Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Fragony]

I am in favor of gay marriage, but it is important that we listen to what Rhy has to say. It's lazy and borderline scary to say that since people don't take an institution seriously, then we are allowed to change the institution as we see fit. Talking only about how we treat marriage now is also lazy.

What needs to happen is a comprehensive discussion on the purpose of marriage that take into account its history and the whys/hows it came to be how it is today. If institutionalized marriage was originally put in place by Christians who wanted to promote Judeo-Christian values, then how can we say that the secularization of it over time invalidates the reason why we have it in the first place? It would be akin to saying that undeclared wars are a-ok now because that is how the institution of government is operating currently when its original form had checks and balances and an emphasis on Congress declaring hostilities beforehand.

Keep it seperately, there isn't any mixture between marriage as a holy institution and legal discrmination that is worth considering. It aren't the same things, marriage as an institution isn't under attack here. Gay couples should get all the benefits a heterosexual couples gets. It's unfair to deny them that, if they want some ceremony with that power to them. They aren't asking for recognision of any church

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Matrimony is a sacrament, granted by the church. The Church is unlikely to sanctify a same-sex union in the foreseeable future.

Marriage, however, has ALWAYS been a civil contract issue centered on property. The state has always been involved and always taxed it. That said, it is a fairly simple logic chain to reach MRD's conclusion. The DOMA will be struck down...probably pretty soon...and more same-sex unions will style themselves as "married." Any other conclusion is legally insupportable short of an ammendment to the Constitution.

Eventually, this will also lead to the adoption/sanction of other, less-frequent forms of marriage such as group marriages, triads, and the like. Heinlein's view of marriage in the future will seem more and more prescient as we continue blundering our way through history.

[Lemur]

this will also lead to the adoption/sanction of other, less-frequent forms of marriage such as group marriages, triads, and the like.

On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

[The Lurker Below]

open a big ol' can of worms.

Most issues deserve to be discussed on the merits of that issue alone, not on those that may possibly be related to it. Is gay marriage ok, yes or no? I remember back in 1994 there was a huge outcry about the assault weapons ban and the resulting loss of rights that would follow. Everything was going to be banned after that. Didn't work out that way. The ban came, and went, and nothing more was made of it. Based on the outcry at the time though, one would expet that the Constitution, the government, and all life as we know it were in serious danger.

When the issue of group marriage comes up for discussion, then it's merits should be considered without thought of gay marriage.

I agree with you, I also think gay marriage can and should be implemented with minimal fuss.

edit - Actually I want to rant some more. I never bothered to respond but on the facebook somebody posted something that annoyed me. There were a couple implications that I took issue with. They started with something like "even if gay is a choice, what difference does that make, we allow people that choose to be assholes to marry." First, I don't believe that people wake up in the morning and decide that today they want to be an asshole. I believe that their genetics and environment has shaped them to respond as they do. Secondly, it pissed me off that they used the term asshole. Now readers of that are going to relate gays to assholes, which is way off base. I wish that person had used the term "brunette lovers" instead.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

Can of worms indeed. But, as Sotomeyor [sic?] herself questioned, once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right, not just for sex but for a slew of other conditions that might appertain? Aside from the ability to require "informed consent" what restrictions can be reasonably imposed? And the argument before the court is very much centered on an individual's right to marry.

[Lemur]

once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right

I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.

[HoreTore]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??? THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.

Fair points. Nor am I asserting that allowing same-sex marriages today will mean that next week people will be marrying their pets -- an allusion favored by one of the right-wing radio pundits.

I don't think the government will start sanctioning honor killings within a marriage or paederastic marriages or any of the other silliness that you do hear bandied about.

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable (assuming such things as informed consent; non-fraudulent participants and other generally accepted legal basics are within norms)? On what grounds can such a union be denied? As with same-sex unions, there are a number of such "poly" marriages functioning informally but successfully and rewardingly for the participants even as we converse. Yet those unions, comprised of adults who wish to be united, are denied some of those very same benefits sought by same sexers. As a matter of personal rights, wherein lies the difference that would validate differing treatment by the government?

[Papewaio]

Would poly matter if all are consenting non-related (ie the fairly common cult phenomena of uncles and nieces) adults?

=][=

My quip has been if same sex are going to hell, then why not allow them a preview with marriage?

[Noncommunist]

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable (assuming such things as informed consent; non-fraudulent participants and other generally accepted legal basics are within norms)? On what grounds can such a union be denied? As with same-sex unions, there are a number of such "poly" marriages functioning informally but successfully and rewardingly for the participants even as we converse. Yet those unions, comprised of adults who wish to be united, are denied some of those very same benefits sought by same sexers. As a matter of personal rights, wherein lies the difference that would validate differing treatment by the government?

What truly makes a marriage fraudulent? If it's a contract between two people, why shouldn't they decide what meaning marriage has for them?

It's pretty rare that grand new rights are granted unless there is popular will to do so. Interracial marriage, for example, did not inevitably lead to gay marriage, poly marriage, dog marriage, or any other oddity. It just led to legal interracial marriage (which is still pretty rare). So ... I'm not trying to be dense, and I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where your argument leads.

It didn't? While it hasn't legally been a precedent as far as I can tell, people supporting gay marriage tend to use it as an example when arguing for gay marriage.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@MRD: No problem, I apologise if I have been overly-confrontational.

I don't think homosexual marriages would be by any means disastrous, and I think they could be OK for raising kids. Often, alternative arrangements can be better than regular but poor parents. But I still think that a one male/female arrangement is best for the kids, all other things being equal.

[Fragony]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

[Fragony]

Nice results, it only covers a small part of the Netherlands but only 2% is opposed to equal rights for gays. In the area covered a significant part of the population is of non-western descent (read muslim), we are doing just fine here I think. 86% of the overall population has no problem with it at all, two% are deeply opposed, the remaining are neutral on it. Faith in humanity restored

edit, made a tiny mistake, 7% is against gay marriage, of which 2% are against homosexuality alltogether.

[Ronin]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.