I'm 31, my wife is 28......we are hardcore Libertarians in the most red state in the country (Oklahoma).

But again, the whole marrying a family member, to me, is bringing up a non-sequitor that isn't applicable in this case.

aircooled wrote: Example: If was do not allow gay marriage, it is primary a religious based reason (my opinion). If we allow a religious based reason, that will eventually lead to laws requiring women to not being allowed to question men, or be required to wear burkas etc.

That will never happen. The laws of nature trump the laws of the state.

poopshovel wrote: I don't know how old you guys are, but 20 years ago the idea of gay marriage was laughable. Here we are.

I had a big post written up, but you came to the conclusion. Liberalism will devolve towards Humanism soon enough IMO. This issue highlights exactly the reasons why. And I hate the concept of Humanism.

Edit- Not hating on gay marriage! What I mean by this is that if you look at anything from the idea of 1) a Human should be able to do whatever the hell it wants as long as 2) it does not affect other humans negatively

Where does that leave us at?

1) a Human should be able to do whatever the hell it wants as long as 2) it does not affect other humans negatively

Yep.

HiTempguy wrote: What I mean by this is that if you look at anything from the idea of 1) a Human should be able to do whatever the hell it wants as long as 2) it does not affect other humans negatively Where does that leave us at?

You're asking the rhetorical question. Why don't you answer it? I don't see a significant issue if you reword #2 a bit more correctly:

"...It does not negatively impact the more fundamental rights of others." Animals have rights. Even plant species do. People don't get the right to wantonly murder puppies for the sake of thrills. People do get the right to humanely raise animals for food.

If we follow that guideline in a manner that truly evaluates long-term consequences of #1, then... I do not see the fearful outcome you are implying.

poopshovel wrote: ...I have no idea how many people want to marry someone in their family, but once the precedent is set, it WILL happen, and I'd wager sooner than later, which is why it is totally a relevant question....

I will present two possible arguments:

1: Let's be realistic, as pointed out previously, the primary reason why gay marriage has come up as an issue now is because it has become acceptable to a significant percentage of the population. Not long ago black and white were not allowed to marry for no real reason other then people didn't think they should.

I honestly don't see a foreseeable future where any even small minority of the population would agree with inter-familial marriage (animals etc) would be OK in the form it is now (and assumptions that go along with it)

2: Maybe (as mentioned in the first few pages) we need to re-examine exactly what legal marriage is. This would make these issue much easier to deal with. Why does a spouse not pay tax on inheritance and children do? (and so one with the other benefits)

Many of the benefits are likely based on the old standard of man, woman, kids, man makes all the money, woman cares for the kids etc. This is by no means always true these days. Adjust as necessary.

REMOVE religion and sex from the equation.

Then figure out if there is any reason why these benefits shouldn't be applied to a person (or thing) of someones choosing. Many of the benefits will be non-applicable (e.g. your employer will never give you dog healthcare insurance, it's their choice).

So, if someone wants to apply these rights (that are applicable) to ONE other person or thing, what's the harm? (remember we are removing sex and religion from the equation, as they should be) Of course, calling it something other then marriage would help people understand it far easier.

I lean more towards #2 far more since it far more of a "solution" to the issue.

Beer Baron wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: ................

You're asking the rhetorical question. Why don't you answer it?....

I would like to see this also. Not trying to set anyone up, I just want to know the argument against, and what I might be missing here.

Isn't that sentiment kind of fundamental to our laws in some way? (I don't know if it is written down anywhere)

In reply to aircooled:

I would argue that it is not just that our society is accepting of homosexuality, but that there are enough homosexuals asking for it.

Along with the protections and privileges of marriage, there are also obligations and responsibilities. For example, the ability to make end-of-life choices for the partner in the event that there is no living will. These are decisions that, as far as I know, we only allow adults of sound mind to be able to make. So, the two individuals getting married would have to be legal adults currently in a state of apparently sound mind.