| Author | Message | ||
     us2innj Citizen Username: Us2innj Post Number: 904 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hopefully New Jersey will be next! | ||
| court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2003 |
Or perhaps UT will legalize bigamy again | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1126 Registered: 12-2001  |
They are in no way comparable. us2innj.. at least on this we can agree!!  "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2003 |
even if they're all the same sex? | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2425 Registered: 10-1999  |
(The full decision can be accessed at this link.) The Court decided to stay its decision, pending action by the Massachusetts Legislature (similar to the course of action taken in Vermont).
| ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2003 |
I have a question. Since intra-family marriage is banned (currently in 24 states) due to genetic reproductive concerns....and that possibility isn't possible with same-sex couples....what is to stop a father from marrying his son if the son is of legal age? Or....first cousins of the same sex? If that's not 'good' or legally possible, why? Peronally, I'm for unions between same-sex couples in terms of inheritance, visitation, kids, adoption -- just about everything, but for some reason I think a slippery slope exists when you expand who can get married, and that's what is stopping me from jumping aboard the gay-marriage train. I mean, how can you justifiably stop something other than traditional marriage from expanding is there's no 'health' reason involved. If it's a morality question, how can someone force their morality upon two men within the same family unit to not marry? | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1129 Registered: 12-2001 |
While really creepy..an interesting point.  "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 41 Registered: 11-2003 |
We should focus benefits on families with children, not whether or not two people have legaling binded themselves together. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 453 Registered: 8-2003 |
I know, and the only retort I got from a gay rights group to that question was "Well...we're not asking for that." But my conundrum is what if someone does ask for it, and how you can legally justify allowing one but not the other. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 718 Registered: 10-2001 |
Kenney generally I agree with you but what about same sex partners with no kids. Should they be denied benefits because they are not legally bound together? | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 385 Registered: 7-2001 |
I think it's safe to assume that those 24 states adopted this law with no concept of same-sex marriage. Now, if some guy wants to marry his uncle, well, that's their business. I agree, let's not force our morality on others. So bad (or outdated) laws should be changed. If that's what the guy and the uncle want, it'll get challenged. But really, this is a very very small quantity of folks who may want to do this, and does not hold up the overwhelming number of good reasons for this. What issue is even close to 100% air tight? Your holding on- let it go, brother! It's 2003! Jump aboard, cjc, the train's leaving. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 286 Registered: 8-2003  |
I don't think the statutes prohibiting incestuous marriages are prefaced by any statements justifying them on grounds of health or morality concerns, so just ban them equally for hetero and same sex couples. how hard would that be? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 454 Registered: 8-2003 |
So we can allow a father to marry his son if his son is of legal age, right? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 455 Registered: 8-2003 |
If you ban them you're forcing your morality upon them. Is that fair, as it's the argument used against those who want allow same sex marriage. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 287 Registered: 8-2003 |
it's absolutely fair. we don't allow bigamy, polygamy, or polyandry either. this doesn't have to be a "slippery slope" that leads to people marrying relatives, pets, or garden gnomes, for that matter. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2427 Registered: 10-1999 |
Interestingly, Tom Tomorrow addressed the "slippery slope" argument this week. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 456 Registered: 8-2003 |
I know you say 'we don't have to' or 'it won't be many' -- but given what can happen in a court case, it's do-able to allow the above weird scenario. Would you allow a father to marry his 18 year old son, or mother to marry her 18 year old daughter, and on what grounds would you disallow that? If you use moral grounds, then those opposing same-sex marriage on those same grounds are as valid as you are. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2003 |
sports, yes. Since the main idea behind marriage benefits was to promote child rearing, why not base the benefits on number of children? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 457 Registered: 8-2003 |
Because many people marry without having children for a variety of reasons, and they're not same-sex couples. Sure there are child-tax credits, and they're also looking to take out the marriage-penalty -- which doesn't require kids to apply. Nor should it, in my opinion. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2003 |
One of many examples of a screwed up tax system. A married couple pays more in taxes versus a couple just living together--yeah that makes sense. |
