Taken from LI families --poll

yup

i think a lot of people hate using the word 'marriage' and would prefer it be called a 'civil union' -- but i don't think it should be a different term....i think marriage should be for all couples, hetero or homo

Of course. No difference in my book, as a pp said, love is love.

yep - we talked about it last night - before i totally changed the topic to another 'controversial one'..

---

Posted by SylvieB

yes- to me, Love is Love. And if you find it, your incredibly blessed. It shouldn't matter WHO you love!

---

What about the guy on Jerry Springer that loved his horse ?

Now that is a wedding I would really like to go to. For once saying the groom is hung like a horse would not be a lie.

---

Posted by davenjess

yep - we talked about it last night - before i totally changed the topic to another 'controversial one'..

---

yeah and being that I was um not in my right mind.....thanks sleeping medicing Jeremy said I was making an asss out of my self ....

---

Posted by kellybean

Im curious as to why some people are against it/

---

As everyone already knwos my sister in law is gay and I have no problems with gay couples crearting lives together. For me personally marriage at this point no longer has teh connotations it used to with the high divorce rates and some people choosing to be together without marriage which is fine if that works for you.

Their civil union committement ceremony is actually this weekend. I have no problems but thats my PERSONAL feeling.

Now i'll play devils advocate and tell you what the problem others seem to have at elast as they have told it to me. (I hear both sides alot since we see them all the time and it becomes a topic of discission among their firends every so often.)

The issue seems to be that 'marriage' originally was a word for a union between man and woman, in a church related ceremony. because the church is involved, you get into that slippery slope gray area. Chruch and state are supposed to be seperate so TECHNICALLY you should not be using the word MARRIAGE unelss you are married in a church.

Any union not in a church is tehcnically a civil union. DH and I are in a union, not a technical marriage.

HOWEVER...as we all know our certificates SAY MaRRIAGE CERTIFICATE because its become accepted to have those unions called such despite the technicalites.

So people who feel that amrriage should remain something of the church are opposed, yet obviously its not 100 percent fair because the word is used loosely among hetero couples whether church is involved or not. Its alls semantics at this point but it makes it tricky.

Its just a very trucky argument on both sides.

I don't care what its called. I just want my SIL and her partner to get the same benefits we do. We are considering them married regardelss of what their paper says.

I forgot one of the other anti-marriage arguments.

The idea that rewriting the definition of marriage from man and woman to anything else creates a VERY Slippery slope which would then allow people to challenge the definition of marriage in Tthe Supreme court and likely win, even if the case was crazy like beastilaity or people marrying 'kids' because they are at the age of consent and the law is no longer writeen in stone.

It sounds crazy I agree BUT we know the Supreme Court lately is getting crazy stuff. Look at some of the organizations out there liek MAMBLA..man/boy love associateion..just food for thought.

---

Posted by PeteysBride

I forgot one of the other anti-marriage arguments.

The idea that rewriting the definition of marriage from man and woman to anything else creates a VERY Slippery slope which would then allow people to challenge the definition of marriage in The Supreme court and likely win, even if the case was crazy like beastilaity or people marrying 'kids' because they are at the age of consent and the law is no longer writeen in stone.

It sounds crazy I agree BUT we know the Supreme Court lately is getting crazy stuff. Look at some of the organizations out there liek MAMBLA..man/boy love associateion..just food for thought.

---

I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument made by those that are anti-marriage among those of the same sex.

I doubt any court, even the Supreme Court, would condone a marriage between a child and an adult. Children cannot consent to a marriage because of their age and neither can an animal.

These examples are unlike two consenting adults who are of the same sex.

---

Posted by Toots123

---

Posted by PeteysBride

I forgot one of the other anti-marriage arguments.

The idea that rewriting the definition of marriage from man and woman to anything else creates a VERY Slippery slope which would then allow people to challenge the definition of marriage in The Supreme court and likely win, even if the case was crazy like beastilaity or people marrying 'kids' because they are at the age of consent and the law is no longer writeen in stone.

It sounds crazy I agree BUT we know the Supreme Court lately is getting crazy stuff. Look at some of the organizations out there liek MAMBLA..man/boy love associateion..just food for thought.

---

I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument made by those that are anti-marriage among those of the same sex.

I doubt any court, even the Supreme Court, would condone a marriage between a child and an adult. Children cannot consent to a marriage because of their age and neither can an animal.

These examples are unlike two consenting adults who are of the same sex.

---

You're ignoring what i said about the 'children'. Age of consent depends upon the state. In some states 16 is the age of consent but most of us would agree that is still very much underage and immature in the majority of cases.

NAMBLA

Hence the slippery slope begins...Yes stuff like this does exist. yes it is too often lately protected by ridiulous rulings.

Like I said I wish that gay people could marry because for me PERSONALLY it desn't matter but there are other factors to consider. Just throwing out facts out there because kelly was interested.

Its unfortunate and sad that it hurts homosexuals rights to marry.

---

Posted by PeteysBride

---

Posted by Toots123

---

Posted by PeteysBride

I forgot one of the other anti-marriage arguments.

The idea that rewriting the definition of marriage from man and woman to anything else creates a VERY Slippery slope which would then allow people to challenge the definition of marriage in The Supreme court and likely win, even if the case was crazy like beastilaity or people marrying 'kids' because they are at the age of consent and the law is no longer writeen in stone.

It sounds crazy I agree BUT we know the Supreme Court lately is getting crazy stuff. Look at some of the organizations out there liek MAMBLA..man/boy love associateion..just food for thought.

---

I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument made by those that are anti-marriage among those of the same sex.

I doubt any court, even the Supreme Court, would condone a marriage between a child and an adult. Children cannot consent to a marriage because of their age and neither can an animal.

These examples are unlike two consenting adults who are of the same sex.

---

You're ignoring what i said about the 'children'. Age of consent depends upon the state. In some states 16 is the age of consent but most of us would agree that is still very much underage and immature in the majority of cases.

NAMBLA

Hence the slippery slope begins...Yes stuff like this does exist. yes it is too often lately protected by ridiulous rulings.

Like I said I wish that gay people could marry because for me PERSONALLY it desn't matter but there are other factors to consider. Just throwing out facts out there because kelly was interested.

Its unfortunate and sad that it hurts homosexuals rights to marry.

---

thanks !!
I am 100% for gay marriage , adoption etc.
but I am curious as to why so many people are against it. I understand the church stance..I dont agree but I get it. The Stance I dont understand and am not knocking just not understanding is the whole if we allow gays to marry then what next......people and children , realitives etc......two of age consenting adults should have the right to marry and have a family regardless of their sexual preference.
I just read the thing you posted on NAMBLA and its just disgusting period. I dont personally care if my kids are gay or straight. what they do or whom they do is not my choice nor do I care as long as at 14 they arent doing 40 year old.

---

Posted by PeteysBride

You're ignoring what i said about the 'children'. Age of consent depends upon the state. In some states 16 is the age of consent but most of us would agree that is still very much underage and immature in the majority of cases.

NAMBLA

Hence the slippery slope begins...Yes stuff like this does exist. yes it is too often lately protected by ridiulous rulings.

Like I said I wish that gay people could marry because for me PERSONALLY it desn't matter but there are other factors to consider. Just throwing out facts out there because kelly was interested.

Its unfortunate and sad that it hurts homosexuals rights to marry.

---

well that NAMBLA organization is just about disbanded at this point....there are some underground people who are still members but since the FBI has arrested many members in stings, its almost non-existant. but i don't quite understand why people think (not meaning YOU personally--just ppl in general) that if you say that gay people who ARE of the age of consent, and are adults means there is a slippery slope of letting just about anyone/anything get married. i think that argument that people have just doesn't hold water. if you let consenting adults who are homosexual marry.....why would that mean that you have to worry about the age of consent changing and saying that a child and an adult should be allowed to marry? i don't think one has to do with the other.

like how does it mean it opens up the gates for a 13 year old boy to marry a 45 year old man? if laws are there to protect those who are under the age of consent....allowing ADULTS who are homosexual to marry doesn't seem to condone the changing of consent laws for others. i think those who argue the 'slippery slope' angle, are just grasping for anything to make people scared of change.


btw---kudos on your sister's committment ceremony this wknd.

---

Posted by kellybean


thanks !!
I am 100% for gay marriage , adoption etc.
but I am curious as to why so many people are against it. I understand the church stance..I dont agree but I get it. The Stance I dont understand and am not knocking just not understanding is the whole if we allow gays to marry then what next......people and children , realitives etc......two of age consenting adults should have the right to marry and have a family regardless of their sexual preference.
I just read the thing you posted on NAMBLA and its just disgusting period. I dont personally care if my kids are gay or straight. what they do or whom they do is not my choice nor do I care as long as at 14 they arent doing 40 year old.

---

Agree with ya. I wasn't defending or knocking it, just presenting the facts as I know them to give as many sides as possible since you asked. I like to know all sides of topics I don't know anythign about whetehr I am for them or against just to get the info.

You won't catch me arguing without you about NAMBLA. I couldnt believe it when my husband mentioned it to em one day when we were discussing something he'd heard on the radio station he likes. But yep..its there and that organization is oen of the ones that worry people who support the slippery slope idea. because 16 is the age of consent in some states but for me personally thats still very young especially if its MY kid and he wnats to marry a 50 year old. I don't care if my kids are straight, gay or polka dotted but I'd draw the line there-if you need to eb 21 to drink WHY do we have such crazy rules allowing children to do otehr things? But thats a whole nother can of worms! Sorry to derail.

---

Posted by MJDoc12

---

Posted by PeteysBride

You're ignoring what i said about the 'children'. Age of consent depends upon the state. In some states 16 is the age of consent but most of us would agree that is still very much underage and immature in the majority of cases.

NAMBLA

Hence the slippery slope begins...Yes stuff like this does exist. yes it is too often lately protected by ridiulous rulings.

Like I said I wish that gay people could marry because for me PERSONALLY it desn't matter but there are other factors to consider. Just throwing out facts out there because kelly was interested.

Its unfortunate and sad that it hurts homosexuals rights to marry.

---

well that NAMBLA organization is just about disbanded at this point....there are some underground people who are still members but since the FBI has arrested many members in stings, its almost non-existant. but i don't quite understand why people think (not meaning YOU personally--just ppl in general) that if you say that gay people who ARE of the age of consent, and are adults means there is a slippery slope of letting just about anyone/anything get married. i think that argument that people have just doesn't hold water. if you let consenting adults who are homosexual marry.....why would that mean that you have to worry about the age of consent changing and saying that a child and an adult should be allowed to marry? i don't think one has to do with the other.

like how does it mean it opens up the gates for a 13 year old boy to marry a 45 year old man? if laws are there to protect those who are under the age of consent....allowing ADULTS who are homosexual to marry doesn't seem to condone the changing of consent laws for others. i think those who argue the 'slippery slope' angle, are just grasping for anything to make people scared of change.


btw---kudos on your sister's committment ceremony this wknd.

---

Well from how its been exlained to me, the slipepry slope seems tto start with the fact that marriage would no longer have any official definition. So if there is no official definition, then it becoems an open court so to speak because now it would be all enw territory to explore. Does that amke sense? Like if you start an organization lets say and there are no rules, you have to make them up as you go along , and as things happen to make you realize 'Oh maybe we need this rule too and that one.' Sort of trial and error. The same would occur if now there is no definition of amrriage.

It would have nothing to do with being gay or straight, but everything to do with the fact there would be NO RULES about what a marriage is UNLESS they explicityly said 'Marriage is bwteen man and woman, woman and woman, man and man' etc. But then you would get people of other 'Alternate lifestyles' as they are considered, saying it isn't fair and wanting the same treatment.

Therein lies what some people believes, an open door for people fo NAMBLA to walk right through.

Let me know if this isn't clear because I'm trying to take whats others have told me and clarify it for msyelf as well as you-trying to think as I write.

Take the gay aspect out of the situation completely. Imagine marriage has been declared a union between two consenting adults period. Ok.

Now in a state where 16 is the age of consent lets say, some guy decided that he wants to marry a 176 year old. It is teh age of consent. He is legally allowed to choose who he/she wnats to sleep with. its only a few steps away from being changed to who they ahve the right to amrry in theory, if the 'rules' of marriage are no longer defined.

Hopefully that makes sense.