What is the difference between allowing one union between consenting adults and not allowing another?

The law doesn't allow more than two people in a marriage ... so why shouldn't the same logic extend to civil unions?

While the free republic is not always the best of writing, the point expressed I agree with: those who defend homosexual civil unions in my opinion cannot also rationally oppose polygamist unions, or, for that matter, unions between homosexual man-child relationships, or even bestial unions. Logic is sort of funny that way.

 

Why is this same logic not invoked when government sanctions a union between a man and a woman? Why not a union between a woman and an infant boy? Where will it end?!

While logic can be used to say its hard to be for civil unions between same sex couples but not "triads" its absurd to make the leap that such rights would lead to man-child or bestial relationships. That's nothing more than scare tactics.

Exactly.

The law doesn't allow more than two people in a marriage ... so why shouldn't the same logic extend to civil unions.

 

But what logic is used to mandate 2 per marriage/union?

 

The logic used for the sake of a man-woman union/marriage in a legal sense is currently long standing tradition and religious convictions(for better or for worse on the latter).

 

If we are going by the idea that the tradition inherently excludes those of different beliefs then are we not still denying those of different beliefs and lifestyles from fully enjoying their unions in a legal fashion?

Edited May 13, 200917 yr by PepRock01
Added title

The law doesn't allow more than two people in a marriage ... so why shouldn't the same logic extend to civil unions?

 

The law (in most states) also doesn't allow marriage between same sex couples yet there is no problem from the left in trying to gte that changed. It's all about the precident.

Anyone in America can advocate a change in law ... that's a basic tenet of our society. Nothing wrong with it.

There are some social/contractual issues the come into play when more than two are involved. If there is a disunion, how is property distributed, what about custody of children and whole series of other things. These issues give the government a compelling interest in limiting any civil union, marriage or otherwise, to two consenting adults.

 

I see no Compelling interest for the government to deny same sex civil unions.

I'm not advocating polygamist unions, so look elsewhere. Bottom line ... using this kind of stuff as an argument against civil unions is simply to get people fired up against it.

 

Yes, you are right. It is called the 'slippery slope.'

While logic can be used to say its hard to be for civil unions between same sex couples but not "triads" its absurd to make the leap that such rights would lead to man-child or bestial relationships. That's nothing more than scare tactics.

 

Bestial I will give you, but man-child has, and is currently, being argued and lobbied for by groups such as NAMBLA. It is not a leap for them.

There are some social/contractual issues the come into play when more than two are involved. If there is a disunion, how is property distributed, what about custody of children and whole series of other things. These issues give the government a compelling interest in limiting any civil union, marriage or otherwise, to two consenting adults.

 

I see no Compelling interest for the government to deny same sex civil unions.

 

It's just a number, there are no more compelling issues for the government to be more involved in a 3 person (or more) union than a two person union.

The law doesn't allow more than two people in a marriage ... so why shouldn't the same logic extend to civil unions?

 

The law didn't allow for marriage to be between anyone but a man and a woman. That law has now changed. Why can't the number change?

Why is this same logic not invoked when government sanctions a union between a man and a woman? Why not a union between a woman and an infant boy? Where will it end?!

 

Precisely. I thought it "ended" when marriage was defined between one man and one woman. That was an "end" for centuries. Now, the higher-thinking crowd is changing the law. When you do that, you invite the 'slippery slope.'

It's just a number, there are no more compelling issues for the government to be more involved in a 3 person (or more) union than a two person union.

 

Other than the ones that I listed, of course

There are some social/contractual issues the come into play when more than two are involved. If there is a disunion, how is property distributed, what about custody of children and whole series of other things. These issues give the government a compelling interest in limiting any civil union, marriage or otherwise, to two consenting adults.

 

I see no Compelling interest for the government to deny same sex civil unions.

 

"Compelling interest" is legal language. The test for constitutionality requires only "rational basis" analysis. I disagree that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex unions.

Yes, you are right. It is called the 'slippery slope.'

An extremely slippery one ...