Why SHOULDN'T siblings be allowed to "marry" or enter civil unions?

Why do we so often hear about such a situation as a "slippery slope" result of allowing same sex unions? Why does a marriage/civil union have to imply a sexual relationship? Almost all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage are economic or legal in nature and not sexual. "Right of consortium" is one of the few I can think of that are sexual in nature.

What if a man with a wife and a couple of small children suddenly becomes a widower. What if his unmarried sister decides to come live with him to help rear the children? She quits her job in order to be a stay-at-home caregiver and the brother's salary goes to support her as well as himself and his children. Why shouldn't these two siblings, who live together, share child-rearing responsibilities, are connected by bonds of love (though familial rather than romantic), and have a financial partnership, be permitted to "marry" and enjoy spousal healthcare benefits, tax advantages, and the other rights and responsibilities granted to traditional married couples? For that matter, why shouldn't ANY two people who wish to make that commitment to each -- whether connected by bonds of blood, deep friendship, or sexual love -- be permitted to do so?

If they're siblings they have many of those rights (but not tax benefits) unless there are closer relationships such as parental, child, marriage that interfere with the next of kinship.

And the tax benefits of marriage are generally to promote families and child rearing although they obviously apply to families where that is not a factor.

I don't think the sister in this scenario would be covered under the brother's company-provided health insurance. And I don't think they could file a joint tax return even if it was economically advantageous.

I said except tax benefits.

And you're possibly right about health insurance; it would depend on the policy and the freedom to choose beneficiaries and co-insured. It might fit under domestic partners (i.e. a household) if the policy doesnt specifically imply marriage or marriage-like relationships.

I know that isn't exactly the same opportunity as married filing jointly.

But as a matter of background understanding I am wondering

by you, financially, is a dependent.
You may have to provide more proof than you would for a child or dependent parent or spouse, but, yep... anyone living in your home who is dependent on you for financial support is also considered a dependent by the IRS.

for tax filing purposes. You could claim adult children, siblings, mother-in-laws, nieces/nephews, etc., as long as they are living under the same roof as you and your are providing for their support.

Do you think that siblings in the described scenario should be permitted to enter some relationship that affords them the ability to share health benefits?

And if not, do you feel that same sex partners SHOULD be allowed to enter such a relationship? Why one and not the other?

If one makes it an issue of consenting adults joining for the sake of joining-together (with or without sex) it is difficult to make an argument against allowing them to "marry." But then again why do people need to have society's sanctions to be together in the first place?

on marrige between consenting adults. Polygamy should also be legal.

The offspring of siblings have a very high risk of genetic defects, and therefor pose an undue burdon on society as a whole. It would be immoral for a society to withold care from severely retarded children who are not at fault for their parents choices, and it is in the best interest of a society to put restrictions on behavior that will result in these types of burdens being created.

and the rate of genetic defects isn't any higher or lower than anywhere else (I mean, other than for the depleted uranium and napalm we're pumping in over there).

what was I thinking?

I guess the government could just make it illegal to have sex with your brother/sister, just as it is illegal for a parent to have sex with an underage child. Marriage laws could be altered to simply cover shared property rights. Power of attorney could be strengthened to deal with medical crises for cohabitants.

And people who believe that anyone and everyone should be free to create children, should take financial responsibility for providing care for the disabled that are a product of those unwise relationships.

does not equal cause. Marriage does not cause children. Therefore I see no reason to limit marriage to relationships that are sexual in nature.

as long as you are willing to provide the financial and structural support for those kids born with defects as a result of these purely sexual relationships that somehow still cause children.

An interesting experiment in democracy would be to have assigned responsibility for things like this. So you vote for the types of freedoms you want, and are responsible for the consequences as they relate to burden on society.

You vote for war, you go and you pay for it.

You want social security, you pay for it. You don't pay for it, you do not get any assistence.

You want the freedom to have sex with your sister, or support someone else who does, then you pay for the kids that need special educational, life, or medical assistence from society because they are born with genetic defects caused by incest.

Freedom and libertinism is not free. There are responsibilties and moral imperitives that come to play when one makes choices that have direct and indirect consequences for someone other than oneself.

statement:
"I see no reason to limit marriage to relationships that are sexual in nature."

response:
"I have no problem with that as long as you are willing to provide the financial and structural support for those kids born with defects as a result of these purely sexual relationships that somehow still cause children...

You want the freedom to have sex with your sister, or support someone else who does, then you pay for the kids that need special educational, life, or medical assistence from society because they are born with genetic defects caused by incest."


Do you see the problem here?

You do realize that two adults can live together and not be having sex, right? The premise of this discussion was about a brother and sister living together in order to share parenting responsibilities for the brother's children with ANOTHER woman. Somehow it devolved into a discussion of incest. Try to separate sex from the issue, and imagine a household where two people want to form a household. Are they having sex? Are they not having sex? If so, are they having sex with each other? Who cares, that's not the issue....

What more needs to be said.

I put the emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence and misconstrued the meaning.

But marriage by definition and tradition assumes a sexual relationship. Redefining marriage strikes me as an uphill battle that unnecessarily complicates the end goal.

I think what you really want is a legal framework for cohabitants, or the binding of individuals for an economic purpose, in such a way as to bestow the benefits marriage confers in estates, taxes, survivorship, etc. Corporations have these type of tangible benefits, and they would benefit individuals. If you were so inclined, you could form a corporation to handle these kinds of issues, but it gets to be painful when dealing with the IRS.

I think a movement to make a new corporate entity, specifically for the purpose of cohabitants would be a much easier sell, and more practical than redefined and modified marriage legislation.

:/

Consenting adults should be able to enter whatever sexual relationship they choose, and I suppose there are some rights and responsibilities of marriage that could as easily apply to several as to two. But, some rights and responsibilities could not be as easily and as fairly applied to many as to two. Getting back to health insurance benefits, I see no reason to discriminate against two people who wish to confer this benefit on each other along with the accompanying responsibilities of marriage. Why should it matter what the nature of their sexual relationship is (homosexual or heterosexual) or whether one exists at all? However, I see very good reasons not to allow one employee to confer health benefits upon multiple spouses. The former case has to do with discrimination. The latter is, to my mind, not discriminatory at all. It is simply limiting the right to a specific number.

for multiple spouses. Why should the state be involved in marriage at all?

It seems that you are saying that you have no problem limiting the rights of others to live as the see fit as long as that limitaion serves the purpose of protecting the financial wellbeing of corporations.

I find it discriminatory to say that two people cannot enter into a financial relationship (because that's what marriage is in a sense, although it's not necessarily ALL that it is) based on whether or not they have the "right" type of sexual relationship. Or any sexual relationship at all. I don't think companies should be allowed to provide a benefit to homosexual couples that they do not provide to heterosexual couples, just as they should not be permitted to provide a benefit to same-race couples that they do not provide to mixed-race couples. If a company extends a benefit to married couples only and if same-sex or same-race couples are not permitted to marry, that is discrimination in my opinion. But I also think it is discrimination to bar two people who have blood ties from getting married and enjoying the same financial benefits. However, limiting the NUMBER of persons who can enter into this financial relationship does NOT seem discriminatory to me. If one employee is allowed to share health benefits with ONE another, why should another employee be allowed to share health benefits with MANY? It is not a value judgement. Company-provided healthcare was just an example. There are public costs to consider as well. Also, we don't permit companies to discriminate on the basis of race, for example, because even a private company has public obligations.

the state. Marriage is a legal institution full of moral connotations.

The Governement should let people enter legal unions that would give them benefits against obligations, and let the business of marriage to the churches.

I agree with the idea that marriage as a moral, social, and religious institution should be handled by private institutions, whether religious or secular. However, right now we also have the concept of marriage as a legal and economic institution. Whether we call that arrangement a "marriage," a "legal union," a "civil union," or whatever, I don't understand those who feel that it is discriminatory to bar same sex couples from that institution, but NOT discriminatory to bar two people connected only by blood or deep friendship from that institution. To me that seems just as discriminatory and just as value-based.

and it is basically linked to the old notion that marriage is for procreation. Anybody in their right mind knows that it is purely symbolic now, but the taboo subsists.

As unfair as it is, I dont think it will ever be solved until the form of union given by the state is completely changed, because whether we want it or not, most people link marriage with sex and family.

In the opposite direction, it is amazing the number of people who consider that family = marriage as if children could not evolve well in unmarried families. It always drives me crazy when a politician links children education with married parents.

The definition of family and marriage is simply deeply flawed in this country,

I really hate when they keep talking about families of mother and fathers when that is NOT the norm today. I don't know what world they are living in, but it certainly isn't reality today. I worked in a classroom of 22 kids and only NINE were living with their biological parents. The majority of the rest were living with just their mother (divorced). Even putting aside the divorce situation, what about WIDOWS, especially given the current war in Iraq? Would they dare denounce these single Moms raising their kids alone?

The kids need LOVE period. It doesn't mater whether that love comes from Mom and Dad, just Mom or Dad, Stepparents, Grandparents, or yes, even two Mommies or two Daddies.

I am beginning to think the word LOVE is nowhere in these people's vocabularies - on ANYTHING.

drudge! And to top it off, she can marry her own brother. How about she gets to keep her benefits from her job? Or how about she has her own kids and a great sex life with a real husband? Women have enough trouble being exploited as unpaid slaves without this innovative idea.

Or a same sex couple where one chooses to earn the paycheck and one chooses to do the child rearing.

Why would this have to just be same sex couples in a sexual relationship? Logically speaking, a brother and sister living together (especially if one of them has kids) sharing the responsibilities of running a household could be a Domestic Partnership. It doesn't have to mean sexual relations. Couldn't they use all the legal and financial benefits of that?

There may be some limited laws on the books, but I don't know of any that provide all the same financial and legal benefits of marriage.

that's what the whole thing is about - two people who share a romantic kind of love and want to be a family together. I don't see why allowing *any* two people who have a romantic love for each other to marry would mean that brothers and sisters, or cats and dogs, or whatever should be able to marry.

This is about whether those rights and obligations should be extended to other pairs. Those pairs do care for each other - possibly more than for anyone else in the world.

Most people would actually say that 'romance' is more involved when a couple first meet than by the time they get married.

I think the definition of a family as two adults who share a romantic love is too exclusive and does not include the myriad of relationships that exist in our culture today. That is my main beef with the gay marriage movement--it is not inclusive enough.
I liked the wording used in Hawaii back in the 80s--any two adults who cannot legally marry can register as domestic partners. It isn't the state's business whether they are in a romantic relationship or a sexual relationship or whatever. The state's business is making sure one household has the same rights and benefits as another household. You might have a family like the old Kate and Allie--two divorced mothers raising their children together, or like the curent Two and a Half Men--two brothers living together.
I understand the movement by gays and lesbians to have their relationship socially recognized, but I don't think the answer lies in creating laws that exclude others.

Adult divorced daughter with kids moves back in with Mom and Dad. I am seeing that a lot lately. Even in the housing market, there have been quiet a few houses for sale listed as Mother/Daughter home.

Your reference to that show reminds of an ironically relevant episode. Their new landlady wanted to increase their rent (or else kick them out; I can't remember) on the basis that they were two families living together instead of a single family. Kate and Allie pretended to be a gay couple to avoid this. It turns out the landlady was also part of a gay couple and they became friends, but Kate and Allie felt guilty about the ruse and finally confessed. But they did say to the landlady something like "You were ready to (raise the rent/kick us out) because you didn't think our arrangement met your definition of family... but a lot of people would say the same about you two." Makes you think...

doesn't necessarily imply "romance". Certainly "arranged" marriages were for financial, social or political gains.

I think its only been in the last 100-150 years that "marriage" implied love or romance...up until the Xtian church got all "righteous", many folks were happy making a commitment that didn't necessarily bring the state into it.

without the baggage of marriage or 'unions'? If the rationale is that these people (and it is a little unfortunate that your example is of a woman going to rear her brother's children, but sadly in our society that would probably be much more frequent than other examples. Indee that could on its own be an argument against the idea, because female siblings could come under undue pressure to 'marry' their brothers for financial reasons and renounce their lives) deserve the same help as married couples, then just pass a law that gioves the same benefits and tax advantages to single parents as it does to married couples and job done. There is no need to propagate the institution of marriage for these puposes...

and married couples (or siblings) with one other adult. How can you possibly give them the same benefits? Their situations are totally different.

I was trying to work out the rationale of giving these two people benefits in this manner. If the sister has chosen to live with her brother in this manner because he needs help with his kids, and if our motivation is to provide them with the same benefits as the man used to recieve before his wife died... what I meant to say I guess is that there could be parallel benefits, not identical ones. Essentially I don't think we should provide incentives (which benefits are) to these types of 'unions' when we can help all the parties involved in other ways. But you are right, what I said earlier was quite nonsensical.

on edit: changed 'needs kids' to 'needs help with his kids'

Why don't we re-visit your "hypothetical" situations in a couple hundred years if there is IN FACT several million people in this country that fit your scenario.

Let's revisit your idea when whole communities based on the "lifestyle" of sister-brother/man-dog/man-turtle relationships crop up in cities around the country (or the world for that matter) like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Miami, San Diego, Minneapolis and countless other cities.

Let's revisit your "hypothetical" when a whole culture evolves around sister-brother/man-turtle relationships. I'm talking about music, theater, restaurants, clubs, art, politics etc.

Until then, the man-turtle/sister-brother slippery slope scenarios are nothing but a bunch of mental masturbation.

I was NOT making a "slippery slop" argument at all. On the contrary, I'm asking what's WRONG with allowing the siblings in that scenario to enjoy all the financial and legal benefits of marriage even if there is NO sexual relationship.

I'll have to check my dictionary again under "slippery slope" but this sure sounds like one. Forgive me if I mis-read the intention of your post..........


You wrote:
"I don't understand those who feel that it is discriminatory to bar same sex couples from that institution, but NOT discriminatory to bar two people connected only by blood or deep friendship from that institution."

I don't think allowing the people in my scenario to enjoy the financial and legal benefits of marriage IS a bad thing.

For example, if I said "When this country first allowed blacks into the military, one argument against it was that it would hurt morale. But if we allowed blacks to serve in spite of that argument, shouldn't we also ignore that argument when it is used as a reason to bar gays from serving?" would that be a slippery slope argument? Not from my perspective since I think we SHOULD allow gay people to serve if they want. Now if I didn't want blacks OR gays in the military, but I knew there was more opposition to gays, I might say something like, "If we allow blacks to serve even though it hurts morale, next thing you know we'll have to let gays in"... THAT would be a slippery slope argument -- using the prospect of something deemed more objectionable as a scare tactic against allowing something LESS objectionable.

Well, first it's because I DO think it's discriminatory to say that same-sex couples (and heterosexual couples) should be allowed to enter a legal union, but two people who share bonds of love and a willingness to enter into a financial and legal partnership should NOT be allowed to do so.

But second, and the reason I chose the particular scenario I did, is that I think it's a mistake to view nonsexual relationships as a "slippery slope." Why can't we think of it the opposite way -- as a "springboard?" There is absolutely nothing in that scenario that should offend the sensibilities of the people most likely to oppose same-sex marriage. Anti-family values? What could be MORE family values than extended family members pitching in to help out? Perverted? Since there is no sexual relationship, how can it be perverted? It even follows the pattern of the 50's family: male earning a paycheck, female staying home with the children... (And though some feel the situation is sexist, I see nothing inherently sexist in it. There are plenty of liberal couples, including even some same-sex couples, that decide to have one person be the breadwinner and one stay home to rear the children. As long as both men and women are equally able to follow either path they wish, I see nothing wrong with that. I also see nothing wrong with a man or woman choosing NOT to get married to a romantic interest. Some people actually feel it is not necessary for a person to hook up with a love interest in order to feel "complete.")

So, suppose this scenario is presented to an opponent of same-sex marriage. Is there a single reason that person can give that the brother and sister should not live together and share finances and child-rearing? And in that case, why shouldn't society, in the interest of promoting family values, permit some legal institution that allows the brother to provide for his perfectly legitimate family? What will happen if the sister becomes ill and she is not a beneficiary of her brother's health plan, for example? Is it better for the sister to keep her job and hire a stranger to take care of the children? Isn't that "anti-family values?"

I'm not someone who cares much about semantics. I don't care whether we call it a marriage, a civil union, a legal union, or whatever. As long as there is something in place that provides the same benefits of traditional marriage, I'll be happy. That's why I think the scenario I presented, far from being a slippery slope, can actually be a springboard to ending the discrimination of marriage.

:kick:

Is there anything remotely positive about turning the discussion of gay marriage rights to a discussion of state-sanctioned incest? Sheesh. What purpose does this thread serve other than to make it look like Santorum's box turtle argument has merit and that we are all crazy?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

You obviously have not bothered to read this thread at all but have just posted a knee-jerk reaction.

This happens over and over - when the title of a thread is misleading, it invariably is a messed up thread.

If you wanted to talk about any unrelated or related people having various non-conjugal rights - visitation or something - you should have been more clear.

Even in the thread title, I put "married" in quotation marks and said OR CIVIL UNIONS.

People should do more than read the headlines.

Right now there is no legal concept -- civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever -- that provides all the financial and legal benefits of marriage, so those institutions strike me as having a separate-but-equal status and are not completely satisfactory. (If they really WERE fully equivalent to marriage, that would be another story. Right now they're about as equal as the old "whites" and "coloreds" drinking fountains.)

All the hand-wringing in the world won't change that fact.

Again, I question the motives of people worrying about the marriage rights of brother/sister or polygamous unions when we have a real, genuine, problem of marriage rights being denied a large group of people today who have a genuine sexual and romantic relationship.

There is no law that stops brothers and sisters from being business or legal partners. I know brothers and sisters in business together. Sheesh.

Marriage is about sex, and you know it, and I know it, and pretending anything else just plays into the wrong hands.

We should not even be discussing this nonsense and giving it more kicks, so I'm OUTTA HERE.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

My 80 year old grand parents get it on like pair of rabbits? When's the last time you think Poppa Busn and Barbara had sex? Most marriages that last move PAST the sexual part rather quickly. I know people that have deeper relationships with there pets than they do with their spouse.

My second sentence was "Why does a marriage/civil union have to imply a sexual relationship?"

If we had true domestic partnerships, civil unions, or legal unions that truly conferred all the financial benefits of marriage, I wouldn't HAVE to use the term "marriage."

You said, "There is no law that stops brothers and sisters from being business or legal partners."

Is there a law that stops gay couples from being business or legal partners? No. Do laws that bar gay couples from getting married prevent gay couples from having sex? No.

That's my point. Conservatives try to PRETEND that marriage is about sex but it's really about economics and legal rights and responsibilities.

To return once again to the health benefits issue, can siblings or gay couples who form a business or legal partnership and who live together and who share finances and child rearing tasks be guaranteed the right to receive health benefits on each other's health plans? No. A few progressive companies extend benefits to gay couples, and a few states may have laws regarding benefits for gay couples, but it is not a right nation-wide.

I don't understand the problem with being as inclusive as possible with any action that goes forward. Why focus only on one facet of the picture when you can try and take in the entire landscape? Why make it only about legalizing/recognizing sexual activity and relationships?

Marriage implies a sexual couple...(at least, they should have been intimate some time in the past).

If marriage doesn't involve sexual intimacy at all, it seems really sleazy and corrupt, IMO.

To my knowledge, most marriages must be "consumated" to be considered legally binding in both the eyes of the State and the Church.
No having or allowing sex is ground for divorce in all states, if a parter in that marrage pursues the issue. Not having sex is also ground for annulment of marrage in many religious organizations.
Just my thought on the subject, but if sex was not an expected part of the maritial relationship, most men would forgo the institution entirly.

(I posted this in the wrong place, so I'm reposting it.)

Well, first it's because I DO think it's discriminatory to say that same-sex couples (and heterosexual couples) should be allowed to enter a legal union, but two people who share bonds of love and a willingness to enter into a financial and legal partnership should NOT be allowed to do so.

But second, and the reason I chose the particular scenario I did, is that I think it's a mistake to view nonsexual relationships as a "slippery slope." Why can't we think of it the opposite way -- as a "springboard?" There is absolutely nothing in that scenario that should offend the sensibilities of the people most likely to oppose same-sex marriage. Anti-family values? What could be MORE family values than extended family members pitching in to help out? Perverted? Since there is no sexual relationship, how can it be perverted? It even follows the pattern of the 50's family: male earning a paycheck, female staying home with the children... (And though some feel the situation is sexist, I see nothing inherently sexist in it. There are plenty of liberal couples, including even some same-sex couples, that decide to have one person be the breadwinner and one stay home to rear the children. As long as both men and women are equally able to follow either path they wish, I see nothing wrong with that. I also see nothing wrong with a man or woman choosing NOT to get married to a romantic interest. Some people actually feel it is not necessary for a person to hook up with a love interest in order to feel "complete.")

So, suppose this scenario is presented to an opponent of same-sex marriage. Is there a single reason that person can give that the brother and sister should not live together and share finances and child-rearing? And in that case, why shouldn't society, in the interest of promoting family values, permit some legal institution that allows the brother to provide for his perfectly legitimate family? What will happen if the sister becomes ill and she is not a beneficiary of her brother's health plan, for example? Is it better for the sister to keep her job and hire a stranger to take care of the children? Isn't that "anti-family values?"

I'm not someone who cares much about semantics. I don't care whether we call it a marriage, a civil union, a legal union, or whatever. As long as there is something in place that provides the same benefits of traditional marriage, I'll be happy. That's why I think the scenario I presented, far from being a slippery slope, can actually be a springboard to ending the discrimination of marriage.

well as pensions. If we had universal health coverage a lot of these issues would disappear.

to try to put us off gay rights. It shows how their denial of rights to gays really does have to do with personal disgust. Why else would they bring up incest and polygammy.

It is all about letting the 'secretly racist heart' bloom under Bush. That is what it is about. Gays have just replaced AA.

Your point highlights my opinion that sex and who's doing who and how they're doing it should just be taken off the table completely. It brings up too many red herrings and wild goose chases. Just focus on affording household rights to as broad a group as possible.

they are good eggs. At least the religious right seems to be having trouble forcing anti-adoption laws on unsuspecting State Legislatures. So the issue has evolved into 'more than just sex' on its own.

Pisses me off so much.. I mean I have seen lovely, charismatic and snappy people in their height.... their golden years... just "ream" a 20 year old lesbian ... and all for religious reasons... It was almost like a rogue emotion... it was really weird. And the poor thing was terrified - all she did was go to a store to buy something. So I threw as much acceptance at her as possible and dolled it up and blew her existence and that of her partner out of all perspective and effervenced...

And these corporations with their marketing... they will hit the homosexuals on the head repeatedly with specific marketing that is welcoming and shows empathy... but the gay couple will not get that "feeling" from the people on their street?

WHAT A FUCKING WEIRD WORLD. Where Americans are encouraged to go tribal and become exclusiatory... perhaps to make the marketing more effective. But you have to wonder. You really do. Why is America being dummied down... if not to make all Americans the more grateful to Ads that expouse Liberalism. OH MY GOD. We are not allowed emotion in how we vote (empathy used to be good, War used to be bad, etc. etc.) but emotion belongs in an advertisement directed at us.

George Bush took the mommy out of the Government and put her in the marketing department of corporations.. IS THAT IT? Man those corporations need a dressing down. Human emotion is not a commodity or a market....

Gay marriage is about equal rights for Gays. The SAME rights heteros enjoy. PERIOD. Mishmoshing the argument with incest, polygamy, pedophiles, etc is a big diversion tactic that degrades the REAL ISSUE: EQUAL RIGHTS.

Gay marriage will NOT become legal if demands to eliminate ALL of family law and allow a total free for all are included.

Jesus, are some people on here deliberately trying to be as dense as possible or do they just not even bother reading what anyone else posts? I think I made it perfectly clear in the original post that I was NOT talking about a sexual relationship between siblings.

That is a FACT. 60+% of children live with TWO PARENTS and more than that were conceived from two married parents.

This is damaging to the Gay marriage issue and TOTALLY UNRELATED.

Frame it as increasing the ability to declare one as a dependent or seeking health insurance for a dependent but don't convolute it with Gay marriage.

Like it or NOT, our laws are based on a common set of ethics of our society.

retitling. Your point about gays not being tormented with 'the slippery slope to major crime' is very true. Conservatives in Canada have been talking about polygammy all over the place. Scare tactics for sure.

I can see this happening all over the place; my sisters did move in together to save money while their respective spouses were in Iraq. Had anything happened to one or both of the BILs, they would have made the arrangement permanent.

However, they would not have had access to each other's health insurance and benefits outside of what they would get as surviving relicts of deceased veterans.

Marriage/Equivalent Civil Union would have solved that.

What if one sister was already married and had a dependent sister she was caring for?

This should be framed around extending health and tax benefits for dependent kin, such as sister, bro, mother, etc NOT around marriage.

If it is dependent on marriage, one could not declare their elderly mother as a dependent, UNLESS they divorced and married their mother. In other words, framing it around marriage, LIMITS the possibilities.

Unless, you are suggesting people can marry as many as they wish. This is insane. I could marry HUNDREDS of people, declare them my dependents, and get HUGE tax breaks. Wont work.

They allready have a relationship...BROTHER AND SISTER. If you think society will ever get on board with this you've flipped your lid!

That is not realistic. Totally redefining marriage to include siblings, mother-son, sister-sister is NOT HELPING the Gay marriage issue.

IF the OP is advocating for extending familial legal contracts, then it should be framed as such and NOT equated with Gay marriage.

There is NO WAY, ALL of our existing family law will be thrown out. The OP is being totally ridiculous suggesting this as well as unrealistic.

By the same mistaken logic you bring to this discussion, you would want the man's mother, if she moved in and took care of kids, to get a contractual 'marriage' between a son and his mother.

The case you use as example resolves as it 'should' if you look closely at it. There is actually such a thing for property rights that families use it to get around inheritance taxes and predictable problems of property division and allocation all the time. It's called a 'trust' and is a property transfering device and contractual. The other stuff between non-married people is theirs to negotiate; government (supposedly/ideally) only concerns itself with crimes in peoples' private dealings.

The reason for the state ('government') traditionally enforcing marriage contracts was because marriages involved two different clans or macro-families, and if it went wrong there would be all kinds of property hankerings and abuses. In small villages this tends to amount to massive and lengthy problems- violence, arsons, vandalism, endless legal suits and so on were (and are) not unusual between fighting clans. So the government gets in on the contract as a guarantor, as the neutral party to see to that the abuses in its conduct and, when necessary, its dissolution, are minimized.

A few years ago I called my health insurance company at the school where I worked and asked if my mother could be named as my partner and be covered by my insurance policy. We were both single at the time. It took some talking to get the agent to even understand what I was talking about. Needless to say they told me to forget it.

is that health care shouldn't be linked to employment. Not that you and your mother should be able to get married.

Married is *supposed* to be a lifelong commitment where people become a new family. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but that is what people are hoping and planning for when they get married. If people not romantically involved got "married" they would not have that intention - they would be doing it only until they found someone they loved.

You can argue that there are rights available through marriage that should be available in other ways, but it isn't marriage and shouldn't be marriage.

such as a mother or sister who is financially dependent. But IF you were married, would you divorce your wife, marry your mother to include your mother? There are a lot of problems with that OP.

It shouldn't be framed around the Gay marriage issue, but around extending health benefits to dependent kin, such as mother, sister, etc. as well as tax benefits.

You know all the jokes we make about Appalachians marrying their second cousins and producing children with single-digit IQs whose teeth stick straight out? Well, that would happen, but even more severely, if we let siblings get married.

Besides, a good lawyer could set up an adult-guardianship plan that would allow this.

But that is a better option than throwing out all existing family law and marriage between two people, either heterosexual or homosexual.

There is no way our society would condone amd legalize marriage with an unlimited number of people or mother-son, sister-sister, brother-sister...

I'm not trying to kick this thread to keep the discussion going. I think there actually has been a good discussion -- among those who actually bothered to read the thread -- but I just have to vent a little because some posters are saying it's MY FAULT some people misunderstood because my title was "misleading".

My title was NOT misleading and I do NOT apologize for it. I don't do "cute" titles or cryptic titles. I try to make my titles as descriptive as possible within the length permitted. I put "married" in quotes so people would know straight off I didn't mean marriage in the full, traditional sense. It was only necessary to read the first two sentences of my thread to know I was NOT talking about incest.

So why are some posters talking about inbreeding and incest? I don't mind if someone disagrees with me; that's what a discussion board is all about. But it's really frustrating when people are going around saying I'm promoting brother-sister sex because they can't be bothered to read past the headline. I'd think that if someone encountered a headline that seemed to them to be promoting something so controversial, that they might even be MORE inclined to read a few sentences and make sure they understand what the poster is trying to say instead of simply shooting off some impulsive reply.

I consider myself a considerate poster. I break my ideas up into paragraphs, I write in complete sentences, and I try to use correct spelling and grammar. If I reply to someone else, I read the whole post, not just the headline. If I reply to an LBN thread, I click the link and read the entire article, not just the excerpt. It takes more effort to do all those things, but I consider them the responsibilities of a thoughtful participant.

And lest you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, I'd like to point out that big events are shaped because people in this country don't bother to read past the headlines. If more people has read past the headline that said Bush won and actually read the full report that said Gore really won, things may have turned out very differently. I've seen it on LBN too. People have one reaction to an article, where I know if the headline had been slightly different, they would have had a very different reaction.

If there were another legal institution other than marriage that provided the same financial and legal benefits, it would not have even be necessary to discuss what I brought up. But there isn't. I think it would be better to remove the sexual aspect of the legal institution of marriage completely rather than try to ADD homosexual sex to the already-accepted heterosexual sex -- but still exclude nonsexual relationships. Whether this is done by redefining the LEGAL concept of marriage (and perhaps renaming it) or by creating a parallel institution that provides all the same benefits isn't what's most important.

Anyway, end of rant.

I'm sure you're aware by now that this argument plays into the hands of our opponents. They're the ones saying that gay marriage will lead to brothers marrying sisters and people marrying turtles. I fail to see the wisdom in making their point for them.

I'm locking.