Gay Marriage

[gnomon]

Parents can enter into contracts for and in behalf of minor children. Ever hear of Miley Cyrus, Sherley Temple, Britney Spears etc. Animal owners can enter into contracts for their animals. Ever hear of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Mr. Ed, chetta, Seabiscutt and Flipper? They all had contracts. Imagine that an animal under contract!

Thank you for quickly and succinctly telling us this thread is a waste of time.

So who caught that Giants/Packers game tonight?

Good game.

 

[Father Heathen]

Consenting adults seems to be the magic phrase. Can consulting adults do drugs? Can consulting adults have sex for money? Can consulting adults sell body parts?

Sure, what not? I believe in personal freedom as long as the rights of others aren't being violated in the process.

Heheh, "consulting".

What does consulting adults have to do with anything?

It means that innocent people aren't being victimized, therefore it should be their right and freedom to do as they wish.

If society can prevent incest, bestiality and other things why not same sex marriage?

Because there is no rational, valid reason for doing so. You can't base laws on arbitrary nonsense.

Is the answer because of your morality? What about other people's morality?

Morality that is based upon both reason and compassion is vastly superior to morality that is based upon willful ignorance, prejudice, insecurity and superstition.

You want to prevent incest. Someone else may want to prevent same sex marriage. Now what? See the problem?

Nope. Although I find incest highly disturbing and disgusting, emotional palatability alone isn't a valid basis for legality. There is the issue of babies with genetic disorders as a potential result from such unions, but that can be solved by mandating abortion in such instances.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... If it is right for same sex marriage then it must be right for polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and incest. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The difference is not as you describe. You must have skipped the original post. Age of consent laws vary between the states which makes them arbitrary and didn't even exist pre 1900's. Parents of children and owners of animals can enter into contracts. Does the name Lassie mean anything to you? You are regurgitating back the standard drivel for those trying to convince the idiots that do not think.

Parents can enter into contracts for and in behalf of minor children. Ever hear of Miley Cyrus, Sherley Temple, Britney Spears etc. Animal owners can enter into contracts for their animals. Ever hear of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Mr. Ed, chetta, Seabiscutt and Flipper? They all had contracts. Imagine that an animal under contract!

You have failed the required course. Time to take the class again.

Preventing Ignorance 101

1. Consenting Heterosexual couples have the rights and privileges under Federal and State laws to form legal unions known as marriage.
2. Consenting Homosexual couples wish to have the rights and privileges under Federal and State laws to form legal unions known as marriage.

Arguments that imply that non-consensual children, animals, and broomsticks would fall under the same umbrella as those rights and privileges demanded by consensual Homosexual couples reveal an ignorance beyond measure.





Get it?

 

[Caladan]

The bible talks about marriage and those writings are at least 7,000 years old. That goes back pretty far.

The Bible also tells us that children who disobey their parents should be executed, but you don't see parents or the state execute rebellious children.
people also need to know how to read the Bible and stop holding double standards about it. even in Biblical times no one thinks that parents actually killed their disobeying children.
and sorry, but the Bible is certainly not 7000 years old, the New Testament is about 2000 years old, slightly less, and the Old Testament is some hundreds of years older, perhaps some parts a thousand years older if we are very generous.
take a look at American history, those who pushed for the abolition of slavery used the Bible for their arguments. the Bible can be a tool in social reforms, the question is why would you choose some verses to apply to some people while you obviously realize that other verses are ideological and not literal.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Can consulting adults do drugs?

What a weird question! I think you should phrase it as "Can consulting with adults lead to doing drugs?", but it would still be a very weird question.

 

[jubilee131]

Sure, what not? I believe in personal freedom as long as the rights of others aren't being violated in the process.

Heheh, "consulting".


It means that innocent people aren't being victimized, therefore it should be their right and freedom to do as they wish.


Because there is no rational, valid reason for doing so. You can't base laws on arbitrary nonsense.

Morality that is based upon both reason and compassion is vastly superior to morality that is based upon willful ignorance, prejudice, insecurity and superstition.



Nope. Although I find incest highly disturbing and disgusting, emotional palatability alone isn't a valid basis for legality. There is the issue of babies with genetic disorders as a potential result from such unions, but that can be solved by mandating abortion in such instances.

"Sure, what not? I believe in personal freedom as long as the rights of others aren't being violated in the process."

You may believe in personal freedom but current law doesn't grant you that freedom. Consenting Adults do not automatically get to do what they want. Why do you assume that other's rights are being violated in incest, polygamy pedophilia and bestiality? Polygamists are consenting adults. Many would willingly participate in these activities, but you would deny them their freedom.

Gays just want a law changed that allows them to marry. Pedophiles just want the law changed that lowers the age of consent then it would be legal. Polygamists only want the law changed that would allow multiple marriages and it would be legal. All of these groups just want a law changed that would make what they want to do legal. Just the stroke of a pen is all they ask.

You claim to want freedoms but you deny them to others. This isn't about the "right" to marry at all. It never was. It is about inflicting your morality on everyone else. You probably also make the claim that you can't legislate morality, but that is exactly what you want to do. Legislate your morality.

 

[nnmartin]

Remember too that if you oppose any of this 'politically correct' agenda you are automatically labeled a bigot, troll, racist, person of low-intelligence or most usually a religious fundamentalist.

Most people on these threads seem to believe that because only the gay rights activists are posting then they must be correct.

But as I've pointed out many times (with no response) at least 50% or more of the population in Western countries oppose the absurd notion that a man can marry a man and call it the same.

Gay marriage must be banned for the abomination it is.

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Sure, what not? I believe in personal freedom as long as the rights of others aren't being violated in the process."

You may believe in personal freedom but current law doesn't grant you that freedom. Consenting Adults do not automatically get to do what they want. Why do you assume that other's rights are being violated in incest, polygamy pedophilia and bestiality? Polygamists are consenting adults. Many would willingly participate in these activities, but you would deny them their freedom.

Gays just want a law changed that allows them to marry. Pedophiles just want the law changed that lowers the age of consent then it would be legal. Polygamists only want the law changed that would allow multiple marriages and it would be legal. All of these groups just want a law changed that would make what they want to do legal. Just the stroke of a pen is all they ask.

You claim to want freedoms but you deny them to others. This isn't about the "right" to marry at all. It never was. It is about inflicting your morality on everyone else. You probably also make the claim that you can't legislate morality, but that is exactly what you want to do. Legislate your morality.

Still having a problem with the Consenting Adults concept?


Here is how it works, two consenting adults wish to enter into the legal and social contract of marriage.

Your entire argument rests on the same slippery slope fallacy that was used by those who once advocated and supported anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

Remember too that if you oppose any of this 'politically correct' agenda you are automatically labeled a bigot, troll, racist, person of low-intelligence or most usually a religious fundamentalist.
Most people on these threads seem to believe that because only the gay rights activists are posting then they must be correct.
But as I've pointed out many times (with no response) at least 50% or more of the population in Western countries oppose the absurd notion that a man can marry a man and call it the same.
Gay marriage must be banned for the abomination it is.

Let's suppose that it is an abomination.
Why should it be banned?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Remember too that if you oppose any of this 'politically correct' agenda you are automatically labeled a bigot, troll, racist, person of low-intelligence or most usually a religious fundamentalist.

I doubt that you are all of those.

Most people on these threads seem to believe that because only the gay rights activists are posting then they must be correct.

No, most reasonable and equal minded people can find no reason to discriminate against an entire group of humans based on their sexuality, so they support the marriage rights of the LGBT community based on human equality

But as I've pointed out many times (with no response) at least 50% or more of the population in Western countries oppose the absurd notion that a man can marry a man and call it the same.

Here is your response.

From a recent LA Times article,
Public acceptance of same-sex marriage has grown at an accelerating pace, with approval jumping by nine percentage points in the past two years and the nation now evenly divided on the issue, according to a new Pew Research Center survey released Thursday.
The poll, conducted in late September and early October, showed 46% of Americans surveyed support legalizing same-sex marriage and 44% are opposed. The survey among 2,410 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.


Poll: Support for gay marriage continues to rise - Los Angeles Times

Gay marriage must be banned for the abomination it is.

Explain why homosexual marriage is a vile, shameful, and/or detestable action. What makes you loath it so?

 

[jubilee131]

Still having a problem with the Consenting Adults concept?


Here is how it works, two consenting adults wish to enter into the legal and social contract of marriage.

Your entire argument rests on the same slippery slope fallacy that was used by those who once advocated and supported anti-miscegenation laws.

And change the age of consent to say 12 and the 12 year old becomes a consenting adult. Does that satisfy you? All it takes is the stroke of a pen. Polygamists are consenting adults why can't they marry? You seem to not understand that a consenting adult can be legislated to what ever age you wish. Same sex advocates only want a legislative change to make their dream come true.

 

[jubilee131]

Here is how it works, two consenting adults wish to enter into the legal and social contract of marriage.

All that is required is to change the age of consent to 12 and a 12 yr old becomes a consenting adult. Would that satisfy you? You can legislate a consenting adult to any age you choose.

Your entire argument rests on the same slippery slope fallacy that was used by those who once advocated and supported anti-miscegenation laws.

Not so. I am not trying to prohibit anyone from marriage. I am merely pointing out that your point of view is restricting people from marriage (polygamist, incest, bestiality, pedophilia etc). So while you speak of freedom (for gays only) you are promoting the same thing you are trying to correct for others. Hypocritical to the max and you do not seem to see it, or you are trying to hide it.

 

[jubilee131]

Let's suppose that it is an abomination.
Why should it be banned?

It is already banned. Why should it change?

 

[Revoltingest]

It is already banned.

It isn't banned everywhere.

Why should it change?

My reason:
Restrict liberty only where there is a clear resultant benefit.
Otherwise, allow people to do as they please.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And change the age of consent to say 12 and the 12 year old becomes a consenting adult. Does that satisfy you? All it takes is the stroke of a pen. Polygamists are consenting adults why can't they marry? You seem to not understand that a consenting adult can be legislated to what ever age you wish. Same sex advocates only want a legislative change to make their dream come true.

Did you miss this part?

Your entire argument rests on the same slippery slope fallacy that was used by those who once advocated and supported anti-miscegenation laws.

All that is required is to change the age of consent to 12 and a 12 yr old becomes a consenting adult. Would that satisfy you? You can legislate a consenting adult to any age you choose.

Not so. I am not trying to prohibit anyone from marriage. I am merely pointing out that your point of view is restricting people from marriage (polygamist, incest, bestiality, pedophilia etc). So while you speak of freedom (for gays only) you are promoting the same thing you are trying to correct for others. Hypocritical to the max and you do not seem to see it, or you are trying to hide it.

Your continued inclusion of non-consensual children and animals in your argument is not helping to bolster any confidence in your reasoning.

But let's address the polygamy issue. If three or more consenting adults wished to enter into a legal and social contract, the real issues would be the legal ramifications of divorce, inheritance, and joint property.

As far as homosexual marriage is concerned, these issues are already addressed in the current laws dealing with heterosexual marriage.

Now, can you address the issue of homosexual marriage between two consenting adults without including faulty slippery slope and straw man fallacies?

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is already banned. Why should it change?

Anti-miscegenation laws once banned mixed race marriages.
Do you regret that those laws were changed?

 

[Enlighten]

Consenting adults seems to be the magic phrase. Can consulting adults do drugs? Can consulting adults have sex for money? Can consulting adults sell body parts? What does consulting adults have to do with anything? If society can prevent incest, bestiality and other things why not same sex marriage? Is the answer because of your morality? What about other people's morality? You want to prevent incest. Someone else may want to prevent same sex marriage. Now what? See the problem?

Of course it IS the magic phrase, it is key to the subject. They are consenting and willing adults who make their own decision to be in a relationship. Therefore it is everything to do with it, society prevents incest because of genetic implications as well as to protect the vulnerable. Society prevents pedophillia for the self same reason (the latter), a 12 year old CHILD as I have seen you post is not a consenting adult, they are a child. Beastality is also prevented as an animal cannot provide it's consent to be abused (and in my eyes it is exactly that - abuse). I, for the life of me, cannot come up with a valid reason for preventing same sex marriage.

I have listed my reasons as to why incest etc in my eyes should be prevented, now please list yours as to why same sex marriages should be?

 

[Father Heathen]

"Sure, what not? I believe in personal freedom as long as the rights of others aren't being violated in the process."

You may believe in personal freedom but current law doesn't grant you that freedom. Consenting Adults do not automatically get to do what they want.

Because many current laws are unjust. That's the point of politics; to adjust and advance the legal system accordingly.

Why do you assume that other's rights are being violated in incest, polygamy pedophilia and bestiality?

If you lack the intelligence to understand how sexual abuse victimizes animals and children then you are waaay out of your league here on this board. As for incest, as much as I find it highly disturbing and disgusting, as long as they're consenting adults there's no valid reason to ban it. There is the problem with potential inbred pregnancy, but we can mandate abortion for such instances. As for polygamy...

Polygamists are consenting adults. Many would willingly participate in these activities, but you would deny them their freedom.

Exactly. Polygamist, provided they are indeed consenting adults, should be allowed to have polygamist marriages. I never said that polygamy shouldn't be allowed, cupcake.

Gays just want a law changed that allows them to marry. Pedophiles just want the law changed that lowers the age of consent then it would be legal. Polygamists only want the law changed that would allow multiple marriages and it would be legal. All of these groups just want a law changed that would make what they want to do legal. Just the stroke of a pen is all they ask.

The difference, as has already been explained, is that pedophilia and bestiality victimize children and animals, whereas polygamy and homosexuality victimize no one. Period. We've thoroughly refuted your ridiculous comparisons countless times before, so you're not going to get anywhere by bringing them up again.

You claim to want freedoms but you deny them to others. This isn't about the "right" to marry at all. It never was. It is about inflicting your morality on everyone else. You probably also make the claim that you can't legislate morality, but that is exactly what you want to do. Legislate your morality.

If wanting rights, equality, freedom and justice for all people is "legislating my morality", then so be it. America was founded upon these values, so if you don't like them perhaps you should consider migrating elsewhere (assuming you live here).

 

[gnomon]

Remember too that if you oppose any of this 'politically correct' agenda you are automatically labeled a bigot, troll, racist, person of low-intelligence or most usually a religious fundamentalist.

This recalls an old truism about a properly fitted shoe. It's just funny when it winds up being someones mouth.

A true abomination is that people fail to educate themselves on issues when they refuse to use a tool at their fingertips that can provide instant access to a wealth of knowledge regarding that issue.

The sad thing about this thread is that it is focusing on whether or not the government can recognize same sex marriage and supposedly by extension that if it can do such a thing than it can do these other things mentioned as well.

Well no kidding.

Once you start a debate on whether or not the government should do something the idea that it can is already assumed as true. We know that the government can recognize same sex marriage or refuse to recognize same sex marriage. We know it can do the same thing for polygamy and so on. We know that the government can put an animal on the stand as a witness. It's been done before. We know that the government can do many things. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

Just because one State in the U.S. might set the age of consent at 18 and another sets it at 14 isn't pertinent to the discussion. If the State who sets it at 18 starts debating to set the age at say, 16, doesn't mean all hell will break loose or we should consider whether or not a human can marry a pig.

It's just stupid.

Let's focus on the real issue. Should the government recognize same sex marriage? What are the pros? What are the cons? What other issues, such as that of intersex or gender identity issues, come into play here?

Polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, and such are other questions. Throwing it in with same sex marriage is a waste of time. An intelligent debate can be held by those who support and those who oppose solely on the issue of legal recognition of a contract between two human beings.

The core of this is issue is how we define sex and gender and how the government regulates relationships between people and the role of guardianship. Building a straw man in an attempt to show that supporters of marriage equality are hypothetical hypocrites for not supporting polygamy/polyandry borders is actually a red herring. Doesn't alter the debate regarding same sex marriage one bit.

But an abomination? Please. Willful ignorance is an abomination.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is already banned. Why should it change?

Because there's no rational justification for the ban.