Taken from LI families --poll

---

Posted by PeteysBride

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.

---

No, i get what you mean...but you have to remember that age of consent and age of consent to MARRY are two entirely different things. those who argue about the whole 'well kids could marry adults' forget to discuss this part...and people don't understand it.

Each state, with the exception of Mississippi, states that in order for 2 people to be married...the age of consent to MARRY is 18, without parental permission. (In Mississippi its still 17 for men, 15 for women.) Most every other state in the U.S. says you can marry someone by age 16, BUT ONLY with PARENTAL PERMISSION.

This chart from Cornell University gives you the age breakdowns

So saying that allowing gays to marry, does not necessarily affect the age of consent, since 49 out of 50 states say that in order for 2 people to marry anyway, you must have reached the age of majority, which is 18.

---

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.

---

I know that you're not necessarily against it but I still cannot agree with the people who argue that permitting a couple of the same sex to marry will lead to a slippery slope of court rulings allowing people to marry horses, donkeys, a child, their sister or a toaster, for that matter. I think it's just a way to try to justify the continued discrimination against people of the same sex who want to get married.

I did miss that point in your previous post about 'kids' in your example being old enough to consent. I had to go back and re-read what your wrote and I get your point.

Nevertheless, in NY, anyone over the age of 18 can consent to marriage, without their parents also consenting. While I think I was too young to get married at that age, I believe that people have the right to do so, if they choose.

If two 18 year olds of the opposite sex can get married in NY, then why can't two 18 year olds of the same sex get married in NY? Or, if an 18 year old female can marry a 65 year old male in NY, why can't a 18 year old male marry a 65 year old male in NY?

Edited to add:

What could NY's reasoning be for allowing one but preventing the other?

---

Posted by MJDoc12

---

Posted by PeteysBride

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.

---

No, i get what you mean...but you have to remember that age of consent and age of consent to MARRY are two entirely different things. those who argue about the whole 'well kids could marry adults' forget to discuss this part...and people don't understand it.

Each state, with the exception of Mississippi, states that in order for 2 people to be married...the age of consent to MARRY is 18, without parental permission. (In Mississippi its still 17 for men, 15 for women.) Most every other state in the U.S. says you can marry someone by age 16, BUT ONLY with PARENTAL PERMISSION.

This chart from Cornell University gives you the age breakdowns

So saying that allowing gays to marry, does not necessarily affect the age of consent, since 49 out of 50 states say that in order for 2 people to marry anyway, you must have reached the age of majority, which is 18.

---

Hmm ok I didn't know that. Thats a new fact for me to argue. Thanks.

---

Posted by PeteysBride

Hmm ok I didn't know that. Thats a new fact for me to argue. Thanks.

---

No problemo! I think a LOT of people don't understand that fact or know that the min. age to marry is 18 in most states. Hence why I always get annoyed when people say, who are opposted to gay marriage, that it opens the door to other things.

I think if marriage was defined as two consenting adults who have reached the age of majority that do not have any blood relation....things would be easier.

---

Posted by Toots123

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.

---

The horse would say nayyyyyyyyy

---

Posted by MeNBobs

---

Posted by Toots123

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.

---

The horse would say nayyyyyyyyy

---

---

Posted by MeNBobs

---

Posted by Toots123

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.

---

The horse would say nayyyyyyyyy

---

---

Posted by MJDoc12

---

Posted by PeteysBride

Hmm ok I didn't know that. Thats a new fact for me to argue. Thanks.

---

No problemo! I think a LOT of people don't understand that fact or know that the min. age to marry is 18 in most states. Hence why I always get annoyed when people say, who are opposted to gay marriage, that it opens the door to other things.

I think if marriage was defined as two consenting adults who have reached the age of majority that do not have any blood relation....things would be easier.

---

BINGO! BUUUUT then you would get peopel screaming about rights. If you say two people of the same sex can marry why cant people who have the same blood?

I know why-cause its unnatural and icky BUT some people think homosexuality is unatural because in nature, same sex organisms do not usually get together and they cannot reproduce which is a function of living things in the biological sense.

Retarded but true so then again you fall into that weird semantics which is why it causes so much controversy.

Its just headache causing all around.

---

Posted by PeteysBride

BINGO! BUUUUT then you would get peopel screaming about rights. If you say two people of the same sex can marry why cant people who have the same blood?

I know why-cause its unnatural and icky BUT some people think homosexuality is unatural because in nature, same sex organisms do not usually get together and they cannot reproduce which is a function of living things in the biological sense.

Retarded but true so then again you fall into that weird semantics which is why it causes so much controversy.

Its just headache causing all around.

---

Unnatural and icky is one thing----BUT genetically two people who are of immediate blood relation can procreate and produce off-spring that have so many genetic abnormalities and diseases...which is why incest is considered illegal. if we allowed incest to run rampant....the # of babies born with so many congenital defects would rise at an extreme rate....hence causing health care costs to rise...thus effecting insurance and medical expenses. there is a legitimate reason against incest.

2 people of the same sex having a relationship, sexual and what not, and marrying does not produce such an end result and is not a liability medically or financially the way that incest does. so again, that is why i don't think the idea of 'it can lead to blood related people getting married' makes much sense to adovcates against gay marriage.

---

Posted by MJDoc12

---

Posted by PeteysBride

BINGO! BUUUUT then you would get peopel screaming about rights. If you say two people of the same sex can marry why cant people who have the same blood?

I know why-cause its unnatural and icky BUT some people think homosexuality is unatural because in nature, same sex organisms do not usually get together and they cannot reproduce which is a function of living things in the biological sense.

Retarded but true so then again you fall into that weird semantics which is why it causes so much controversy.

Its just headache causing all around.

---

Unnatural and icky is one thing----BUT genetically two people who are of immediate blood relation can procreate and produce off-spring that have so many genetic abnormalities and diseases...which is why incest is considered illegal. if we allowed incest to run rampant....the # of babies born with so many congenital defects would rise at an extreme rate....hence causing health care costs to rise...thus effecting insurance and medical expenses. there is a legitimate reason against incest.

2 people of the same sex having a relationship, sexual and what not, and marrying does not produce such an end result and is not a liability medically or financially the way that incest does. so again, that is why i don't think the idea of 'it can lead to blood related people getting married' makes much sense to adovcates against gay marriage.

---

And I agree with you BUT then you get into the argument of what you're saying which while correct, is essentially telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

You cannot tell people who are living on welfare not to have more children on welfare even though having 6 kids while on the system drains it even further financially and creates a higher level of poverty and thus raises our taxes because we have to provide for those families.

Again that slides into that area of slippiness. If you open up the door to one alternative lifestyle' you have to open the door for them all to be fair or risk lewsuits galore that would eventually get the laws changed anyway.

In a wikipedia article it stated 'First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality' I dont know how accurate it is but maybe homosexuality isnt as 'unnatural' as some people make it to be.
I am completely for gay marriage and adoption.

---

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

---

I wanted to marry my toaster.

I had to settle for DH

[shrug]

Of course...who is anyone to say who a person is allowed to love. You can't control that. To each their own

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Love is love- everyone deserves it!