love all the "judeo-christianphobic" arguments on how its all cool to be gay and stuff. We shouldnt have to accept the garbage thats going on in SF or Mass. If you want to marry your partner, go move to freaking canada or something.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner for the worst reply in this thread. Yes, the "go to Canada" argument is always a strong one.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Assuming being gay is a choice, I assume you would have no problem with a law that prevented Christians from being married (since no one is born Christian).

well said John, and skydog, i do understand your comment as well, nicely added!

This makes me stop and consider why we have government interaction with marriage at all? Why do we need licenses from a state in order to be recognized?

I understand that for tax reasons, married couples would need to be registered somehow, so that tax benefits are assigned properly.

can someone fill in some other *realistic* reasons why? Because if we find that licensing marriage is unnecessary, perhaps this is a moot arguement?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

True, but I'd be suprised if anyone is supporting that. If they do, just change the example to any other religion.

Supporting what? Reformed theology? You'd be surprised.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wig

I almost want to take "someone" off ignore to see what he posted.

A word to the wise -- don't do it. I've given in to that temptation numerous times & it never fails that I regret it almost immediately.

[wig]

I'm against any community asking for special rights.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by stevew

If you want to marry your partner, go move to freaking canada or something.

I would, but they might stop my car with a grenade.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

REPRESSION REPRESSION. JOHN IS CALLING FOR REPRESSION!

Why? Because I believe kids can't form the requisite intent to consent to marry. How about if I said 8 year olds shouldn't be subject to the death penalty because they can't form the requisite intent to kill? Does that make you feel better?

[wig]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A word to the wise -- don't do it. I've given in to that temptation numerous times & it never fails that I regret it almost immediately.

I hear you, brother. I used to give in to the temptation, and it was always a bad move.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Fritz

so we should be able to marry as many as we like, if we get off our collective ass and rework the laws?

If the state (which is nothing more or less than We the People) decides that pologomy is a good idea and passes laws to accomidate it, why not?

I just don't think that it would work now because the whole structure of the laws as they are written depends upon only two people.

Since most people are against pologomy, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner for the worst reply in this thread. Yes, the "go to Canada" argument is always a strong one.

Damn, I should have listened when Wig told me to put you on ignore

[Fritz]

yes

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Supporting what? Reformed theology? You'd be surprised.

Maybe, but that is some (excuse my French) wacked out shit. It is also the basis for a very dangerous perspective in our "war on terror." Anything that enables religious and culture wars freaks the hell out of me.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I would, but they might stop my car with a grenade.

As long as nobody tries to blast you with a "pipe-bomb", I think that you will be okay.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Since most people are against pologomy, I don't see it happening any time soon.

So is it really just a question of majority rules?

And if so, are you confident that the majority is in favor of gay marriage?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I love all these you must be homophobic if you don't agree with me arguments. Please stop them.

I have yet to see a cogent argument against allowing gay civil unions aside from ones that seem to think that gay people will go on some sort of animal/child-fucking rampage if we allow them to have equal legal status to heteros.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

So is it really just a question of majority rules?

And if so, are you confident that the majority is in favor of gay marriage?

No and No for me. I think albionmoonlight is totally wrong on this one.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by wig

After this issue is resolved, you'll see some 40 year old man using the courts to allow him to have sex with 12 year old boys.

Once again, Senator Santorum makes his way onto our happy, humble board... This time in the form of the infamous "wig."

[wig]

Somewhat off topic, but not really, does anyone else think that the "slippery slope" argument doesn't work because we are already on that slope?

Seriously, 2 men asking the government to give them special benefits that are reserved for married couples? This doesn't sound like the downside of that slope to anyone?

The courts are going to be the downfall of this society, along with soy milk.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by wig

I'm against any community asking for special rights.

Yeah, I hated it too when heteros got the right to marry.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

No and No for me. I think albionmoonlight is totally wrong on this one.

That seems like a much more consistent position.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I love all these homophobic slippery-slope arguments. They're quite amusing. Keep 'em coming.

Especially when you don't answer any of them.

JohnGalt, since we outlaw incestual relationships because of the health effects it would have on a child, then shouldn't we start banning deaf couples from getting married? What about couples who both carry the genetic marker for cerebral palsy?

Your argument regarding polygamy is also sadly short sighted. You say as long as marriage is defined as two people (regardless of gender). But right now marriage is regarded as a man and a woman. If we remove the gender restriction, why shouldn't we remove the number of people entitled to marriage?

As to Christians not being allowed to marry, I haven't seen too many Christians comparing their struggle for salvation to the civil rights movement. I have, however, seen supporters of gay marriage do that very thing. That was the basis for my comments. However, we do currently forbid those who would practice polygamy as part of their religion from getting married, so I guess it could happen (and very well might if some people would have their way).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RendeR

well said John, and skydog, i do understand your comment as well, nicely added!

This makes me stop and consider why we have government interaction with marriage at all? Why do we need licenses from a state in order to be recognized?

I understand that for tax reasons, married couples would need to be registered somehow, so that tax benefits are assigned properly.

can someone fill in some other *realistic* reasons why? Because if we find that licensing marriage is unnecessary, perhaps this is a moot arguement?

That gets to my initial post. The state has chosen to recognize a certain legal relationship as a "marraige." It coorolates to, but is not hopelessly intertwined with the spiritual relationship known as marriage.

Some legal effects of marriage: disposition of property at death, tax concerns, right to make end of life decision, property rights in certain states, etc.

Maybe the answer that would make everyone the most happy would be to call all legal unions between two people "civil unions" and reserve the word Marriage for the spiritual side of things. That way, everyone is being treated equally from the state perspective, but the word and concept of "marriage" can maintain its power and dignity in everyone's eyes.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I have yet to see a cogent argument against allowing gay civil unions aside from ones that seem to think that gay people will go on some sort of animal/child-fucking rampage if we allow them to have equal legal status to heteros.

Well then we must be reading things quite differently. What I've seen is people saying that the need to define marriage stems from a fear of marriage becoming a broad institution that can be utilized by those who would engage in activity considered by a large portion of the population to be immoral and wrong. As far as I know, no one said they were worried that gays would do those things.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I have yet to see a cogent argument against allowing gay civil unions aside from ones that seem to think that gay people will go on some sort of animal/child-fucking rampage if we allow them to have equal legal status to heteros.

Either you honestly don't understand the argument being made, or else (more likely) you're intentionally warping it in order to make it easier to defeat.

And if that's the case, John Galt is going to beat you down for straw-manning. You've been warned!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I've said this before. Call it a "civil union" or something to that effect, and I say it should be legal.

Then the government would have to stop requiring a marriage license, and require everyone to get a "civil union license." If marriage really is a religious issue, the state should not be requiring you to get licensed for it.

[CamEdwards]

jeez, I can't keep up with this stuff.

[wig]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

jeez, I can't keep up with this stuff.

Don't worry, nothing new is ever posted.

[Chubby]

Are we debating this again?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Especially when you don't answer any of them.

JohnGalt, since we outlaw incestual relationships because of the health effects it would have on a child, then shouldn't we start banning deaf couples from getting married? What about couples who both carry the genetic marker for cerebral palsy?

Your argument regarding polygamy is also sadly short sighted. You say as long as marriage is defined as two people (regardless of gender). But right now marriage is regarded as a man and a woman. If we remove the gender restriction, why shouldn't we remove the number of people entitled to marriage?

As to Christians not being allowed to marry, I haven't seen too many Christians comparing their struggle for salvation to the civil rights movement. I have, however, seen supporters of gay marriage do that very thing. That was the basis for my comments. However, we do currently forbid those who would practice polygamy as part of their religion from getting married, so I guess it could happen (and very well might if some people would have their way).

On your first argument, I think eugenics is a very different case. Creating a small pool that encourages bad mutations is one thing, but preventing minorities (deaf) from procreating and selecting out "bad" traits is an ugly power to give gov't (see Hitler). Regulating intra-family childbearing is not the same thing and once again, the slippery slope is fallacious.

On your second argument, (beyond the fact that the slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy), the same point was made with blacks marrying whites. People felt changing the definition of marriage would open "everything" up. Amazingly it didn't.

On your last point, I don't think you really answered the argument. Would you support a law that forbade Jews to marry just because the majority supported it? (Your example of polygamy is slightly askew because the law eliminates a practice that was at one time used by a certain religion - not dissimilar from laws that ban human sacrifice that were practiced by some religions).

[wig]

Chubby is going to backload this topic.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

That gets to my initial post. The state has chosen to recognize a certain legal relationship as a "marraige." It coorolates to, but is not hopelessly intertwined with the spiritual relationship known as marriage.

Some legal effects of marriage: disposition of property at death, tax concerns, right to make end of life decision, property rights in certain states, etc.

Maybe the answer that would make everyone the most happy would be to call all legal unions between two people "civil unions" and reserve the word Marriage for the spiritual side of things. That way, everyone is being treated equally from the state perspective, but the word and concept of "marriage" can maintain its power and dignity in everyone's eyes.

But doesn't this just relate to semantics? I suppose if the legal side of things were equal and fair to all people through this type of result then it could be acceptable, but I don't think thats what the people frantically trying to pass amendmants to their states constitutions are trying to do. You don't put a ban of something into your constitution to be fair and equal to those you are banning.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Are we debating this again?

Define "debating"...

[RendeR]

Also, QUICKSAND: I saw a post from you that was amazingly dead on. Please repost it!!!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Either you honestly don't understand the argument being made, or else (more likely) you're intentionally warping it in order to make it easier to defeat.

And if that's the case, John Galt is going to beat you down for straw-manning. You've been warned!

*beating down Butter*

[albionmoonlight]

I think that it is clear that the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage.

I think that it is clear that the majority of people in this country are againt pologomy.

There is nothing fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing same sex marriage. Therefore, even though the majority of people are against it, the state simply should not have the right to deny marriage to someone based on what is, to me, a completely superficial reason.

There is something fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing pologomy (i.e. the entire structure of "marriage" law). Therefore, the state has the right to prevent pologomous unions.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

*beating down Butter*

That just sounds funny anyway.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Define "debating"...

Well that depends on your definition of the word "is"...

I'm surprised Bubba Wheels hasn't pounced on this topic like a priest at a cub scout meeting...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Define "debating"...

I don't think Chubby can - that was the problem he had last time he was "around" one of these discussions.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

On your first argument, I think eugenics is a very different case. Creating a small pool that encourages bad mutations is one thing, but preventing minorities (deaf) from procreating and selecting out "bad" traits is an ugly power to give gov't (see Hitler).

I envoke Godwin's Law and declare this thread over.

SkyDog, lock away.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Also, QUICKSAND: I saw a post from you that was amazingly dead on. Please repost it!!!

I was going to repost it, but then I realized half the people in this thread have me on "ignore."

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that it is clear that the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage.

Did Ms Cleo tell you this? Feel free to cite sources since every poll I have seen shows people don't really give a fuck, unless this is going to be another debate over Christianity "owning" the word marriage.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

On your first argument, I think eugenics is a very different case. Creating a small pool that encourages bad mutations is one thing, but preventing minorities (deaf) from procreating and selecting out "bad" traits is an ugly power to give gov't (see Hitler). Regulating intra-family childbearing is not the same thing and once again, the slippery slope is fallacious.

On your second argument, (beyond the fact that the slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy), the same point was made with blacks marrying whites. People felt changing the definition of marriage would open "everything" up. Amazingly it didn't.

On your last point, I don't think you really answered the argument. Would you support a law that forbade Jews to marry just because the majority supported it? (Your example of polygamy is slightly askew because the law eliminates a practice that was at one time used by a certain religion - not dissimilar from laws that ban human sacrifice that were practiced by some religions).

John, if you really believe the slippery slope argument is fallacious, go back and read the Mass. Supreme Court decision. You'll find plenty that proves you wrong.

As to whether or not I would support a law that forbade Jews to marry... of course not. And I'd be protesting just as loudly as those in support of gay marriage. I've never said people shouldn't debate the issue. I've never said people shouldn't believe what they believe. I just believe I'm right, and a majority of Americans feel the same way. If I was in the minority, of course I'd be protesting. Dissent is patriotic, right?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I envoke Godwin's Law and declare this thread over.

SkyDog, lock away.

True enough, I forgot about that. Of course, I didn't bring up eugenics and how can you bring up eugenics without immediately pulling out the Hitler card?

[wig]

Fat people shouldn't marry either.

[albionmoonlight]

I based my belief on the fact that most states seem to be tripping all over themselves to pass "one man and one woman" amendments.

Whether the majority is against gay marriage or for gay marraige or does not care does not really change my arguement.

[Your catch brings to mind one of the cardinal rules of reading. Whenever someone starts a sentence with "It is clear that. . . ." you can be sure that what follows is 1.) not clear and 2.) not supported.

Thanks for keeping me honest.]