(BTW I'm not Catholic, in case you were wondering)
*shakes head as Anon uses fourth grade language to try to act adult*
Momma,
I've never seen someone work so hard at trying to do right. My respect grows for you each day!
Anon
Momma Angel,
I understand your desire not to offend your close friends because you accept them as they are. Perhaps they should learn to accept you as you are and not expect you to change your views to suit them.
reallife-- I just don't consider two men or two women so materially foreign, that they don't qualify for marriage,just as two other people--who happen to be a man and a woman.
Throw a cat or a five year old in, and I do consider them removed from two consenting adults.
Why can't you just let them mind their own business and get married?
Lash wrote:reallife-- I just don't consider two men or two women so materially foreign, that they don't qualify for marriage,just as two other people--who happen to be a man and a woman.
Throw a cat or a five year old in, and I do consider them removed from two consenting adults.
Why can't you just let them mind their own business and get married?
Then why limit it to two?
Why can't the group of five adults "marry"?
They all consent.
I would prefer a 'civil union' that confer all the benefits and responsibilities of a marriage for those who cannot naturally procreate but if the law of the land includes same-sex marriage I would not contest it.
real life wrote:Momma Angel,
I understand your desire not to offend your close friends because you accept them as they are. Perhaps they should learn to accept you as you are and not expect you to change your views to suit them.
Perhaps one should learn not to ask opinions, which they don't want to hear. No one has suggested she wouldn't be accepted if she didn't change her opinion.
talk72000 wrote:I would prefer a 'civil union' that confer all the benefits and responsibilities of a marriage for those who cannot naturally procreate but if the law of the land includes same-sex marriage I would not contest it.
A distinction without a difference.
Polygamy ok with you too Lash? You don't mind if a fella has a harem, right?
I could go for some polyandry.
Borrowed, but true:
Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences?
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right?
Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.
Lash wrote:I could go for some polyandry.
Wow, I had to look that one up. I had no idea you were so frisky
Anon
I can't imagine Jesus in a voting booth; can anyone?
I would never deny two people any of the legal perks associated with marriage.
Why can't they be obtained in a civil union?
Momma Angel, I'm going to skip all this "Is homosexuality a sin" BS and get right to the point: Voting is a privilege, not an obligation. You should be free to vote for, against, or abstain altogether if you please.
Have fun with your little shenanigans now, ya hear?
Lash wrote:It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
I think you're right. This is an anti-gay issue. Some people believe that homosexual behavior is wrong. I doubt very many would say that it's as wrong as murder or child abuse (maybe drugs, pimpin, and illegal weapons). They rally against it because it is not (yet) a crime.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if you abstained MA. True, it would not be helping give homosexuals equal rights in terms of marriage, but it would not be restricting it either.
However, I am reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Pharisee and the... frankly, I can't remember all the players in the parable. All I can remember is that there's someone by the wayside that really needs help.
No one helped him except the Samaritan, but these people who didn't help him didn't actively go out to make his suffering worse, did they?
Yet wouldn't Jesus want you to be the good Samaritan?
Lash wrote:
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
How would any of these things be a redefinition of marriage away from one man one woman?
Your examples are meaningless.
If you are truly in favor of redefining marriage, then you cannot, with consistent logic, restrict your redefinition to only homosexuals.
Group marriage, polygamy, marriage between siblings, marriage between parent and adult child, etc all must be considered as equal options if done between consenting adults.
Let's be consistent in our logic here, Lash. You cannot deny these other folks their "right" to marry with any sort of justification whatever, can you?
Thank you. 