70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The court said, "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

True. This is another reason why the right of marriage should not be determined by the "doctrines of religious belief".

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Actually, that could be a religious/cultural bias too. I think there have been quite a few cultures with practices that pair adults/adolescents (many where the pairings are same-sex, too).

Ancient Greece for one. In fact all over the ancient world

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Can a man marry a sandwich?
Can a man marry a midget?
Can a man be married to a midget and have sex with a sandwich?
Can a man procreate with a 12-year-old sandwich?

No
Yes
Yes
You pervert

[CamEdwards]

HB,

No, actually I meant what I said. I, as an adult straight male, have the same rules that an adult gay male has. I get to marry a woman, he gets to marry a woman. That is equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.

The government most certainly does NOT get involved in approving my love for another consenting adult. There was nothing on my marriage license about "do you love the person you're getting married to?"

Finally, I'm saying that no matter how difficult it is to get there, we should be working towards no legal benefit or recognition of marriage at all. I'm in favor of civil unions, but leave "marriage" to the churches and society at large.

I think it's ridiculous for gay marriage opponents to base their opposition largely on religious grounds, and I've yet to be swayed by the secular arguments. However, I also think it's ridiculous for gay marriage proponents to expect that a majority of society (53% in California at least) is going to be okay with a government of, for, and by the people ignoring the will of the people in determining the terms of a civil contract.

As a conservative, I also don't believe that the government need be involved in every aspect of my life, and this is a case where I don't see the government able to satisfy the will of the People, given how divided the issue is. If the two sides are completely intractable in their positions, then perhaps we need a third option. The only other options I see would be to allow this to be determined at a state level through referendum, or putting forth competing constitutional amendments barring or allowing gay marriage.

[DanGarion]

The declaration that the government shouldn't get involved seems like a cop out, IMO... I mean if they don't then who does? The government is the one that gives the breaks to those that are married, and the ones that set the laws as to who can do what for their significant other, so they are involved already.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

HB,

No, actually I meant what I said. I, as an adult straight male, have the same rules that an adult gay male has. I get to marry a woman, he gets to marry a woman. That is equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.

The government most certainly does NOT get involved in approving my love for another consenting adult. There was nothing on my marriage license about "do you love the person you're getting married to?"

Finally, I'm saying that no matter how difficult it is to get there, we should be working towards no legal benefit or recognition of marriage at all. I'm in favor of civil unions, but leave "marriage" to the churches and society at large.

I think it's ridiculous for gay marriage opponents to base their opposition largely on religious grounds, and I've yet to be swayed by the secular arguments. However, I also think it's ridiculous for gay marriage proponents to expect that a majority of society (53% in California at least) is going to be okay with a government of, for, and by the people ignoring the will of the people in determining the terms of a civil contract.

As a conservative, I also don't believe that the government need be involved in every aspect of my life, and this is a case where I don't see the government able to satisfy the will of the People, given how divided the issue is. If the two sides are completely intractable in their positions, then perhaps we need a third option. The only other options I see would be to allow this to be determined at a state level through referendum, or putting forth competing constitutional amendments barring or allowing gay marriage.

Here's a question though: in the absence of government getting out of the business of "marriage" and into the business of "civil unions for all" is it then okay to discriminate against people because we have not reached that point yet? That's not logical at all.

Look, gay people aren't saying they want to be married by a priest in your church (using the non-specific your, not referring to you Cam). Gay people are saying they want to be able to go down to City Hall and get a marriage license and have a civil ceremony, or a ceremony in a church where that faith allows it. It's entirely non-religious, and yet people get worked up like it's religious simply because the word is the same?? So now all of a sudden that's a basis for discrimination?

[DaddyTorgo]

I think I'm going to start worshipping "God" in public only my "God" is going to be Satan, or Hitler. I guess I should expect to be in for a rough time with that though hmm? Since the word I'm using is the same. Even though it doesn't affect how someone worships the other "God."




See...now wouldn't that just be stupid. Wouldn't you roll your eyes at an amendment saying I couldn't do that?

It's no different with "marriage."

And yes, I also believe the government should be in the business of "civil unions for everyone and no marriages" but until we get there I'm not willing to allow discrimination against a group just because we haven't got there.

[CamEdwards]

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think I'm going to start worshipping "God" in public only my "God" is going to be Satan, or Hitler. I guess I should expect to be in for a rough time with that though hmm? Since the word I'm using is the same. Even though it doesn't affect how someone worships the other "God."




See...now wouldn't that just be stupid. Wouldn't you roll your eyes at an amendment saying I couldn't do that?

It's no different with "marriage."

And yes, I also believe the government should be in the business of "civil unions for everyone and no marriages" but until we get there I'm not willing to allow discrimination against a group just because we haven't got there.

You'd be in for a rough time of it, but I can't see where the government would step in and get involved. After all, we already have practicing Satanists in this country, and lord knows there are people out there with their Hitler fetishes.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

well that clearly was discriminatory too.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

oh i agree, and i am a staunch supporter of "civil unions for all" - I just don't think that in the meantime, while we wait for that compromise to be reached that we have the right to discriminate against a group.

[DaddyTorgo]

my point was less about the specifics of it though, and more about the fact that it's a word...it's a label. the word itself in this context has no religious meaning. that's the problem - that the word has been coopted by the legal establishment to refer to a legal conjoining, instead of remaining purely religious in nature.

but that does not give us the right to discriminate against a group until such a time as that is rectified by replacing it with a secular term. discrimination and bigotry is never okay, regardless of the circumstances. people who are "anti gay marriage" ought to instead of passing amendments saying "marriage is only between a man and a woman" ought to be proposing amendments saying "make civil unions the law of the land and leave the word marriage to be a private non-secular term."

if they were doing that then they wouldn't be bigots. but the fact that they are NOT doing that is what is so abhorrent. instead of working to SOLVE a problem by creating a more equitable structure, they are actively working to discriminate.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

I'm probably twisting your words, but if you were around for the 3/5ths rule, would you look at that as a necessary evil to stop people from yelling at each other? I don't really see where compromise is an acceptable answer to a civil rights issue.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I'm probably twisting your words, but if you were around for the 3/5ths rule, would you look at that as a necessary evil to stop people from yelling at each other? I don't really see where compromise is an acceptable answer to a civil rights issue.

I think you are probably twisting his words. I hope.

[DanGarion]

I thought we already established that marriage is not a religious word...

[DaddyTorgo]

probably. that wasn't really the crux of my point though. or maybe it was. it's been a long day.

i think the stuff i bolded in my last long post was a bigger point.

[DanGarion]

I'm married to my wife regardless of what the fuck any religion says and whatever law is passed. If they want to call their thing a civil union good for them, or they can call it a gloopygloop for all I care. But there is no reason that all of us that are already married have to change because of some religious organization.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm married to my wife regardless of what the fuck any religion says and whatever law is passed. If they want to call their thing a civil union good for them, or they can call it a gloopygloop for all I care. But there is no reason that all of us that are already married have to change because of some religious organization.

you don't have to. the law could be structured in such a way that you don't have to.

then going forward everyone gets a "civil union" permit from the state, and if you want to be "married' you have your personal ceremony. Or shit, you can get your civil union permit and keep referring to yourself as "married" - nobody has the authority to tell you otherwise.

[Noop]

While I do not agree with their lifestyle, they pay taxes and deserve the same rights as anyone. For those who stay in California didn't they give chickens some kind of special rights?

[Noop]

Found an article about it.

hxxp://www.sanluisobispo.com/183/story/464800.html

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I would also note that we have restrictions on freedom of religion in this country, including restrictions on the right to marry. Up to the 1870's, the Mormon Church sought protection under the Constitution to practice polygamy. Reynolds v. United States was the case that said laws cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, but may interfere with practices.

That same decision, btw, brought up the slippery slope argument by stating that if polygamy was allowed for religious reasons, it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up human sacrifice as a religious obligation.

The court said, "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Finally, every adult male and adult female play by the same rules of marriage in this country. Government recognition of same sex marriage is prohibited in most places regardless of the reasons why you may choose to want government recognition of that marriage. Love has nothing to do with it, and frankly, I don't want to have to get government approval of my love for someone else. It's another reason I think it would just be better for the government to not get involved, and why I think both sides have untenable positions on this issue.

In all honesty, if a man thinks he is stud enough to have more than one wife or the patience to have more than one wife, have at it.

I can't see any government that considers itself progressive or 'out of the Dark Ages' ever condoning human sacrifice to protect religious expression. Thakfully, even though it doesn't always happen, the long arm of the law does try to employ some form of rationlism from time to time.

As far as the government is concerned, the only thing it should be worried about is on April 15th if I'm filing married or single, regardless of what sex I may be married to. My tax form doesn't ask if my marriage was performed in a chuch, court house, beach, park, underwater, naked, by a preist, a judge or anything, it just wants to know if I'm married or not.

[CamEdwards]

No, I was not arguing in favor of the 3/5ths rule. I was merely pointing out that when two sides reach intractable and absolute positions, you either figure out a compromise or keep fighting a long drawn out culture war that leaves both sides focused on their divides, rather than their commonalities. But that compromise, by nature, isn't going to be everything either side wants.

If you can figure out a way to compromise your position without compromising your principles, then I think that's the best solution. Civil unions provide the equality of government recognition that same-sex couples are looking for, while leaving the "sanctity of marriage" argument for the private arena, where it should be.

What I can't figure out, DT, is why you keep saying "in the meantime, we shouldn't be discriminating." That's like saying we'll compromise, but first give you your way. You're the side advocating change. The change you need to be advocating is the civil union compromise, not the position that has no chance of acceptance by a plurality in this country.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

Originally Posted by Castlerock

First they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then they came for the Catholics, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic;

And then, they came for me...

Where's all the outrage for slippery slope here? Oh, because it's different.

[Tekneek]

Equal standing under the law requires no compromise. We've been there, done that, fought the battles, lost the court cases, etc. As a nation, we should have learned by now that playing political/word games with rights of minorities is not the correct answer. They made certain compromises early on and it took us nearly 200 years to find our way out of it, and even then some people had to be forced at gunpoint to accept it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Equal standing under the law requires no compromise. We've been there, done that, fought the battles, lost the court cases, etc. As a nation, we should have learned by now that playing political/word games with rights of minorities is not the correct answer. They made certain compromises early on and it took us nearly 200 years to find our way out of it, and even then some people had to be forced at gunpoint to accept it.

Except that the compromise DOES provide equal standing under the law. If that's what you're fighting for, then what's the problem?

If, however, you're fighting for the government to mandate that people FEEL a certain way, I can't side with you there. We've got a right to hold offensive and even bigoted views in this country. Civil unions would provide equal access and standing under the laws of this country, while leaving the broader social issue of homosexuality being "right" or "wrong" in the private sector.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If, however, you're fighting for the government to mandate that people FEEL a certain way, I can't side with you there. We've got a right to hold offensive and even bigoted views in this country. Civil unions would provide equal access and standing under the laws of this country, while leaving the broader social issue of homosexuality being "right" or "wrong" in the private sector.

I have no problem with "civil union" as long it is not another run at "separate but equal." The tax tables, forms, and other legal issues related to marriage should have the term changed to "civil union." If that comes along with it, then that works for me. If "civil union" does not replace "marriage" in all aspects of the laws of this nation, then it is a sham.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

HB,

No, actually I meant what I said. I, as an adult straight male, have the same rules that an adult gay male has. I get to marry a woman, he gets to marry a woman. That is equality of opportunity, if not equality of outcome.

The problem with that argument is that while it addresses the issue sexual orientation based discrimination, it opens up an issue of gender based discrimination. If men have the right to marry women, why is it okay to withhold that right from women?

FWIW, I agree with your desired long term outcome - the government should pull itself out of the marriage business do civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religion and churches. However, until that happens I'd much prefer marriage for all over marriage only for straights. The current situation is disgusting.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The problem with that argument is that while it addresses the issue sexual orientation based discrimination, it opens up an issue of gender based discrimination. If men have the right to marry women, why is it okay to withhold that right from women?

FWIW, I agree with your desired long term outcome - the government should pull itself out of the marriage business do civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religion and churches. However, until that happens I'd much prefer marriage for all over marriage only for straights. The current situation is disgusting.

It doesn't open up the gender-based discrimination issue because it's gender neutral. No gender has an advantage over the other.

As for the second point, I'd refer you to what I said to DT. Saying you're willing to compromise, but not until you get your way isn't practical. You can say the current situation is disgusting, but a majority of your countrymen disagree. If anything it should make you want to work for the realistic outcome, rather than simply complain how unenlightened the other side is. Is this important enough for you to want to really change things, or just important enough to bitch about?

[Daimyo]

What would the compromise have been in 1861? What about 1965?

Some issues aren't up for compromise.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

What would the compromise have been in 1861? What about 1965?

Some issues aren't up for compromise.

So you're willing to wage a civil war over this? You're willing to riot? You're willing to practice civil disobedience to get your way? If this issue isn't open for compromise, why haven't you gotten up off your ass about it yet?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So you're willing to wage a civil war over this? You're willing to riot? You're willing to practice civil disobedience to get your way? If this issue isn't open for compromise, why haven't you gotten up off your ass about it yet?

Because it is far easier to rant and rave on teh internets and seemingly, a good place for Karlifornia to express his anger and hatred again.

That reminds me of when I attended an Earth Day concert in 1990 and the jam band (could have been Phish) yelled "EARTH FIRST! NO COMPROMISE!". Then proceeded to turn up the amps and lights, thus, consuming lots of coal-burning electricity.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So you're willing to wage a civil war over this? You're willing to riot? You're willing to practice civil disobedience to get your way?

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I said... the point was that history has shown that often the majority is wrong and often so for a long time. In those cases compromise is not warranted. I'm certainly glad there was no compromise struck on interracial marriage in the 60s! Personally though, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of meaningful civil disobedience organized over the issue.

If this issue isn't open for compromise, why haven't you gotten up off your ass about it yet?

*shurg* I'm a pragmatist and, as I'm sure you're aware, there are many ways to contribute to a cause. IMO, there isn't much uncertainty over the endgame on this issue.

I guess I'm not surprised that you're on the side you are on, but a little disappointed. I figured there was a small chance you'd have a different view given that your own marriage would have been illegal as recently as 40 years ago (and mine as well!) based on the same bigoted arguments used on this today.

[Havok]

Personally... i think black Californians should be more upset with the fact that all blacks vote the same every election regardless of who is running.

It's usually 90% democrat... this election it was 96%. Name one other race/voting block that is even in the same universe as those numbers.

I just spent the last 45 mins tonight discussing that with a guy a work with. (black guy). He had no real answer either.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Maybe because the Republican party is seemingly oblivious to the concerns and existence of the majority of blacks. The Democrats on the other hand often take our vote for granted, but their general platform will help more blacks than anything the Republicans present.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I said... the point was that history has shown that often the majority is wrong and often so for a long time. In those cases compromise is not warranted. I'm certainly glad there was no compromise struck on interracial marriage in the 60s! Personally though, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of meaningful civil disobedience organized over the issue.


*shurg* I'm a pragmatist and, as I'm sure you're aware, there are many ways to contribute to a cause. IMO, there isn't much uncertainty over the endgame on this issue.

I guess I'm not surprised that you're on the side you are on, but a little disappointed. I figured there was a small chance you'd have a different view given that your own marriage would have been illegal as recently as 40 years ago (and mine as well!) based on the same bigoted arguments used on this today.

Actually, it would've been my wife's first marriage that would have been prohibited 40 years ago, not mine. But if the court in Loving had said, "no government marriage licenses, instead there'll be civil unions for all couples", I don't think there would have been a huge outcry. You're acting like I'm all in favor of making sure gays are denied equal rights. I'm not. I'm just trying to find the common ground that provides equal ground for all.

I'm actually being pragmatic. You, I think, are coming across as waffly. Either there's a legitimate comparison to the civil rights/abolition movement, or there's not. If there is, do you really think that your current actions in support of gay marriage are enough? How exactly are you contributing to the cause? You say there are many ways, but you don't explain what you're doing. Is it arguing on the internet?

The endgame may be inevitable (though I don't think we're in a position to judge), but your attitude means fighting (and losing, at least in the present) for an ideal rather than accept a solution that provides equal access to all. What I can't understand is why you would be disappointed in me taking a position that tells opponents of gay marriage that they're going to have the same civil union as gay people will have, and that marriage will be left up to the churches.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Bullshit.

I'm married and there was nothing religious about our ceremony at all.

I guess you are also proposing that atheists shouldn't be able to be married either?

Yeah, but again, I don't think government should be in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government should recognize civil unions. Every marriage should be a civil union, but not all civil unions should be marriages.

EDIT: Before everyone comes after me with tar and feathers, I think that the government should not recognize a marriage either. In the eyes of the government, every union should be a civil union. Can a couple get married and have it count? Yes. The difference is in the eyes of your Church.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

Maybe because the Republican party is seemingly oblivious to the concerns and existence of the majority of blacks. The Democrats on the other hand often take our vote for granted, but their general platform will help more blacks than anything the Republicans present.

Hmmm.... ok.... if you say so.

Sounds more like a perception thing then a reality thing.
Blacks perceive the republican party to be a certain way (Racist, don't care about blacks, etc...) when it reality, both parties at the core, are just about ideals.

Less government, more government, less taxes, more taxes, blah blah blah, etc... etc..etc...

anyway, i always find it an interesting topic. Which I've had numerous times with people. I just don't think its very healthy for a group of people, or a country as a whole, if everyone voted exactly the same way every time.

Both parties balance each other out nicely most of the time.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I have no problem with "civil union" as long it is not another run at "separate but equal." The tax tables, forms, and other legal issues related to marriage should have the term changed to "civil union." If that comes along with it, then that works for me. If "civil union" does not replace "marriage" in all aspects of the laws of this nation, then it is a sham.

exactly

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The problem with that argument is that while it addresses the issue sexual orientation based discrimination, it opens up an issue of gender based discrimination. If men have the right to marry women, why is it okay to withhold that right from women?

FWIW, I agree with your desired long term outcome - the government should pull itself out of the marriage business do civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religion and churches. However, until that happens I'd much prefer marriage for all over marriage only for straights. The current situation is disgusting.

yes. the argument of "oh you should work for this outcome but until then it's okay to discriminate against someone" is bullshit. If you apply that argument to black civil rights it would have been "oh you poor blacks should work to get civil rights, but until then it's perfectly acceptable that we keep discriminating against you." That's not RIGHT. Just because you CAN keep discriminating doesn't make it RIGHT, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Yeah, but again, I don't think government should be in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government should recognize civil unions. Every marriage should be a civil union, but not all civil unions should be marriages.

EDIT: Before everyone comes after me with tar and feathers, I think that the government should not recognize a marriage either. In the eyes of the government, every union should be a civil union. Can a couple get married and have it count? Yes. The difference is in the eyes of your Church.

Exactly.


And my larger point in my bolded statement Cam, was that people who feel that marriage should be only for straight people are simply bigots disguising their bigotry with religion UNLESS they are also working for equal rights and a seperation of the term "marriage" from the legal system. The civil-unions-for-all solution is equally beneficial to them and solves the problems, so the ONLY reason they have to be working AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE instead of FOR CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL is because they're bigots. Plain and simple. The logic is right there in front of you. It's absolutely incontrovertible.

[Tekneek]

If the goal is for all marriages to be called civil unions under the laws of this nation, what harm is there in letting gay couples be married right now? If you know the desired end game is for everything to be called a civil union anyway, what is lost by letting them have equal standing right now?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Between consenting adults? I've already said I don't have a problem with any marriages involving consenting adults. What else is there? If you can show me an adult telephone pole that can give legal consent, I might be persuaded that they can engage in a marriage contract as well.

I think the argument is if same sex marriage is allowed between consenting adults, why not other consensual marriages like (1) poligamy (2) polyandry etc.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

There are also compelling secular arguments against allowing polygamist marraiges as well as incestual marriages, the other "slippery slope" argument folks like to make.

You mean in the western culture? Polygamist marriages, < 18 marriages are not out of the norm in other cultures/societies.

[Edward64]

I do have 2 pov and can be persuaded otherwise:
1. Why should gay unions have the same tax benefits as hetro unions? Hetro unions produce offsprings that continues the tax base.
2. Why should gay unions be legalized and not poligamous/polyandry marriages?

[CamEdwards]

Saying something nonsensical for the second time doesn't make any more logical. If civil unions is the goal, then that's what you work for. You keep talking about the length of time it would take to get this, but civil unions would be much easier to accept than government approval of same-sex "marriage". It would take LESS time to get that than continuing the process of "judges rule in favor of gay marriage, people vote against it, rinse and repeat".

As for the bigots, you can't expect people who don't want to change the laws to actively work to change the laws. That's just not how life works, and that logic is incontrovertible as well. The difference between you and me is that you seem to want to demand that people think like you as well, whereas I'm content with equal access under the law, and leave the argument in the private arena, rather than within the government.

I'm actually the tolerant one here. Surprising, huh?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do have 2 pov and can be persuaded otherwise:
1. Why should gay unions have the same tax benefits as hetro unions? Hetro unions produce offsprings that continues the tax base.
2. Why should gay unions be legalized and not poligamous/polyandry marriages?

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So, why should infertile people be allowed to marry again?

In vitro?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

Because families benefit society in multiple ways.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

Why wouldn't hetro unions have tax benefits?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

Why stop there? Let's bring in NAMBLA also. RA, I agree with you, that post was way too liberal.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

Old peoples too. They ain't makin no babies.

Under the assumption they have had kids, they've paid their dues to society.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

Keeps people who work for H&R Block(and their loan sharking operations) in buisiness.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do have 2 pov and can be persuaded otherwise:
1. Why should gay unions have the same tax benefits as hetro unions? Hetro unions produce offsprings that continues the tax base.
2. Why should gay unions be legalized and not poligamous/polyandry marriages?

1. Not all hetero unions produce offspring. If you want to encourage offspring, then give tax incentives for having kids (which I believe is something that happens here in Canada).

2. I don't know, I'm confused why polygamy is illegal. I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in it, but if they are, more power to 'em. Same with homosexuality.