If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[MaddLlama]

Not really. One deals with race, the other with sexuality. Polygamy and incest also deal with sexuality, not race, thus the connection. Again, I thought that was rather obvious.

You're just sliding down your own slippery slope. The two issues are related because they both deal with the discrimination of marriage based on an immutable trait. Therefore by your own logic both must be acceptable. The issue of marriage is not only about sexuality, if you want to take it a step further it could be about age also.
I won't stop you from protecting your wife/sister if you don't stop me from protecting my loving relationship with my 8th grade student.

 

[sojourner]

Seems to me that the nay-sayers utilize the "degradation of society" argument a lot. Why aren't these people also as rabidly against divorce, shacking up, and underage sex? These things are truly harmful to society.

I'd be willing to bet real money that some of the same folks who decry homosexuality are some of the ones who are beating their live-in girlfriends and diddling their six-year-old daughters while the mothers watch. Which is more harmful to society?

Please give me a nice, normal, homosexual couple who love each other and live equitably in the neighborhood, over illness like that!!!

Wife beating, pedophilia, homosexuality, pot smoking -- all of these have flourished, whether society has "condoned" it or not. Making something illegal does not stop the behavior!!! On the flip side, If wife-beating were legal, I wouldn't participate in it. If polygamy were allowed, I wouldn't participate in it. If homosexual marriage were allowed, I wouldn't participate in it. If pot were legal, I wouldn't use it. Just because equal protection is offered, it does not follow that there will be an outbreak of that behavior.

 

[lunamoth]

You know, if we allow gay marriages next thing you know people will be wanting to get divorced, and we know that that is something Jesus had His knickers in a knot about...oh wait. Nevermind.

 

[Pah]

Wow, you said this ABSOLUTELY perfectly.
The one thing I'm failing to understand is why some people can't comprehend that there is a difference between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage. Just becayse inter-racial marriage is allowed doesn't mean that gay marriage has to be recognized.

It is only your ignorance of the constitutional law embedded in Loving v Virginia that allows you to make this statement without severe criticisim. If you knew the holding of the case you would know that it defined marriage, marriage period, as a fundamental right (a fundamental right is defined in America as a right every citizen holds just for being a citizen). That this was presented in a case involving the constiututional correction of inter-racial marriage changes nothing. Hetero, racial, same-sex marriages are all equivalent under the law. All are rights for very citizen of the US. There is NO difference.

Each form of marriage should be looked at one its own. The issue of inter-racial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. Stop bringing inter-racial marriage into the gay marriage debate.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda - you have no basis, other than a religious one to deny marriage of anybody that can give consent. Consent IS the crux of your "traditional" marriage - not God, not your clergy, not your dogma, not your theology matters one iota to civil law. And that my friend, is an essential part of the Constitution. Consent has ever been , from the days of the Puritians, the basis of traditional marriage. No church no clergy can, acting independent of the state, perform a legal marriage. The church is an allowed extension of the government and the clergy is an agent of the government.

Judging by the recent threads on RF, there already seems to be a polygamous marriage movement. Guess what's next?

What's next is the loss of religious privilege that now abuses a segment of the American society.

 

[Bishka]

As for the whole "People who are against gay marriage are a bunch of wife beaters and child molestors," I highly doubt that's the case.

You'd be suprised.

Fred Phelps is an extreme example, but just one example.

 

[Green Gaia]

The issue is whether or not condoning homosexuality leads to condoning other behaviors. Since the arguments for homosexuality can all be applied to those other behaviors, you have zero reason to support one without the other.

It is irrelevent and illogical to use that faulty reasoning against same gender couples. You cannot punish one group for the actions or acceptance of another group.

 

[Green Gaia]

In some cases, yes. That's the point of the thread; no one has yet produced an argument for gay marriage that cannot be used for polygamy and/or incest.

So what? So it is possible to use similar arguments for both. You cannot punish same gender couples for that.

 

[Bishka]

Fred Phelps is also a monster, period. He doesn't count.

Actually he does, just because he does the things he does, doens't mean he doesn't count.

 

[Jaymes]

What's next is the loss of religious privilege that now abuses a segment of the American society.

One can only hope! :clap

 

[HopefulNikki]

So, then it's crying wolf. Interracial marriages are bad because God doesn't like it,

When have I brought up God not liking it? You assume I bring God into the equation; I haven't, you have. Stop bringing up things that aren't even relevant to the discussion.

and if we let them society will come crumbling down on itself. Oh, wait...what? That didn't happen? Ok, well, you know if we let those gay people get married, then society will come crumbling down on itself.

It's not a justification, it's an illustration of the extension of that silly old "equal protection clause"

Nor, obviously, will society come down on itself if we let polygamists and incestuous people get married, right? Again, your arguments are applicable to more than gay marriage.

 

[HopefulNikki]

You're just sliding down your own slippery slope. The two issues are related because they both deal with the discrimination of marriage based on an immutable trait.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, it's not known for sure whether homosexuality is genetic or unchangeable at all. For that matter, it's also not known whether loving more than one person, or being naturally attracted to people who are related to you, are genetically caused either. Once again, your arguments go both ways.

Therefore by your own logic both must be acceptable. The issue of marriage is not only about sexuality, if you want to take it a step further it could be about age also.
I won't stop you from protecting your wife/sister if you don't stop me from protecting my loving relationship with my 8th grade student.

Hey, why not, right?

 

[Green Gaia]

Not really. One deals with race, the other with sexuality. Polygamy and incest also deal with sexuality, not race, thus the connection. Again, I thought that was rather obvious.

Polygamy and incest have no connection to sexuality as an immutable trait which deals with what gender a person is attracted to.

Sexual orientation is similar to race in that both are immutable traits. Wanting many partners or being in love with a family member is not.

 

[Green Gaia]

Except there is a small flaw in your argument there MaddLlama. Race, is a genetic trait, just like hair color and eye color. It is only superficial. Homosexuality on the other hand though, is like a behavior trait. So while the may be "immutable traits" (although I must admit I don't know what that word means) that does not mean those two traits are remotely equal.

I disagree. Sexual orientation is an immutable trait. Immutable means "not subject or susceptible to change." Therefore in that sense it is similar to race or national origin.

 

[HopefulNikki]

It is only your ignorance of the constitutional law embedded in Loving v Virginia that allows you to make this statement without severe criticisim. If you knew the holding of the case you would know that it defined marriage, marriage period, as a fundamental right (a fundamental right is defined in America as a right every citizen holds just for being a citizen). That this was presented in a case involving the constiututional correction of inter-racial marriage changes nothing.

On the contrary, it changes everything. Race and sexual orientation are not the same, nor will they ever be.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda - you have no basis, other than a religious one to deny marriage of anybody that can give consent.

LOLOL....when have I used a religious reason against homosexual marriage in this thread?

Consent IS the crux of your "traditional" marriage - not God, not your clergy, not your dogma, not your theology matters one iota to civil law. And that my friend, is an essential part of the Constitution. Consent has ever been , from the days of the Puritians, the basis of traditional marriage. No church no clergy can, acting independent of the state, perform a legal marriage. The church is an allowed extension of the government and the clergy is an agent of the government.

I don't have clergy, I don't have "dogma,", I hardly have theology....so your whole argument is kinda irrelevant. Actually learn what I believe before making absurd assumptions.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Polygamy and incest have no connection to sexuality as an immutable trait which deals with what gender a person is attracted to.

Neither does inter-racial marriage, so please stop bringing it up.

Sexual orientation is similar to race in that both are immutable traits. Wanting many partners or being in love with a family member is not.

How the heck do you know? We're only just now learning exactly what traits and behaviors are genetically caused and which aren't. The issue of nature vs. nurture is still one of the hottest issues in the psychological school of thought. You can't help being in love. Stop denying my three husbands and my sister our natural love and the right to protect our families.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, but it's an immutable trait that influences behavior. And society tries to keep behavior in check for the protection of society itself. That's why some behaviors, such as crime, are punished while other behaviors, like hardwork, are encouraged.

Why use homosexual behavior against us but not use heterosexual behavior against straights? Why are we singled out for abuse and punishment when both are behaviors based on the same immutable trait: sexual orientation?

 

[Green Gaia]

Actually learn what I believe before making absurd assumptions.

Maybe if you actually stated your reasons for being against same gender couples having access to equal legal protections, we wouldn't have to guess.

 

[Revasser]

LOLOL....when have I used a religious reason against homosexual marriage in this thread?
I don't have clergy, I don't have "dogma,", I hardly have theology....so your whole argument is kinda irrelevant. Actually learn what I believe before making absurd assumptions.

So you don't even have religious reasons? Your entire argument consists of an unsupported, fallacious slippery slope assertion?

That's pretty thin, my friend.

 

[Green Gaia]

Right, so the trait of having blond hair is equal to having the trait of being competitive. Um, last time I checked, people care a lot more about whether or not someone is being competitive than they do about their hair color.

You lost me...

 

[HopefulNikki]

Maybe if you actually stated your reasons for being against same gender couples having access to equal legal protections, we wouldn't have to guess.

If you've gone through reading this entire thread and you still don't have even the faintest inkling as to why I'm against it (even if you don't agree), then you haven't been paying attention at all.