Same Sex Marriage

[SoonerTexan]

Wait, HOW and Heidi I'm confused...I agree with you both. Your posts read the same to me...I'm not sure what you are disagreeing about?

I sort of feel like religious and civil marriage is pretty separated already. I wasn't considered by married by the Catholic Church until I said my vows and I wasn't considered married by the state until my marriage license was properly filed. We just happened to have the same people performing the ceremony and signing the license.

[ladymoreta]

Allowing the government to create laws based on religion seems to be a much more dangerous "slippery slope". We seem to have lost our healthy fear of giving government too much control over our lives.

[PrincessFiona]

I wish I could like your post, Laurie!

Kris

[bobk]

I don't think the slippery slope argument can be dismissed so easily. The marriage scenarios I mentioned in my other post don't involve children or animals, which would clearly be ludicrous. Again, let's say two brothers want to marry each other. They are both over 16, not harming each other physically, fully consent to the marriage, love each other deeply and plan to live out their lives together as spouses. Should we, as a society, allow that? If not, what's the rationale?

[diggitydot]

Again, let's say two brothers want to marry each other. They are both over 16, not harming each other physically, fully consent to the marriage, love each other deeply and plan to live out their lives together as spouses. Should we, as a society, allow that? If not, what's the rationale?

The closest blood relatives that can legally marry are usually 2nd cousins, however a few states allow 1st cousins. I don't see how legalizing gay marriage invalidates existing incest laws.

[Michele]

Why wouldn't you allow two brothers to marry? I don't see any arguing it other than it's just not typical.

As for incest, I thought the laws preventing it were because of shrinking the gene pool so to speak. Because of the increased risk of genetic abnormalities because of the sameness in genes. Am I wrong?

[Vanquisher]

I guess what I am saying is that marriage should be a term that applies to everyone, religious or not. I don't want to call it legal civil unions or whatever. It's the language. Church and state should be separate. However, those who don't belong to a church have as much right to marry as those who do not.

[bobk]

I guess what I am saying is that marriage should be a term that applies to everyone, religious or not. I don't want to call it legal civil unions or whatever. It's the language. Church and state should be separate. However, those who don't belong to a church have as much right to marry as those who do not.

I agree with you about separating church and state. Religion (or lack thereof) definitely influences people's thinking about this subject, but ultimately doesn't have any authority over our laws.

[ladymoreta]

Our laws are made to be dynamic. If/when incest becomes needed or wanted by society, we can tackle those laws at that time. Right now, the crisis is only with same-sex marriage availability, and I don't see a need to account for any other type at this time.

[diggitydot]

Why wouldn't you allow two brothers to marry? I don't see any arguing it other than it's just not typical.

As for incest, I thought the laws preventing it were because of shrinking the gene pool so to speak. Because of the increased risk of genetic abnormalities because of the sameness in genes. Am I wrong?

I'm not disallowing it. The laws already exist and wouldn't be affected by legalizing gay marriage.

[bobk]

The closest blood relatives that can legally marry are usually 2nd cousins, however a few states allow 1st cousins. I don't see how legalizing gay marriage invalidates existing incest laws.

Incest laws can be justified because there's a very real potential for harm in the biological offspring of such a relationship. That's a non-issue for two brothers who marry because they obviously can't have children and could use a surrogate mother or just adopt. Why shouldn't we modify the incest laws to allow their marriage?

To me, this is really the heart of the slippery slope argument. Marriage, in this country at least, has always been understood as being between one man and one woman, even if the reasons people enter into it have changed over time. If we conclude that the opposite gender requirement is wrong and/or arbitrary, you open the floodgates for modifying any other requirements that have previously been established.

[diggitydot]

Why shouldn't we modify the incest laws to allow their marriage?

No impetus to do so, which is part of why the "slippery slope" argument is invalid.

[MrsSz]

Coming back to this...how do you define these morals? Which morals are more important than other morals? It's morally wrong to kill someone and the government governs that. It's morally wrong to cheat on your spouse and some states govern that.

I, personally, believe that same sex couples should have the ability to marry. Hell, if my brother in law and his wife could get married, anyone should be able to. I do not believe that the government should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do within my own personal life. I don't believe that I should be able to force my beliefs on someone else using the law as a crutch. The slippery slope I was referring to was not the argument against gay marriage, but the slippery slope of the government being able to govern my personal life.

[MrsSz]

Good questions Michele. I think the morals we're talking about governing here aren't those set by a religion but those that are inherent to a free, well functioning society (murder, theft and the like). Society morals and religious morals can overlap but that doesn't mean they're one in the same. Homosexuality is a religious moral issue, not a societal one - at least not in a society with freedom of religion as a fundamental tenet.

Oh you said this considerably better than I did. Exactly what I was thinking, but had trouble articulating.

[HouseofWool]

GAH - I shouldn't respond here when on my phone. Heidi, I didn't make my self clear enough. I think both the civil ceremony and the religious are both marriages, neither is less valid than the other. I keep thinking of other countries where the clergy isn't allowed to be the officiant of the civil ceremony, so it is pretty common to have the big fancy church wedding followed by a quick civil ceremony that is required for legal purposes. That, to me seems to be the appropriate answer, which comes back to a separation of church and state. Consenting adults can marry one other consenting adult of each others choosing.