People are already entirely capable of having children without being married, and as far as I know employer-provided benefits don’t distinguish between children born in or out of wedlock.
They do distinguish between your spouse and someone you happen to sleep with, however. And adults typically cost more to insure than children, at least for health and life insurance.
Health insurance is by far the most expensive common employer-provided benefit, though.
Goody for you. Don’t have one.
???
[QUOTE=funky little lee]
so naturally you’re thinking, “Yeah! I could have a whole fucking harem of bitches!” I’m sure that sounds great to you. But I’ll bet incestuous marriage makes you want to puke. Just not hot fantasy material, is it?
[/QUOTE]
My only real problem with incestuous marriage among consenting adults is that it makes it worth it for the parent or older sibling or whoever to groom (so to speak) the other from a young age.
Other than that I don’t think there’s enough interest in incest for it to be a problem. For that matter, I doubt there’s a huge amount of interest in polyamorous marriage.
I would really like to maintain the respect I have for people with different beliefs to mine, but it’s getting really difficult lately to take any religious argument seriously when they’re so blindly childishly stupid.
Can the OP point to an actual example of a slippery slope effect occurring? They’re really rare.
People are not idiots. Just because people agree to a new idea, it doesn’t mean that they’ve lost their ability to make decisions. We can extend marriage equality to same-sex couples without having to extend it to polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, child marriages, human/animal marriages, and human/household appliance marriages (all of which are possibilities opponents have raised as arguments against same-sex marriages). Society will avoid all these slippery slopes by simply choosing not to slide down them.
I thought the slippery slope was supposed to take us into a scenario where those of us in heterosexual marriages would somehow find our relationships devalued or eroded by the fact that ssm was permitted.
That would matter, if it was a real concern. Polygamy doesnt matter in the same way.
(In point of fact, I think the most likely way that hetero marriage could get eroded would be for ssm to be continually resisted, because in any campaign for equality, there tends to be an element that will setlle for dragging down the opposition, if nothing else is possible)
There are plenty of example of change occurring incrementally when there was no good reason for resisting any of it. I guess those still qualify as slippery slopes in some way. Sometimes, we do actually need to slide down it.
Do you wish to offer an argument as to why anyone should be compelled to treat the Bible as authoritative, or did you just post that for the sake of inserting a particularly nasty pejorative into the discussion?
Your OP is a big ball of nonsense. This isn’t something that has happened, it’s something that’s been ongoing. It’s not about differentiating non-traditional marriage A from B, it’s about a natural expansion of traditional marriage A, and people wanting to use this to reintroduce traditional marriage B. And if you’re for the reintroduction of trad. marriage B, as you acknowledge in a later post, you can’t use it as a negative consequence.
Do you even logic?
How do you define “traditional” marriage? From which period? from which tradition?
Let’s start there and see where we get to. If you have no authority for your definition then I don’t see why it should hold any particular power above and beyond anyone else’s interpretation.
Yes, that was my point. Currently, many employers offer unlimited benefits to minor children of employees, but those benefits aren’t very expensive. Expanding benefits to
cover multiple spouses could be very expensive.
maybe I misunderstand your point, but if we allow polygamy, isn’t every marriage somewhat “eroded” by opening the option for married people to take additional partners?
Why choose the term “eroded” rather than, say, “enlarged?”
I don’t think so. Can you explain how?
Probably material for a different thread, but this is why health care and other portions of the social safety net shouldn’t be provided b employers, imo.
legal contracts were always available prior to any court decision.
Many of the rights of marriage cannot be obtained through private contracts.
And so it begins. The end of the nuclear family. Ohio Supreme Court orders use of gender neutral language. Say goodbye to your mother and father in court.
Consistent? How on earth did you arrive at that?