In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:39 PM
maybe a more productive discussion should be about the question of what human relationships should NOT be considered marriage under the law and what rationale is reasonable to declare this or that human relationship not eligible to be considered marriage? personally, if a relationship would not be open to the procreation of children it should not be considered marriage. that is because society's primary interest in marriage lies in providing children with the most stable and natural parenting possible.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:12 PM
Intimate Human Relationships between more than two people are problematic for other reasons. First, they present a whole range of practical difficulties that do not arise with two people. How do you fairly divide property? What about child custody disputes? I shudder to think of having to deal with such things.

A whole different objection is that such Marriages would, I think, confer unfair advantages on their members relative to other people. Such a relationship could survive the death of a participant, it could accumulate jointly-held power and wealth forever. It'd be like a corporation whose members have sex.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:30 PM
The shareholders would *really share*, so to speak...
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:07 PM
"... what human relationships should NOT be considered marriage under the law and what rationale is reasonable..."

Fair enough, and a good way to deal with the 'slippery slope' bugaboos oft-paraded by opponents of Marriage Equality.

IMHO intimate relationships between Adults and Children should never be sanctioned as Marriage, because we do not recognize children as being mentally/emotional mature & competent to enter into such relationships.
Jack2894 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:44 PM
So I got snipped a number of years ago. If my wife croaks, I should never be allowed to remarry?

How despotic.
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:54 PM
unless proven otherwise, for example by self-affirmation, the government would not know you have been, as you so crudely put it, snipped.

so your comment is a non sequitur objection to my criteria.

however, as you so quickly jumped on my post and ignored the heart of the post which was the suggestion that a more fruitful discussion might be what kind of private and personal human relationships should NOT be defined as marriage, all i can do is offer you a very tepid thank you for playing. and, even my tepid thank you is based on the assumption your response is sincere and the best you can do.
Jack2894 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:05 PM
It's absolutely NOT a non-sequitur: it is exactly on point. Your exclusion would apply not only to me but to millions of men who have been snipped, millions of women who have selected tubal ligation, millions of men and women who are medically sterile for one reason or another, millions of elderly men and women beyond child bearing age, and millions of men and women who are not open to procreation by choice! But little you has the absolute arrogance to tell those tens of millions of people that they don't meet YOUR criteria for marriage.

Up yours, you petty tyrant.

eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:24 PM
if you go around publicizing your deliberate act to eliminate the procreative aspect of marriage, you should be denied the favorable treatment the government provides the one man one woman model of marriage that is unique in its relationship to procreativity and child-rearing, unless of course a couple has already engaged in procreation.

the government has no business prying in to the fertility of male female marriages.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:51 PM

Jack is a lobotomized stump, not snipped.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...