If homosexuals were allowed to marry, in the legal sense, where does it stop?

Question

I'm not opposed to homosexuals marrying - I believe that the idea of marriage is two individuals commited to one another, although I don't necessarily think that you need a document that reflects what two people in their hearts believe - but I do understand the argument in favor of gay marriage.

My concern is where does it stop? Next will be polygamy - who are you to tell me I can't love more than one person, and then deny me the right to be married to them? After that, it will get worse. - who are you to tell me I can't love my dog and marry her? Who are you to tell me I can't love my father and marry him?

I think it is a slippery slope and for every step in that direction, it opens up another floodgate to a more permissive society.

Answer 1

Gays have the exact same legal rights to marry that straight people do.



They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like you or I can, conversely we cannot marry someone or the same sex ( or a tree or a dog ) and neither can they.



What they want is a new and different , special law just for them.

Answer 2

-



Since your question is, ahh, a bit ambiguous, most definitely

a leading question, how is this for an answer:

Where does acceptance end and tolerance begin?

If things that were are social standards in

history are left alone, then that makes one a

reactionary. No, acceptance is not good enough.

We cannot be happy with tradition, but we are made

to go along with the very few. Very few of the people

(people underlined) who decide what happens in

America are the majority voice. The system of doing

things in Washington is disapparent. Our leaders are

made to feel guilty if they don't go along with civil

rights activits. But the activists are not too busy to get

laws passed. Civil liberty laws are all made to recognize

people by groups instead of persons. Oh, and I am

not a Republican, or a conservative.



How many senators and congressmen are NOT married,

and aren't they all married to members of the opposite sex?

Also, everyone who fills out tax forms has a preference if

they are married. That topic never comes up, or I'm

reading the wrong magazines. I have a comic book

in my hand.





..-

Answer 3

let's solve the 'marriage' issue: 1)Each state sets a minimum age, typically where one is considered an "adult" and able to enter into agreements and contracts. 2)Each state will keep records according to registration and contract law 3)Marriage should be "privatized" and allowed for all consenting adults, including homosexual marriage or even polygamy. Religious ceremonies are conducted or not according to the married person (s). 4)Each state does not take a "moral position" and the "marriage" is handled under contract law as well as divorce and other matters that may occur with time. The state acts as a record keeper and handles diputes from its court system and contract law. Isn't that simple?

Answer 4

Thats easy, only offer benefits as far as tax breaks for one spouse.



Now do you have any other biggoted concerns you need to try to justify with slippery slope arguments. You yourself call it a slippery slope. THAT IS A FALLACY! In debate and law it fails at a valid reason. Read logical fallacies and edumicate yourself.



If you want to use a slippery slope argument, I will entertain you though.



The slope starts somewhere, so my suggestion is that it started with marriage period. So the only way to end the slope is to get rid of marriage totally. Then no slope would exist.

Answer 5

Two consenting adults. So simple even the homophobes can understand it.



"Next will be polygamy"



TWO. What's so difficult to understand about that?



"who are you to tell me I can't love my dog and marry her?"



I doubt that poor animal spoke and gave her consent. (what is up with you people and beastiality?)



"Who are you to tell me I can't love my father and marry him?"



Incest is already illegal. How did you get so obviously damaged that you daydream about marrying your own father?

Answer 6

it would never stop your right. polygamy marrying animals then if a democrat says that what they said when they allowed blacks and whites to marry just say yes but it was the democrats who said that.

Answer 7

If we cut taxes... where will it all end? Once we get on that slippery slope we may end up with no funding for the military or the police or even fire protection.



That is why I am adamantly against tax cuts.

Answer 8

this argument is a fallacy.



You can argue this about anything. Health insurance for dogs, sex-education for fetuses, abortion of 1-year old babies, taxation at 100%, it's all the same. Please come up with a real argument.

Answer 9

"Where does it stop"



Personally I don't' care who marries who.



But I put a stop, for example, with a TV rating contest between "American Idol" and a "Fisting For Democracy" program on MSNBC....:-)

Answer 10

Maybe that's the whole idea.A piece of paper is nothing.I think I''l propose to my cat.

Answer 11

It won't stop, thats why we don't want to get it started.