Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can someone please explain how removing the gender restriction removes the number restriction, or the blood relation restriction, or the consent restriction, or the age restriction, or the species restriction?
Did removing the race restriction remove any of those?
Why shouldn't it remove those 'restrictions' ? If the will of the people now is to strip marriage of all its religious connotations then let the circus begin.
I've said it a million times, the gays don't want equal rights for everyone. They want gays to be privileged on another level from bestials, polygamists, single couples, single people, and asexuals.
If subscribe to the theory that gays are engrained by DNA to be homosexuals then you clearly have to also believe that the other abnormal arrangements of 'families' is also DNA based.
The only reason tax benefits were originally created for marriage, was to promote a healthy culture which fostered reproduction and a family that could support it and have balance. In essence the govt gave you a financial carrot to have kids, get married, knowing you will be a stronger influence on society than a wandering nomad that impregnates and vanishes.
Since we have now deemed it acceptable on societal levels, and even championed abnormal family arrangements, there is no choice but to also accept the whole slew of them and not cherry pick homosexuals as the anointed, abnormal family arrangement of the 21st century and no one else.
You guys wanted this circus, it is here and playing out. This will definitely be buyers remorse in 20 years or so.
It sounds absurd at first glance but if you follow the logic pattern of the SSM argument then you can see that this must also be legalised.
You know, there is a lot of baseless nonsense and garbage on the internet, but this kind of complete BS is among the most ridiculous and unhinged I ever see online. And that's saying something. Nothing but falacious slippery-slope dog poop with no foundation in anything like reality, much less logic or reason.
This is the EXACT same "argument" ignorant bigots of past decades used to oppose interracial marriage. The exact same argument. "If we let black people marry white people, soon parents will be wanting to marry their children, men will want to marry their horses, it'll be anarchy!!!"
B.S.
First off, we are talking about consensual adult human couples. Got it? A child cannot consent, a dog cannot consent, a toaster cannot consent, a cadaver cannot consent, etc. nor can any of those things enter into a contract.
There is no single reason to oppose same sex marriage that isn't based on fear, hate, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination of those things. Not one single one.
To preclude consensual adult couples from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of discrimination and bigotry.
You know, there is a lot of baseless nonsense and garbage on the internet, but this kind of complete BS is among the most ridiculous and unhinged I ever see online. And that's saying something. Nothing but falacious slippery-slope dog poop with no foundation in anything like reality, much less logic or reason.
This is the EXACT same "argument" ignorant bigots of past decades used to oppose interracial marriage. The exact same argument. "If we let black people marry white people, soon parents will be wanting to marry their children, men will want to marry their horses, it'll be anarchy!!!"
B.S.
First off, we are talking about consensual adult human couples. Got it? A child cannot consent, a dog cannot consent, a toaster cannot consent, a cadaver cannot consent, etc. nor can any of those things enter into a contract.
There is no single reason to oppose same sex marriage that isn't based on fear, hate, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination of those things. Not one single one.
To preclude consensual adult couples from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of discrimination and bigotry.
You left out polygamy because it inconveniently blows up your argument.
Consent? Consent is merely a legal term that ebbs and flows with time. If you truly think no one under 18 can 'consent' in a logical, practical application then you are just not very smart.
This was arbitrarily created, and picked out of thin air. It can be easily shown that it is by looking to other civilized countries which have no age of consent or don't have the high age we do.
Next, everyone know dogs especially will hump anything. Married usually implies exclusive sexual relations in a historical sense. That was the point, men traded exclusive rights of mating with a specific woman to make sure he knew his offspring would have paternal help.
So since any arrangement that isn't hetero or polygamy, they cannot have a natural child. They will rely on the heterosexual arrangements of the world to provide what they cannot. This at the root of the history of marriage has now escaped the original intention and meaning. (Interracial marriage still met the original criteria)
So since we are going to finally do this, a toast, dog, multiple people, inanimate objects, etc can all be married since the intention of marriage isn't to naturally product offspring, raise it and know the paternity.
As for bestial consent, I see dogs that will hump anything that resembles a female orifice and I would imagine if you got the right setup a dog could initiate a sexual encounter, which is essentially consent as much as it is a pointless word to hang on.
It sounds absurd at first glance but if you follow the logic pattern of the SSM argument then you can see that this must also be legalised.
No, it is not just absurd at first glance. It is absurd, period. Not just absurd, but insulting as well. It seems like the people who are against gay marriage do everything they can to try to de-humanize gay people. It's sick enough that people were bringing up nonsense like bestiality, but to compare SSM to necrophilia is an all new low. Legalizing necrophilia in no way follows the "logic pattern" of the SSM argument. It is nothing more than ridiculous, outrageous fodder for people who can't develop an intelligent, cogent argument against SSM. So you just start grasping at straws and presenting all kinds of craziness to support your bias. Oh, next they'll want to marry kids. Next they'll want to marry household pets and barnyard animals. Next they'll be creeping into the morgues to have relations with the corpses! Do you even hear yourself? At some point even the most anti-SSM fanatic has to reach a level of such complete foolishness where your own brain stops you and says, "Now you know that was just crazy as hell."
It seems like the people who are against gay marriage do everything they can to try to de-humanize gay people.
That's the nature of hate. If haters had to consider those who they want to persecute as full human beings, they'd be forced to face the immoral ramifications of their persecution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbsnm
At some point even the most anti-SSM fanatic has to reach a level of such complete foolishness where your own brain stops you and says, "Now you know that was just crazy as hell."
You left out polygamy because it inconveniently blows up your argument.
Not at all. In fact, you couldn't be more wrong. Indeed, I have seen and done this argument ad infinitum on here as well as other forums and in real life.
At base I have no issue with polygamy. As long as it concerns only consenting adults.
It is a free country; people should be free to do whatever they want pretty much, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of anyone else.
Precluding same sex couples from marrying simply because they are the same gender is discrimination, pure and simple. Period.
You could easily make the same argument for polygamists. Unfortunately, polygamy is often used as a means of coercing minors, but in theory, why should you or I care if a man marries 37 women, or vice-versa?
At the same time, it is clear that people aren't born polygamists as they are heterosexual, homosexual, or somewhere else on the spectrum of genetic sexual predisposition.
Beyond that, where is the huge movement of polygamists seeking equal rights and status?
Quote:
Consent? Consent is merely a legal term that ebbs and flows with time. If you truly think no one under 18 can 'consent' in a logical, practical application then you are just not very smart.
Like you were attempting (and failing) to do, I was speaking of legal definitions. Mine happens to be a legitimate legal definition in which minors cannot enter into a contract. Whether or not a child under 18 possesses the mental acuity and knowledge to know the whys and wherefores of sexual activity is a completely other matter.
If you think I was trying to make any other point while you were attempting (and failing) to mischaracterize what I said, then you are just not very smart.
Quote:
Married usually implies exclusive sexual relations in a historical sense. That was the point, men traded exclusive rights of mating with a specific woman to make sure he knew his offspring would have paternal help.
It would benefit you to educate yourself before you start spouting nonsense on a subject you clearly don't know much about. Marriage in the Western World and in parts of the ancient world was similar to a business merger. Offspring were an expected byproduct of such unions, but they were largely legal in nature, concerning possessions, land ownership, etc.
Quote:
So since any arrangement that isn't hetero or polygamy, they cannot have a natural child.
Ridiculous, lame deflection. Millions upon millions of couples have married with no intention to ever have children, or lacking the ability to ever have children.
Quote:
As for bestial consent, I see dogs that will hump anything that resembles a female orifice and I would imagine if you got the right setup a dog could initiate a sexual encounter, which is essentially consent as much as it is a pointless word to hang on.
Wow. This is so far beyond the pale of anything resembling logic or reason it is almost impressive. Impressive that you were able to cram so much complete tripe and BS into one sentence. Good on ya'!
Why shouldn't it remove those 'restrictions' ? If the will of the people now is to strip marriage of all its religious connotations then let the circus begin.
I've said it a million times, the gays don't want equal rights for everyone. They want gays to be privileged on another level from bestials, polygamists, single couples, single people, and asexuals.
If subscribe to the theory that gays are engrained by DNA to be homosexuals then you clearly have to also believe that the other abnormal arrangements of 'families' is also DNA based.
The only reason tax benefits were originally created for marriage, was to promote a healthy culture which fostered reproduction and a family that could support it and have balance. In essence the govt gave you a financial carrot to have kids, get married, knowing you will be a stronger influence on society than a wandering nomad that impregnates and vanishes.
Since we have now deemed it acceptable on societal levels, and even championed abnormal family arrangements, there is no choice but to also accept the whole slew of them and not cherry pick homosexuals as the anointed, abnormal family arrangement of the 21st century and no one else.
You guys wanted this circus, it is here and playing out. This will definitely be buyers remorse in 20 years or so.
What these "discussions" result in, is my realization that right wingers and Bible bangers are among the least educated, least rational beings in the U.S.
Fortunately, wackos who want their religious mythology to be the law of the land, always end up disappointed in the end, when their religious dictatorship hopes and dreams are shattered to hell.
It appears as though most gays have a problem with using morality as defined by God to explain why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Are gays (and all who support gay marriage) in favor of opening up marriage to the following: Polygamy, incestual relationships and bestiality? I ask because, once you take the moral definition of right vs wrong away, aren't you in essence, discriminating against groups who don't fit within the confines of your moral beliefs, yet also want to marry. Who gets to determine if polygamous, incestual and bestiality based marriages are wrong, once you take away the notion of religious based values and concepts of normal relationships.
If you are in support of gay marriage, you must also support marriage equality for everyone else who doesn't fit within the current moral code of marriage.
This is the true reason why marriage, as it stands should be left alone. When you open the door to homosexuals, you have to open the door to everyone else too, otherwise, it's pure discrimination, on the basis of moral codes.
+
agreed
if a man wants the* right* to marry a man provided that person consents
if a women wants the *right* to marry a person of the same sex provided that person consents
why not the* right* of a person top marry as many folks has he or she desires provides they consent
seems to me the RIGHTS we are talking about here apply to all the above
why deny the RIGHT of a person to marry another just because that person already has a spouse
those in favor of same sex marriage want that right to be extended to them and them only they are the bigots personally i dont give a **** who you marry as long as it does,nt effect me
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
