Print

[damam]

im not so much for a ban on gay marriage as I am not wanting to rush quickly into this.  There is a lot to consider, and i would prefer to get it right the first time and not have repeat of this somewhere down the road in say another 150yrs.

it just seems like this is an awful slippery slope with no real end in site.  Lets (hopefully) leave sex out of the picture and ask what is to keep a father from marrying his adult son for the sole purpose of tax evation?  Should we accept that as a valid union?  The same arguements for any sexual choice can be made as well.  They can always counter with, "Dont judge me for my life choice".  So whats next, polygamy? pedophelia? incest?  Polygamy and adult incest is just as hard to police as homosexuality, so why dont we just give up on those as well and allow marriages?

This is the true story of the most disgusting family in the world
My husband works in with mentally retarded adults, and one of his clients (there called consumers) has three generations of adult incest.  Its the most disgusting thing i have ever heard about.  mothers having children by there sons.  then the son and daughter have children.  Then those children had children.  This has been going on for atleast three generations, probably even longer since they can only trace the family back to the grandmother.  It sickens me to think about it.  But all of this happenned above the age of consent in the state I live in, and because they are retarded the state doesnt do anything to stop it.  What is to keep them from saying, the law about incest is wrong, "Dont judge me for my life choice, I want to mary my sibling/parent".  

Marriage as it stands is a cornerstone of our culture, if we are going to change it, we ought to take our time and really think about it.  Thats all im saying.

[powercntrl]

QUOTE

Lets (hopefully) leave sex out of the picture and ask what is to keep a father from marrying his adult son for the sole purpose of tax evation?  Should we accept that as a valid union?

Why not?  It's like a business partnership.  Why should joining assets have anything to do with implied sexual relationship?  If you want to keep this from happening for purposes of tax evasion, add some kind of clause that keeps blood relatives from forming a union.

QUOTE

The same arguements for any sexual choice can be made as well.  They can always counter with, "Dont judge me for my life choice".  So whats next, polygamy? pedophelia? incest?  Polygamy and adult incest is just as hard to police as homosexuality, so why dont we just give up on those as well and allow marriages?.

The main problem with polygamy is how expensive alimony could get.    Okay, seriously, polygamy could be handled in the same way a business is run, you just have multiple parterners, no real problem with asset/tax management.  The problems come into play when we're talking heterosexual polygamy and the potential for neglected kids or really ugly custody battles.  I think the best way to keep things simple would be to just keep unions a two-person affair and be gender-blind.

As for incest and pedophilia, you're talking about either producing screwed up kids or screwing kids.  Both of which have a direct effect on the overall welfare of society.  Two men or two women of consentual age who are NOT RELATED BY BLOOD getting it on in the privacy of their own bedroom isn't going to produce screwed up kids, whether pre-existing or through conception.

It's like saying if you pass a law to allow people to ride Segways on the sidewalk that it will inevitably lead to people riding Harley Fat Boys down the sidewalk at 70 miles an hour.  If there's an obvious gap in a law big enough to drive a motorcycle through, the law obviously needs to be fine-tuned to be more specific.

[bluedeath]

QUOTE (powercntrl @ Nov 6 2004, 05:33 AM)

Why not?  It's like a business partnership.  Why should joining assets have anything to do with implied sexual relationship?  If you want to keep this from happening for purposes of tax evasion, add some kind of clause that keeps blood relatives from forming a union. The main problem with polygamy is how expensive alimony could get.    Okay, seriously, polygamy could be handled in the same way a business is run, you just have multiple parterners, no real problem with asset/tax management.  The problems come into play when we're talking heterosexual polygamy and the potential for neglected kids or really ugly custody battles.  I think the best way to keep things simple would be to just keep unions a two-person affair and be gender-blind. As for incest and pedophilia, you're talking about either producing screwed up kids or screwing kids.  Both of which have a direct effect on the overall welfare of society.  Two men or two women of consentual age who are NOT RELATED BY BLOOD getting it on in the privacy of their own bedroom isn't going to produce screwed up kids, whether pre-existing or through conception. It's like saying if you pass a law to allow people to ride Segways on the sidewalk that it will inevitably lead to people riding Harley Fat Boys down the sidewalk at 70 miles an hour.  If there's an obvious gap in a law big enough to drive a motorcycle through, the law obviously needs to be fine-tuned to be more specific.

The media has brainwashed you well.  The TV has convinced you that anything is OK as long as you can make money within the constraints of the loopholes in our legal system.  Statements like yours make me listen longingly for the hoofbeat of the four horsemen.

[powercntrl]

QUOTE

The media has brainwashed you well.  The TV has convinced you that anything is OK as long as you can make money within the constraints of the loopholes in our legal system.  Statements like yours make me listen longingly for the hoofbeat of the four horsemen.

I'm sick and tired of people like you blaming the media for everything (such as brainwashing people).  I don't see anyone saying you'll BURN IN HELL if you don't believe what you see on the TV.  I don't need to be TOLD by the media OR a preacher what way to think about basic human rights issues, I think for my own damn self.

We're straying off-topic, but when it comes to who profits from loopholes in the laws, I point the finger squarely at big businesses.  Such as ones that close call centers here in the US and put AMERICANS out of work.  And no, that's not from the media either, I saw it happen in my own town, with my own eyes.  But that's offtopic, as I said.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

SCHIEFFER: Talking about cultural issues, do you think now that the election has passed and that it came out the way it did, the president will institute a new push to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? Sen. COLLINS: You know, these elections showed that the states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own. Eleven states passed legislation or constitutional amendments making it very clear that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. They did that without Congress having to amend the Constitution. SCHIEFFER: So do you think that it would be a mistake for the president to start a new push? Sen. COLLINS: I do. I don't think there's any evidence that suggests... SCHIEFFER: That it's needed. Sen. COLLINS: ...that a constitutional amendment is needed at this time. SCHIEFFER: Senator Hagel. Sen. HAGEL: I agree with what Senator Collins has said. You know, we have a law on the books--a federal law now that--and the Defense of Marriage Act, a number of states, including my state Nebraska, has either laws or constitutional amendments, a number were passed Tuesday. I don't think you want to move the Constitution into that realm. I don't think it's necessary. The states can decide it. Whether we're going to have another vote or not, I don't know. My guess is that if we do, it probably does not pass.