I am with you here. I was going to head this direction next. How do you stop the slippery slope? Is there a way to make it clearly defined, or can it continue to change with whatever the loudest part of society is shouting? How about the ages of people in the marriage/union?

 

Or between humans and animals? Or between humans and inanimate objects? You're over-reaching here.

All they ask for is the same benefits provided to married couples. They don't care about titles. You really think there's any type of substantial backing for them to ever change the laws of marriage and civil unions from 2 people to multiples? If so, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for ya...

 

As to your second paragraph, who cares? If it's a different church than your's why do you care what their rules on marriage are? If I decided I wanted to do as you suggest and start marrying women or men to dogs, that doesn't mean it would have any binding or be recognized by anyone outside that religion.

 

2nd paragraph is a Pollyanna view. Look at the lawsuits for Muslim women who want to wear the scarves over their face or have no picture on their driver's license. That is just one example.

 

Sure don't see them clamoring for civil unions but rather for the RIGHT TO BE MARRIED!!!!!!!!!

 

Didn't one of the lawyers on here post 2-3 years ago that legally it can be setup TODAY for them to have all the rights they are wanting without it being classified as a civil union/marriage/or whatever politically correct term you want to use?

I am with you here. I was going to head this direction next. How do you stop the slippery slope? Is there a way to make it clearly defined, or can it continue to change with whatever the loudest part of society is shouting? How about the ages of people in the marriage/union?

 

Each state already sets their own marriage/union requirements. I believe, for instance, that in Kentucky you can get married at 16 with parental consent...shoot, it may be 14. But any way...

 

To my knowledge, every state has laws on the books regarding the number of people allowed to be married at one time (2), and the minimum age to be married with and without parental consent, as well as the relationship to one another. Brother can't marry sister. A 50 year can't marry a 10 year old. There are also residency requirements in some states. Shoot, some states allow two people living together but not legalizing their union to eventually be afforded the same rights as if they did after a certain period of time.

 

It's up to each state. I highly doubt Kentucky will legalize same-sex unions in my lifetime. Heck, we probably won't get casino gambling in my lifetime either. But I'm happy that if my friends want to go to New York, Massachusetts, etc and legalize their unions, and be entitled to the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, they can.

Or between humans and animals? Or between humans and inanimate objects? You're over-reaching here.

 

No, you are----don't even assume that I was going in the direction of animals and inanimate objects. I care about children...and I think it is a fair concern.

2nd paragraph is a Pollyanna view. Look at the lawsuits for Muslim women who want to wear the scarves over their face or have no picture on their driver's license. That is just one example.

What? This makes no sense in this argument.

 

Sure don't see them clamoring for civil unions but rather for the RIGHT TO BE MARRIED!!!!!!!!!

In this country, people who run down to City Hall consider themselves married. But from a religious perspective, they're not considered married until blessed by their church/God. Frankly, in the US today, union and marriage are the same. And as well, what does it matter what you call it?

 

Didn't one of the lawyers on here post 2-3 years ago that legally it can be setup TODAY for them to have all the rights they are wanting without it being classified as a civil union/marriage/or whatever politically correct term you want to use?

 

That is simply not true, relative to tax laws, and for health benefits purposes (except in rare cases by a minority of businesses).

Each state already sets their own marriage/union requirements. I believe, for instance, that in Kentucky you can get married at 16 with parental consent...shoot, it may be 14. But any way...

 

To my knowledge, every state has laws on the books regarding the number of people allowed to be married at one time (2), and the minimum age to be married with and without parental consent, as well as the relationship to one another. Brother can't marry sister. A 50 year can't marry a 10 year old. There are also residency requirements in some states. Shoot, some states allow two people living together but not legalizing their union to eventually be afforded the same rights as if they did after a certain period of time.

It's up to each state. I highly doubt Kentucky will legalize same-sex unions in my lifetime. Heck, we probably won't get casino gambling in my lifetime either. But I'm happy that if my friends want to go to New York, Massachusetts, etc and legalize their unions, and be entitled to the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, they can.

 

And if the Supreme Court rules on it for the nation, like a Roe v Wade case, it won't be.

 

BTW, why is it that two loving adults that happen to be brother and sister can be told no that they cannot be married by an intolerant society?

And if the Supreme Court rules on it for the nation, like a Roe v Wade case, it won't be.

 

BTW, why is it that two loving adults that happen to be brother and sister can be told no that they cannot be married by an intolerant society?

 

I'd assume it has to do with health reasons...:idunno:

Each state already sets their own marriage/union requirements. I believe, for instance, that in Kentucky you can get married at 16 with parental consent...shoot, it may be 14. But any way...

 

To my knowledge, every state has laws on the books regarding the number of people allowed to be married at one time (2), and the minimum age to be married with and without parental consent, as well as the relationship to one another. Brother can't marry sister. A 50 year can't marry a 10 year old. There are also residency requirements in some states. Shoot, some states allow two people living together but not legalizing their union to eventually be afforded the same rights as if they did after a certain period of time.

 

It's up to each state. I highly doubt Kentucky will legalize same-sex unions in my lifetime. Heck, we probably won't get casino gambling in my lifetime either. But I'm happy that if my friends want to go to New York, Massachusetts, etc and legalize their unions, and be entitled to the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, they can.

 

Thanks for the facts, Rockmom!

I'd assume it has to do with health reasons...:idunno:

 

What possible health reasons for brother and sister to being married? Notice I said married and not reproducing. Cause they can do that whether they are married or not.

No, you are----don't even assume that I was going in the direction of animals and inanimate objects. I care about children...and I think it is a fair concern.

 

That would be the next progression to your "slippery slope". I'm concerned about children also, but I think having two gay parents is becoming more and more accepted in our society so the stigma will just get smaller and smaller. It only helps to have depictions of this on network TV like on "Modern Family".

What possible health reasons for brother and sister to being married? Notice I said married and not reproducing. Cause they can do that whether they are married or not.

 

The problem is that no one really views incest as OK or normal. There are not large groups of folks who claim they were born incestual.

The problem is that no one really views incest as OK or normal. There are not large groups of folks who claim they were born incestual.

 

Hold on, so we are deciding this on what people think is normal or OK? I thought this was a legality issue of people's rights rather than a moral/ok issue?

 

See the slippery slope.

I agree actually. As long as there are consenting adults, why should there be a limit? As long as no one is being coerced into it or underage I fail to see the problem as long as everyone is okay with it.

 

I agree w/ this also. Why was this outlawed? Was there a legitimate reason, or was it because the Mormons chose a different lifestyle then others and the majority won?

Hold on, so we are deciding this on what people think is normal or OK? I thought this was a legality issue of people's rights rather than a moral/ok issue?

 

See the slippery slope.

 

I actually don't see it as a slope at all.....People should be able to marry whomever they'd like. No slope whatsoever.

I agree. The government should only grant civil unions to ALL (heterosexual, homosexual). Marriage should be left as a religious institution.

Best post in this thread.