[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Is there anything about gay marriage in the constitution?[/quote]
Nice logic there bro, keep at it.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Is there anything about gay marriage in the constitution?[/quote]
Nice logic there bro, keep at it.[/quote]
That’s not where I was going with that. Don’t be so presumptuous.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
So how “socially favoured” is your mixed marriage in Japan? Based on what you’ve told us about Japanese culture, you haven’t produced a “socially favoured” child or family.
[quote]optheta wrote:
Its funny all the republicans say whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up is “We have better things to talk about!”.
What a joke.[/quote]
“President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the presidentâ??s position on gay rights.”
Of course Barry had to wait till the key states of Wisconsin and West Virginia were past too. Barry’s “evolving” views on same sex marriage.
When you can show people where gay “rights” are being raised legitimately then maybe they will take more interest. Probably best to leave out the “LGBTQ” stuff if you want to be taken seriously as well.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again:
Tell me why Bam should not reinforce his reasoning behind his gay marriage stand by emphasizing that he also supports a man being able to marry two women at the same time.
Or for that matter a man being able to marry two men.
Or three.
Or one hundred fifty nine.
After all according to the “evolved” one, “The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule? you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated,’ he said. 'And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”
So if he wants to invoke the Golden Rule to support gay marriage shouldn’t he also invoke it to support my hypothetical desire to marry two women?
Or three?
Or one hundred fifty nine?[/quote]
WHOA WHOA PUSH lets not stop there, i mean what if a man wanted to marry a horse?!?! Or even 2 or 3 horses?
Your reasoning is fucken solid, keep at it push.[/quote]
Come on, that is such a weak argument. Marriages are first and foremost a legal contract (after all the whole argument is essentially a legality one) and since animals cannot enter into legal contracts the argument that gay marriage legalization should or will lead to people marrying horses is just preposterous.
Push’s argument on the other hand is at least a somewhat reasonable one and even though I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument, I think his question does bring up some interesting questions regarding what constitutes a marriage or what limitations we should/could place on marriage.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again:
Tell me why Bam should not reinforce his reasoning behind his gay marriage stand by emphasizing that he also supports a man being able to marry two women at the same time.
Or for that matter a man being able to marry two men.
Or three.
Or one hundred fifty nine.
After all according to the “evolved” one, “The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule? you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated,’ he said. 'And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”
So if he wants to invoke the Golden Rule to support gay marriage shouldn’t he also invoke it to support my hypothetical desire to marry two women?
Or three?
Or one hundred fifty nine?[/quote]
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? After all, if your argument against gay marriage is that it doesn’t create a socially stable nuclear family unit, then you must also be opposed to the legality of divorce, which has done far more damage to the family unit than gay marriage.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Push’s argument on the other hand is at least a somewhat reasonable one and even though I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument, I think his question does bring up some interesting questions regarding what constitutes a marriage or what limitations we should/could place on marriage.[/quote]
No it doesn’t hold any water. Here’s a post I wrote a while back:
[quote]therajrajwrote:
We allow people to own handguns, rifles and semi-automatics, but we don’t allow them to own automatic weapons or nuclear weapons. We CAN make an arbitrary stopping point. The slippery slope argument FAILS because we can decide this is the limit. And every time you want to move the line, a new debate must take place.
The real question is where do we set the limit to encourage everyone else’s freedom and rights? In my opinion that line is drawn at two consenting adults who want to tether their lives together regardless of their sex. If they agree to enter a contract to attain certain benefits, that’s good enough for me. Denying that right to someone who chooses a person of the “wrong” gender is an injustice that needs to be corrected.
Lastly, the way marriage is setup currently, laws surrounding marriage can be easily adapted around two people regardless of sex. If marriages of 3, 5 or 7 people were to take place, many laws would have to change and you would literally have to overhaul the whole thing. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where 2 people in a polygamous marriage of 7 want out? On Impracticality alone we can draw an argument that marriage should stay between two people. [/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
…Push’s argument on the other hand is at least a somewhat reasonable one and even though I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument, I think his question does bring up some interesting questions regarding what constitutes a marriage or what limitations we should/could place on marriage.
[/quote]
I’ll put cold hard cash on the line that within 10 years there will be outcries for a human to be able to marry two other humans.
We could set this wager up if you want.
[/quote]
You could be right, it’s not like it isn’t a common practice in some parts of the world or throughout history. I think the tricky part would be the legal aspects of such a union. For instance, you could potentially have large numbers of people claiming a single dependent on their taxes. I think there would be more legal arguments against a bigamist marriage than there would be against a monogamist marriage, regardless of who the two adults involved were.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? >>>[/quote]The legality or illegality of anything is an incidental. Self worshiping, self obsessed, narcissistic hedonism is what is eating this country alive. We have cast off the private self restraint of our Christian roots that made self government possible and all the rest of this or that becoming publicly legal now is a symptom. Great to see you btw.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Is the slope really all that slippery if I come to you, society, and say, “I love these two women and they love me and each other. All we want are the same “rights” afforded other consenting adults. After all, unlike gay marriage polygamy has a very long rich history of being socially acceptable as well as completely legitimate. Please don’t make us second class citizens. Please.”[/quote]
Right, that is actually a legitimate scenario. What I think should be considered though is that many of the legal benefits afforded to married couples (regardless of the sexual make up) are done so to ease the financial burden on those involved in that marriage and make their possibility of raising children and remaining together (which makes sense as financial stress is the #1 cause for divorce in the u.s). However, the more people involved in such a union, the easier raising children would potentially become (more members equal more sources of income, more individuals to divvy up the responsibilities, basically less work per person). So, you would have to change some of the financial benefits for multiple bigamist/polygamist marriages. I’m also not a marriage lawyer, so there may be other potential legal issues that would make bigamist marriages problematic.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? After all, if your argument against gay marriage is that it doesn’t create a socially stable nuclear family unit, then you must also be opposed to the legality of divorce, which has done far more damage to the family unit than gay marriage. [/quote]
A shitty family is always worse then having a divorce.
We allow people to own handguns, rifles and semi-automatics, but we don’t allow them to own automatic weapons or nuclear weapons. We CAN make an arbitrary stopping point. The slippery slope argument FAILS because we can decide this is the limit. And every time you want to move the line, a new debate must take place.
The real question is where do we set the limit to encourage everyone else’s freedom and rights? In my opinion that line is drawn at two consenting adults who want to tether their lives together regardless of their sex. If they agree to enter a contract to attain certain benefits, that’s good enough for me. Denying that right to someone who chooses a person of the “wrong” gender is an injustice that needs to be corrected.
Lastly, the way marriage is setup currently, laws surrounding marriage can be easily adapted around two people regardless of sex. If marriages of 3, 5 or 7 people were to take place, many laws would have to change and you would literally have to overhaul the whole thing. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where 2 people in a polygamous marriage of 7 want out? On Impracticality alone we can draw an argument that marriage should stay between two people.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? >>>[/quote]The legality or illegality of anything is an incidental. Self worshiping, self obsessed, narcissistic hedonism is what is eating this country alive. We have cast off the private self restraint of our Christian roots that made self government possible and all the rest of this or that becoming publicly legal now is a symptom. Great to see you btw.
[/quote]
Morality though is a different argument than legality. If someone wants to believe that gay marriage is immoral, that is entirely their right. If that same person wants to deny other people rights though (that they would otherwise be granted if they chose to marry a different person, which isn’t really the same as what push is suggesting, since no one is allowed to marry multiple people, regardless of sexual orientation) that is where things get messy. This country was set up as a nation of laws to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Because we are governed by laws, the discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legal must be one of legal matters, not of moral matters. I still believe that parents should be free to teach their children what is moral or immoral in regards to marriage, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. That is one’s right to religion/belief which is protected by the constitution and one of the things which makes the u.s unique/great IMO.