Gay Marriage

[malthumb]

some body will fight that fight.

and win.

If I'm a dude that's gainfully employed, and two able minded women want to 'share' me, each knowing about the other fully, and i'm able to financially support them both, why and how does that affect you?


(and the chess pieces continue to move....)

Agreed. And there are already modern societies that accept this.  Thing is, it is a question of law for whatever country is dealing with it, not a question of Biblical interpretation.  In fact, the Old Testament could be a supporting document!  But NOT allowing it would not necessarily be seen as an infringement of rights.  It could be argued that it denies "pursuit of happiness" [<----joke] but nobody's rights are being denied.

[sjonathan02]

Since I've already chimed in, I guess I should offer my opinion on the larger subject.....

I can support marriage equality and same sex marriage.  I understand the various biblical positions, but let's face it....everyone doesn't live according to the Bible and this country was founded on the premise that you don't have to.  The law of the land does not have to be rooted in Scripture.  So, for those who don't claim the Bible as their life's direction and are living a life that includes being in love with someone I certainly would not be in love with, that's their business.

I think I mentioned a lonnng time ago in a thread far far away that one of the most enduring and committed relationships I've witnessed is one of my colleagues and his life-partner of over 20 years.  If they were allowed to get married, my life would not be detrimentally impacted at all and their lives would improve (health care and survivor benefits laws).  So why should I get to say what they can do?  If same sex marriage is not supported, they're not going to separate and find heterosexual relationships.  They don't need to and quite frankly, it would be disastrous if they tried.  Remember folks, we are not dealing with the ECUMENICAL definition of marriage here....only the LEGAL definition.  Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW of a country that purports to have no favored religion.

As for the slippery slope into polygamy and incest, that is easily handled by the same set of laws that may or may not chose to allow gay marriage.  Incest in particular has a foundational challenge in that there is a public health element to it due to the increased likelihood that children born to an in-breeding situation can be more susceptible to hereditary conditions that could then be passed on to their children. [insert HIV reference here]  [insert reference to all STDs as counter-argument here]

I don't think it is an issue of the "traditional form" of marriage being "found unconstitutional".  That is not and never was the question.  Marriage as we know it today IS CONSTITUTIONAL and WITHOUT CHALLENGE.  What is being challenged is the exclusion of same sex marriage.  I have no problem with same sex marriage.

It's so funny that you chime in with this because I was having the same conversation with a pastor on Twitter last night, and we made the same points.

[malthumb]

It's so funny that you chime in with this because I was having the same conversation with a pastor on Twitter last night, and we made the same points.

Hopefully not the same pastor who chose to call you in the wee hours.....

[THE WOLFMAN]

Hopefully not the same pastor who chose to call you in the wee hours.....

[sjonathan02]

Hopefully not the same pastor who chose to call you in the wee hours.....

PPPPPPWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Indeed.

[phbrown]

ROFL!!!

[gtrdave]

As for the slippery slope into polygamy and incest, that is easily handled by the same set of laws that may or may not chose to allow gay marriage.  Incest in particular has a foundational challenge in that there is a public health element to it due to the increased likelihood that children born to an in-breeding situation can be more susceptible to hereditary conditions that could then be passed on to their children. [insert HIV reference here]  [insert reference to all STDs as counter-argument here]

Well, incestuous marriage could have no risk of any sort of biological inbreeding and disease IF the two parties never engage in sexual intercourse. And let's be honest, there are marriages that occur where the two parties never consummate and never even have the intent to. The marriage is strictly for business/legal/financial purposes. This happens in Hollyweird and in the corporate world and among some 'royalty'.
The challenge to "traditional marriage" is being waged in the name of equality and fueled by love. So, just as Justice Sotomayor stated, if what exists now are limitations on marriage which lead to inequality, allowing gays to marry will only remove 1 of those existing limitations, but marriage will hardly be equal for all interested parties.
The polygamists will have one heck of an easy time being validated if our Supreme Court sticks their hands into readjusting the terms of an institution which has existed for thousands of years longer than any of those old fools have been alive...for better or worse.

[malthumb]

Well, incestuous marriage could have no risk of any sort of biological inbreeding and disease IF the two parties never engage in sexual intercourse. And let's be honest, there are marriages that occur where the two parties never consummate and never even have the intent to. The marriage is strictly for business/legal/financial purposes. This happens in Hollyweird and in the corporate world and among some 'royalty'.
The challenge to "traditional marriage" is being waged in the name of equality and fueled by love. So, just as Justice Sotomayor stated, if what exists now are limitations on marriage which lead to inequality, allowing gays to marry will only remove 1 of those existing limitations, but marriage will hardly be equal for all interested parties.
The polygamists will have one heck of an easy time being validated if our Supreme Court sticks their hands into readjusting the terms of an institution which has existed for thousands of years longer than any of those old fools have been alive...for better or worse.

The scenario you paint for the incest arrangement is an if on top of an if....IF there is no sex in the marriage and IF it is a business/legal/financial arrangement.  Laws need not be designed to accommodate the fringe exception.

As for the polygamy scenario....I agree with you and Justice Sotomayor that a compelling argument could be made ESPECIALLY since there are numerous accounts in the Bible and other religious foundational writings AND there are numerous functioning societies that allow.  The only points there being that objections against won't come from those two perspectives, whether they are valid for consideration or not.  The difference will still be that instead of telling people they are NOT allowed to do what others can freely and openly do (marry another currently unmarried person) states would be saying that everyone is on equal footing in not being able to marry more than one person under the eyes of the law.

In other words, legislating against same sex marriage is saying that a specific group of people are denied the right to do what other groups of people are allowed to do.  Legislating against polygamy is saying NOBODY can do this, doesn't matter who you are.  The second is a lot more palatable.

[gtrdave]

The scenario you paint for the incest arrangement is an if on top of an if....IF there is no sex in the marriage and IF it is a business/legal/financial arrangement.  Laws need not be designed to accommodate the fringe exception.

As for the polygamy scenario....I agree with you and Justice Sotomayor that a compelling argument could be made ESPECIALLY since there are numerous accounts in the Bible and other religious foundational writings AND there are numerous functioning societies that allow.  The only points there being that objections against won't come from those two perspectives, whether they are valid for consideration or not.  The difference will still be that instead of telling people they are NOT allowed to do what others can freely and openly do (marry another currently unmarried person) states would be saying that everyone is on equal footing in not being able to marry more than one person under the eyes of the law.

In other words, legislating against same sex marriage is saying that a specific group of people are denied the right to do what other groups of people are allowed to do.  Legislating against polygamy is saying NOBODY can do this, doesn't matter who you are.  The second is a lot more palatable.

Not really. The fact is that any gay person can go out today and get married in all 50 states, but they will have to get married to a person of the opposite sex.  The "group" is not excluded from marrying, but there are conditions to the marriage, just as there are many other conditions that are in place regarding the contract or covenant of marriage.  So the argument goes back to the theme of "equality" and legal status and benefits and so on...and love.  Can't forget love.

Why is marriage as it stands now limited to being between a man and a woman?  Is it just tradition?  Religious grounds?  As has been mentioned in this thread, it can't be because of religious grounds because our government is supposed to be out of the religion business AND, if that's the case, then they can't stand in the way of gay marriage nor polygamist marriage nor any other form of marriage that could easily be supported by some crackpot religious belief.  All forms of marriage must be allowed if the battle is in the name of equality.
Again, our Supreme Court has no business being involved in the business of something that has existed...and existed quite well, all things considered...for thousands of years and they're only doing so because our current leader and just about every elected and/or appointed official below him governs more based on emotions and feelings and money than on the rule of law.

[malthumb]

Won't clip your whole post, especially since it is directly above, but come on.....really?  Telling people they are free to marry anybody EXCEPT the person they REALLY want to marry?  Who benefits from that?  Telling me I can only marry people who look like Telly Savalas would only irritate me and people who look like Telly Savalas.

I agree that the issue is definitely one of equality and love. I hope I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.  I do not, however, equate the concept of same sex marriage with the concepts of polygamy and incest.  How'd we get here?  Well, even though this is a nation with no favored religion, it has and continues to be influenced largely by religious principles. Not a bad thing.

[gtrdave]

Won't clip your whole post, especially since it is directly above, but come on.....really?  Telling people they are free to marry anybody EXCEPT the person they REALLY want to marry?

Let's say a person, an adult, really wants to marry a minor. Should they be able to?
Another person, an adult, wants to marry their adult sibling and do so for financial/inheritance reasons. Should they be able to?
Another adult male wants to marry 2 or more adult females. Should they be able to?
In all of the above situations I'm sure that both parties may "really want to" get married, yet there are restrictions on those marriages.
So, if the current restriction on gay marriage is lifted I would expect a fight for other restrictions to be lifted, too. Maybe not tomorrow, but someday.
Yet I digress. The Bible clearly says that right will be called wrong and wrong will be called right, so I'm not surprised at the rapid pace at which gay marriage is gaining in popularity.

[phbrown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

[malthumb]

Let's say a person, an adult, really wants to marry a minor. Should they be able to?

No.  And there are adequate laws defining what a minor is and is not allowed to do as well as how unrelated adults may or may not interact with a minor.  Not an issue.  It is addressed.

Another person, an adult, wants to marry their adult sibling and do so for financial/inheritance reasons. Should they be able to?

No.  And there are myriad (though differing) laws addressing incest and marriage of relatives at the state level.  Again, not an issue because it has been addressed.

Another adult male wants to marry 2 or more adult females. Should they be able to?

In this country no.  And there are laws against it.  In other countries this would not be a problem because it is allowed.

In all of the above situations I'm sure that both parties may "really want to" get married, yet there are restrictions on those marriages.
So, if the current restriction on gay marriage is lifted I would expect a fight for other restrictions to be lifted, too. Maybe not tomorrow, but someday.

. You are probably right.  There would be challenges.  Those challenges are (IMHO) much easier to deal with than the same sex issue.  As I've stated before, there are laws that don't allow anybody to engage in the behaviors you point out.  The whole point of the same sex issue is that by simply disallowing adult same sex couples to enjoy the legal benefits of legal marriage, they are discriminated against with respect to tax laws, inheritance laws, and other employment benefit / health care laws.  That condition does not exist in any of the other situations you've described.

Yet I digress. The Bible clearly says that right will be called wrong and wrong will be called right, so I'm not surprised at the rapid pace at which gay marriage is gaining in popularity.

Again, no argument on that point.  Thing is, the case is not being argued at the Vatican or the National Baptist Convention.  It's being argued at the Supreme Court of the United States of America and needs to be argued on points of law, not relevance to Biblical position or impact on other laws (against sexual involvement with minors or incestual behavior/marriage) that are not being challenged.  Those challenges need to be handled if / when they occur.  You can't base a legal decision on Issue A on the potential that it might cause someone to challenge Issue B.

[gtrdave]

We seem to be going around and around.
Here's my last comment on the subject: anyone is allowed to get married, but there are restrictions to said marriage. Always have been, always will be. Lift one restriction and expect other restrictions to be challenged and changed or lifted in the future.
If people are upset with how legal issues are handled between various forms of unions then they should work to change the laws pertaining to those issues rather than redefine something which has existed for far longer than any of the said issues and laws.
In other words, don't mess with marriage, but change the tax laws and inheritance laws and so on and allow two people of any gender to enter into legal agreements regarding those things.
Frankly, the government is already far too involved in marriage as it is. Having the government get their hands in even further to the point of some kind of still-exclusionary redefinition of what marriage is just wreaks of trouble to me.

[kodacolor]

IMO, the word "marriage" should be taken out of the legal lexicon and be replaced with "civil union". Civil unions, no matter who you marry, should include the same rights for all. From there "marriage" can become a strictly social term that people can choose to or not to apply to their situation.  The Bible never said that marriages should have the benefits this country attaches to it. At the end of the day when you cut through the fluff of "you're not letting us love" and all that jazz, the legal benefits that America attaches to marriage is what this is all about.

[malthumb]

We seem to be going around and around.
Here's my last comment on the subject: anyone is allowed to get married, but there are restrictions to said marriage. Always have been, always will be. Lift one restriction and expect other restrictions to be challenged and changed or lifted in the future.
If people are upset with how legal issues are handled between various forms of unions then they should work to change the laws pertaining to those issues rather than redefine something which has existed for far longer than any of the said issues and laws.
In other words, don't mess with marriage, but change the tax laws and inheritance laws and so on and allow two people of any gender to enter into legal agreements regarding those things.
Frankly, the government is already far too involved in marriage as it is. Having the government get their hands in even further to the point of some kind of still-exclusionary redefinition of what marriage is just wreaks of trouble to me.

Round and round.....maybe.  Definitely.  You might, however, be surprised that I agree with everything you said in your last post except for the last line.  I would make a lot more sense to change the tax and inheritance laws.  I think the reason why this path isn't being followed is the idea that each would have to be pursued on both federal and state level.  That would be 104 distinct efforts ((50 states + DC + Fed)*2) as opposed to one issue x 52.

Even though I agree with you in principle, I am also very much a pragmatist.  As such I  have trouble seeing how the legalities of the same sex issue and the issues you raise on what I describe as a slippery slope have equal footing.

[malthumb]

IMO, the word "marriage" should be taken out of the legal lexicon and be replaced with "civil union". Civil unions, no matter who you marry, should include the same rights for all. From there "marriage" can become a strictly social term that people can choose to or not to apply to their situation.  The Bible never said that marriages should have the benefits this county attaches to it. At the end of the day when you cut through the fluff of "you're not letting us love" and all that jazz, the legal benefits that America attaches to marriage is what this is all about.

Bullseye!

[phbrown]

oh the difference a few years make since 2009

the POTUS now openly supports it

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48108897/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/


The Presbyterians are struggling with it also

well it finally happen

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html

[gtrdave]

well it finally happen

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html

I'd bet that Rob Bell and Oprah are excited by this news.

[berbie]

I absolutely believe that gay people should be able to live freely in society, answerable only to God as to the right or wrong of their lifestyle.  I believe that there is something physical and/or psychologically different between gays and straights. I think we will one day know what it is.  We're all just good and bad people based on the things we do other than our legal/moral(consenting adult)sex lives.  I also somewhat believe that they should be able to reap the benefits of being married on a legal basis.  It is hard for me to completely get ahold of that, though, even if it is on a civil/legal basis only.  I don't believe that churches should be forced to marry people against their doctrine/beliefs and against what they consider to be a marriage.  If two men or women choose to live together, that's their business.  I don't see why two men living together get a tax break, and I can't because I am not gay,  so I have reservations.  We all have to realize though, that even today, before anything concrete has been made law, marriage as we once knew it to be has ceased to exist.