America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by plabonte. 24 replies replies.
Slippery slope
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
EI Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 5:37 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
A scene at City Hall in San Francisco

"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can
express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
RDC Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 5:50 AM EST
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
LOL

It's gonna happen, just you wait and see...
al'Thor Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 5:55 AM EST
Joined: 06-17-2003
Posts: 2,793
genius
Sylance Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 6:44 AM EST
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
It’s no coincidence that all this is happening a year or so after shows like: The Bachelor, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé and the dozen other shows mocking marriage.
Cavallo Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 7:39 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
sorry, but that's bull. there are thosands of gays and lesbians in the USA who have been living together as couples since this country was founded -- and for quite a number of years before then as well (to many native americans, same-sex marriage has been just as valid as opposite-sex marriage).

how many gay couples do you folks know personally? how many lesbian couples do you folks know personally?

i think the "save marriage" outcry needs to lay off of couples who have lived together and been there for each other through thick and thin (not to mention all the myriad discrimination and hatred). save it up for Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire and brittney spears' 55-hour "marriage" if you want to blast anyone for making a "mockery" of it.

i'm happily married to my wife, and my marriage to her is not ONE BIT threatened by our gay/lesbian friends who wish to solemnize their relationships as we did. not one bit threatened.
al'Thor Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 7:44 AM EST
Joined: 06-17-2003
Posts: 2,793
The point is - you have to define marriage. What is it? Since this country has been founded - it's been defined as a public union between one man and one woman, but now that the courts are saying it's not just for one man and one woman - it's beginning a process that can only lead to destruction
al'Thor Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 7:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-17-2003
Posts: 2,793
Oh, and I know three gay couples. They're great people. I love them as much as my straight friends and like them more than a lot... I don't feel threatened by them at all, but we're all wrong some of the time
00camper Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 7:59 AM EST
Joined: 07-11-2003
Posts: 2,326
I blame HIPAA for this mess. Before HIPPA became law the doctors and nurses could look the other way when a same sex partner made decisions for a patient. Under HIPPA they can't unless they want to face a federal prosecution. Once again we see that the law of unintended consequences is still in force.
EI Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 8:25 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Cavallo you said:
"i'm happily married to my wife, and my marriage to her is not ONE BIT threatened by our gay/lesbian friends who wish to solemnize their relationships as we did. not one bit threatened. "
But you are missing a point here. This is not about a loving couple in a partnership. It is all about the benifits of marriage (medical insurance, taxes, inheriatances etc:) Ten years down the road come back and tell me how much you have to pay for medical insurance as a direct result of this fiasco. The same people who lobby for motorcycle helmets because of the cost of insurance and strain on the trama centers should be saying whoa wait a minute this is gonna have a greater impact on health care and insurance.
When gays are marrying just to have benifits for their loved one that has no benifits and is dying of aids, because of his lifestyle choice, starts to become a drain on health care and insurance costs then it will be threating your lifestyle. And also if your children grow up in a world that supports this and teaches it in our schools it will also have an affect on you.
I have nothing against what people do with their lives. It is their mouth they can haul coal in it for all I care. But this has and impact on all of us. and to pretend it doesnt is just short sighted liberal appeasement thinking.
Cavallo Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 9:08 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
"This is not about a loving couple in a partnership."

it's not? come on. that is the most paranoid spoonfed fear-based propaganda i've ever heard!

this is FAR from being all about a bunch of AIDS-infected gay men getting health care for their partners. first off all, there's a little thing called "pre-existing condition" that already prevents people with HIV from being taken on as newly insured.

and are you aware that the greatest growing population of people with HIV are heterosexual women? and that the lowest are and have been lesbian women?

based on that kind of fear, maybe we should say that straight women can't marry but encourage lesbians to rush to the altar in droves!

sorry, but the massive backlash is based on fear of what a lot of folks don't understand. it's a case of "it's different, so it's bad."

everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on homosexuality. but i do not for a minute believe that we need to write discrimination into our nation's constitution.
Cavallo Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 9:14 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
al'thor: not true. polygamy used to be legal here. "marriage" historically has included many different types of union that has not been one man and one woman. even when polygamy was legal here, it did not "destroy" other marriages or render them meaningless.

if anything is going to destroy marriage, it's this ridiculous culture of Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire and that ilk.
plabonte Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 9:51 AM EST
Joined: 09-11-2000
Posts: 2,131
Cavallo do you support multiple partner marriages, and marriage to you relatives then?
Cavallo Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 9:57 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
plabonte: no, i don't support it.

first off, in my life i have known one "group" of people (3) who wanted to get married as a triad. i've yet to meet anyone who wanted to marry a relative -- even a distant one. i've met a whole lot of homosexual people, though, who have wanted to marry their partners of 10, 20, 30 or more years.

there are an awful lot of gay folks who desire to have their loving relationships given the same governmental seal of protection that straight folks have.
plabonte Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 10:06 AM EST
Joined: 09-11-2000
Posts: 2,131
Well, just because you haven't met any doesn't mean there aren't any.

How can you justify allowing one group to get married and not another? What if three gay men wanted to live together and be married? I think that is the whole point of this post. If you are going to say ok to gay marriages there are going to be a lot of other groups claiming they also have the right.

What about the old lady who loves her cat dearly and wants to marry him so that he is covered under her health insurance. Don't think it will happen? Just wait.
Cavallo Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 10:13 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
plabonte: no, sir, i don't think it will happen. i think it will be a MIRACLE if homosexuals finally get to legally marry. and i hope and pray that it happens. my brother and his partner have faced so much absolute CRAP because of the lack of that piece of paper. i look forward to the day when their children matter, too. i look forward to them being included in talk of how families are good for america.

i look forward to their couplehood of years and years being just as valid as the 55-hour marriage that brittney spears got as a "joke that went too far."

hers was totally legal and a-okay in this country.
my brothers' was not.

you know, i've heard the slippery slope argument before. well, at least i've heard it talked about in retrospect. seems that a lot of people used to feel the same way about interracial marriages -- we allow them to marry, and next thing you know folks will want to marry their siblings or their pets or any ol' thing.

just wait and see!
plabonte Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 10:17 AM EST
Joined: 09-11-2000
Posts: 2,131
And I'm sure one of the arguments at that time was that gays will want to marry. And I'm sure at that time someone said, "It will never happen".
Cavallo Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 10:35 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
actually, it wasn't discussed at the time. homosexuality was a crime, and many folks didn't even really believe that such folks existed outside of urban legends. and polygamy? what's that? :)

what was discussed was the hole, "next thing you know a human and a dog are gonna be up at city hall demanding to be married!"

same as now. and what will happen if same-sex marriage is made legal is the same, too. life will go on, people will realize that it's NOT the end of the world, and hopefully some folks can eventually learn tolerance towards a group of people who, by the vast majority, richly deserve it.
plabonte Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 09-11-2000
Posts: 2,131
Personally I think the view point that if you make gay marriage legal everything will come up roses and that there will be no next "group" is very naive.

Now I'm not against gay marriage. I'm just wondering where the line will be drawn and when.

I asked how you can justify one group to be allowed to marry and not another but you really haven't answered the question. You've skirted the issue by saying you don't know any of those types of people or you don't think it will happen. But you haven't directly answered why one is ok and not the other.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 11:02 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
EI

i know what you mean by a slippery slope.

look what happened to the slaves. first the owners taught a few how to read. the next thing you know, the slaves wanted to be free.

a man can't be to careful of these slippery slopes.
Cavallo Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 11:02 AM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
plabonte: sorry about not answering your question directly (my meds are kicking in, seriously, and after this i've gotta go). :/

the reason i gave the answer i did is that i do NOT see it ever becoming an issue because of the sheer lack of numbers. i'm not saying that poly folks who wish to marry as a group of more than 2 don't exist; i do know polygamous folks and their families. some members are already in legal marriages (with a husband + a wife + "second wife" isn't legal but lives as such).

honestly, though, from a legal standpoint i don't KNOW what the reason would be for denying polygamous marriage. why should it be illegal? i certainly do know people in poly relationships, and they have families (children) also. however, their children are protected already by virtue of primary marriages in most cases.

i don't support it -- meaning that i don't go out of my way and advocate for it -- but i also don't see a reason that it should be legally denied.

as for the animal marriage, i can see denying it on the basis that an animal cannot give consent as a human can -- and the age thing, come on... what's the age of a consent for a dog? is it in human or dog years? :) (just trying a bit of humor there).

but again, there are not the numbers of people in "relationships" with their pets to support such a thing even if it were to be considered. i have not seen a demand for it like there has been a demand -- if not an outright need -- for same-sex marriage to be an option. gay folks have children to protect, too, and i'm not just talking about health care bennies. that is FAR from the sole reason that gay couples want to marry.

for many, it's a simple matter of honoring the marriage that exists already in every sense but the legal.

and now, i go crash. this post was meant to be humorous; i should have left the joke alone and might have if i didn't know so many people who are so completely misunderstood and suffer because of that.
RDC Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 11:03 AM EST
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
I finally agree with Rick. We need to be careful or else a Democrat may get elected President!
plabonte Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 11:07 AM EST
Joined: 09-11-2000
Posts: 2,131
Thanks Cavallo. I appreciate you answer and you humor. as poor as that humor may be :o)

Hope you feel better soon.
EI Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Now this is a thread. keep up the good work guys...I knew this would stir the pot.

Wow Rick I didn't know you were pro slavery
thats a whole thread by itself
Cavallo Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Mar 11 2004, 3:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
i'm bowing out now, as i really need to get caught up on email (sorry to folks who are due one!) bigtime.

but i really do enjoy playing a bit of mental volleyball with such excellent folk. plabonte, you offer up good food for thought, bro, and if it comes down to "agree to disagree," it's been a pleasure... and hey, i said a LITTLE humor not a LOT. ;)

it really does my shriveled up heart good to know that folks can still take a very, very volatile topic and talk about it w/o degenerating into name-calling and such.

ciao f'now,
sicilian tony
plabonte Offline
#25 Posted: Fri, Mar 12 2004, 4:08 AM EST
Joined: 09-11-2000
Posts: 2,131
The pleasure was mine.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top