U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-10-2010, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,157,183 times
Reputation: 9170

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I'm not get into the middle of the peeing match here, and this is not a "slippery slope" argument.

I am curious though, assuming we broaden the meaning of marriage to include homosexual marriage, what other "pairings" ought to be included under the umbrella of marriage?

- Multiple wives/husbands, assuming they all consent?
Personally, I don't care, however I don't think it would be possible based on things like next of kin issues.

Quote:
- Family members as close as first-cousins, or maybe closer?
I think our incest laws are pretty solid the way they are now.

Quote:
- Arranged marriages?
As long as both parties consent.

Quote:
- Marriage for consenting minors? If so, at what age?
Fine the way it is.

Quote:
- Others?
Such as?

Quote:
This whole debate just has me curious regarding what, exactly, we believe should be definable as marriage.
Generally speaking, any two consenting adults should be free to marry as they please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2010, 08:39 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,176,970 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Personally, I don't care, however I don't think it would be possible based on things like next of kin issues.

I think our incest laws are pretty solid the way they are now.

As long as both parties consent.

Fine the way it is.

Such as?

Generally speaking, any two consenting adults should be free to marry as they please.
Fair enough.

One point I believe is appropriate is that it's open season on "fine the way it is." "Fine the way it is" is precisely what gays are fighting against.

I don't know, but I have a hunch that we'll eventually get to the point that - at least on a federal level - there simply is no such thing as marriage. No tax differences, no differences in the way estates are divided, etc. Everyone, whether part of a couple or not, will simply be counted and taxed as an individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,157,183 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Fair enough.

One point I believe is appropriate is that it's open season on "fine the way it is." "Fine the way it is" is precisely what gays are fighting against.
It is, but the thing is that polygamy (next of kin issues) and Incest (Birth defects) both come with issues that aren't applicable to gay marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:02 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,176,970 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
It is, but the thing is that polygamy (next of kin issues) and Incest (Birth defects) both come with issues that aren't applicable to gay marriage.
Yeah that's true. Personally though, I think those are weak arguments. Next of kin issues aren't of much significance anymore, and can easily be settled by a notarized document. And birth defects among the children of cousins has been over exaggerated.

Also the opposite could be argued as well. Gay marriage brings its own set of unique issues.

Again, I'm not trying to mash on gay marriage here. I'm just thinking out loud - and outside the box - about what I believe will be the ramifications of broadening the legal definitions and parameters of marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,157,183 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Yeah that's true. Personally though, I think those are weak arguments. Next of kin issues aren't of much significance anymore, and can easily be settled by a notarized document. And birth defects among the children of cousins has been over exaggerated.

Also the opposite could be argued as well. Gay marriage brings its own set of unique issues.

Again, I'm not trying to mash on gay marriage here. I'm just thinking out loud - and outside the box - about what I believe will be the ramifications of broadening the legal definitions and parameters of marriage.
Well, I like to look at it through the "is this reasonable" spectrum.

For example, is it reasonable to say that a company must provide the same benefits (health, dental...etc) to the spouses of their homosexual employees just the same as the heterosexual couples?

Yeah, that's reasonable.

Is it reasonable to force the same company to provide those benefits to Billy Bob, his 10 wives and 34 kids?

No, I don't think that's reasonable.

That's my take on it anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:23 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,176,970 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Well, I like to look at it through the "is this reasonable" spectrum.

For example, is it reasonable to say that a company must provide the same benefits (health, dental...etc) to the spouses of their homosexual employees just the same as the heterosexual couples?

Yeah, that's reasonable.

Is it reasonable to force the same company to provide those benefits to Billy Bob, his 10 wives and 34 kids?

No, I don't think that's reasonable.

That's my take on it anyways.
Are you referring to Billy Bob Thornton? "I likes dem taters, uhh huhh."

It's interesting, because for every point there is a legitimate counter-point.

It just seems to keep coming back to the question of who gets to draw the line, and where.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 08:56 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,685,177 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
You're trying to play games again Calvin. I'm asking you why same sex marriages should not be recognized like their straight counterparts, in the same exact way.

Try to keep up, and answer the question.
Why should they? The burden is not on me to defend it and say why we shouldn't recognize them--I'm not the one asking to change the law. They already have marriage rights...that's not the question--the question is that they want marriage rights that the rest of the general population does not have -- to marry someone of the same gender.

Ultimately, what it's going to come down to is whether gay people are another class of citizen, and if they need a new definition of marriage for same-gender marriages. Otherwise, it's just allowing a different type of marriage based on a personal behavior--and I think that's a bad precedent to set. At this point, I don't see how we can make a distinction between a gay man and a straight man under the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,157,183 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Why should they? The burden is not on me to defend it and say why we shouldn't recognize them--I'm not the one asking to change the law.
Their reasons for wanting same sex marriage recognized are well documented and since you've now taken the stance of actively arguing against that being granted, the burden most certainly is on you to defend your belief.

Quit dancing around and answer the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 2,143,981 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Why should they? The burden is not on me to defend it and say why we shouldn't recognize them--I'm not the one asking to change the law. They already have marriage rights...that's not the question--the question is that they want marriage rights that the rest of the general population does not have -- to marry someone of the same gender.

Ultimately, what it's going to come down to is whether gay people are another class of citizen, and if they need a new definition of marriage for same-gender marriages. Otherwise, it's just allowing a different type of marriage based on a personal behavior--and I think that's a bad precedent to set. At this point, I don't see how we can make a distinction between a gay man and a straight man under the law.
This isn't even it. You can marry anyone you want. There is no need to change the law. Your right to marry isn't hindered by any law. Gay or straight. The ability to get the state benefits of the marriage is what gay people are asking for. Although they want to make it about getting married, it's not that at all. They can get married. They want the world to think that they are being rejected rights in someway, but really they are just being denied benefits that they don't qualify for.

When you get married you can request that your marriage be recognized by state (required if you want the state benefits). Any soon to be married couple can make this request (gay or straight or whatever). The clerk reviews the paperwork and determines if you meet the qualifications. Just like unemployment, just like welfare, you apply and it gets reviewed. If you meet the requirements, you get accepted. If you don't you get rejected. It's not about civil rights, it's about fullfilling the requirement to obtain state benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Their reasons for wanting same sex marriage recognized are well documented and since you've now taken the stance of actively arguing against that being granted, the burden most certainly is on you to defend your belief.

Quit dancing around and answer the question.
Very good, you've changed from talking about the right to marry to marriage recognition. Now we are getting somewhere. This is how the discussion should be taking place, the misinformation on the subject and the use of incorrect terms has really done a disservice to both sides of the debate.

Now as far as recognition. They asked. A few states said ok, a few more said ok with conditions, other said no. The states did what they felt was in the best interest of their state. Whether or not it is truly in the best interest of the state is debatable, some would say yes, some would say no. However, that's true for a wide variety of subjects.

Do the states have the right to determine who they provide benefits to? Absolutely. Can they choose what the qualifications are for those benefits? Yes. They could even choose tomorrow to take the marriage benefits away from heterosexual couples. The state has that power. The benefits are not a civil right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 09:50 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,651,993 times
Reputation: 477
No, the state cannot just arbitrarily assign benefits to one group and not another. Based on your logic it would be ok to assign benefits to whites, but not blacks. The point is in order to assign asymmetric benefits the state must have at least a rational basis, and maybe a heightened level of scrutiny depending on the issue at hand. That's the whole conversation. The state can not call a union a marriage with one group and then award that group benefits and then not do it to another group unless their reasoning passes Supreme Court muster.

There is no doubt that you would agree that it would be unconstitutional for Nebraska to deny marriage benefits to an interracial couple. And that emanates from the federal constitution. So you have little support for your "benefits are treated differently" theory. They are not. And if the Supreme Court rules that its a fundamental right to engage in ANY marriage (be it gay or straight) then they will also rule that its unconstitutional to deny marriage benefits to gays.

Now, you're right to say that the State can define what benefits come with marriage (to some degree), but they are not freely allowed to determine who and who doesn't get to have those benefits. Their basis for discriminating must fall within Constitutional doctrine. And the argument by those supporting gay marriage claims that denying marriage benefits to gay couples does NOT comport with Constitutional law.

Last edited by mattpoulsen; 06-11-2010 at 10:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:44 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top