Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

reply to post by OneisOne


You'll find your answer in my original post.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by evc1shop
I think Reeses was using the marriage thing a while back when they called their Peanut Butter Cup a Perfect Marriage of chocolate and peanut butter...

Granted folks did not raise a stink about it and I still even got some in my Easter basket and Christmas stocking. Seems those who hold marriage to a religious or moral standard did not complain because they liked their chocolates.

I guess the term only raises one's fear when used with homosexuals. I wonder why that is.

Why not use it every where else, too!

ETA: I know of a few lesbian couples who actually don't care about the gov't handouts they simply want to be recognized for their commitment and in the case of hospital visitation rights and things of that nature, they want the rights afforded to straight married couples.

edit on 28-6-2013 by evc1shop because: eta

Firstly, the Reese's analogy is cute, but really does nothing to speak to my case (as I'm sure you're well aware).

If you had carefully read the OP, my fear is not necessarily the idea of granting homosexual marriage rights. It is the fact that in expanding the definition of marriage, we are setting a precedent...one that will likely have consequences say 20 years down the road.

I understand the desire to be "recognized for their commitment", but why do they have to inaccurately adopt the term marriage in order to do so? If the govmnt benefits are not important to some, what difference does it make whether or not their relationship is defined a marriage? I don't know anyone who is saying "you are a homosexual, therefore you can't possibly be in a committed relationship". Do you?

Now, how does this affect anybody except the two requesting such a union? And what then should anyone else care?

Again, I think you would benefit from going back and reading the original post. I make what I believe to be a clear case as to why granting the rights previously reserved for a definitive relationship between a man and a woman to another group will prove dangerous to society .

I can explain the reeses thing here and help put it all into perspective.

Open this link: Marriage and check out 1.a(2), 1b, 1c and #3 . Any and all can apply so why would you want to have another word created to define it again? They've already got it covered!


Didn't Portland just have their pride festivities? Did you attend any of the events and gather opinions or head on down to Peacock in the Park (if they still do that - I haven't been there in a few years) . Ever drop into Embers or any of the bars around there?

If you didn't attend to celebrate or do some recon or maybe even protest something then I am not sure why you care unless you are worried that this somehow cheapens your marriage because now there are more people who can share in that bliss.

Have you ever had a lesbian or gay couple tell you how horrible it was that a hospital wouldn't let one of them stay through an operation or visiting hours deemed for "family only" , I have and as asinine as it appears, the care facility they were in had all the discretion. This is a serious matter that a simple nod in the correct direction (don't want to confuse with right or left here) by the government can make it work for everybody who wants to give marriage a try.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

the whole point is to get equal rights to marry who we want, if we wanted to get married, think of it this way, if you wanted you couldn't marry the same sex, even you as a heterosexual, if you so desired you could not marry the same sex,

I get that. And my whole point is that if we grant "equal rights to marry who we want", we effectively change what the fundamentals of marriage is, and at the same time open the door for just about anyone marrying anything/anyone. It's the obvious logical progression if you let it play out.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


How is "anything" a consenting adult?

Or are you really this dense?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews
I do not think you or I were allowed to marry our immediate family, our 1st cousins or anybody not of the age to consent. Objects and animals do not have the ability to give consent so there should never be a problem there. What have I missed that you are so guarded about?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

In the same way, a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual marriage for obvious reasons that don't require explanation.

You mean procreation? They can, and do.

Is it in our best interest as a society to redefine the meaning of the institution of marriage considering possible future implications?

The flow of evolution is moving forward. Society has to be in that stream or it's stagnant. Stagnation is death. Is it in the best interest to grow and adapt? Of course it is. Pertypical many people will struggle with the notion of what progress is or even being a part of it. Join or get left behind.

As for the slippery component. Why not deal with the hypothetical as they actually become tangible realities. I'll let you know when I am serious about marrying my pet panda, until then don't worry about it.

Whoa whoa whoa. This NAMBLA/marrying animals argument is a tired, weak one that has been used since the beginning of the gay debates back in the 1970s or earlier.

First of all, NAMBLA is a joke we like to tell each other and a ghost story we like to tell our children. The fact of the matter is that NAMBLA, since its inception in 1978, has had absolutely no political sway. We know this. They know this. They aren't looking at gay marriage as a chance for them to shine. Even gay and lesbian organisations have widely and repeatedly cut off and/or rejected any ties with the paedophile group.

reply to post by MrSpad

Only perverts or idiots think that is path to even follow.

I concur 100%. Unfortunately they exist, and are building their case as we speak.

I do not believe for one second any thinking person can believe that their is a path beyond two consenting adults of sound mind being allowed to marry.

I certainly wish you were correct. But the reality is, just a quick look at the NAMBLA website will prove you wrong.

If you do not know twhy two consenting adults being allowed to marry is different than sleeping with animals or children then you have some problems. Your either are trying to spread fear to hide your own bigotry or are reveailing some hidden desire.

Please don't misrepresent my position. Of course homosexuality is different than pedophilia or bestiality. My point was not to compare homosexuality to one of these, but rather to point out that redefining the meaning of marriage opens up the door to a very broad range of relationships.

Ad hominem attacks such as yours do seem to generate quite the accolades from those of your ilk, but really don't do much to help your stance...which as noble as it may seem, is quite naive to the realities of the world in which we live.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

the whole point is to get equal rights to marry who we want, if we wanted to get married, think of it this way, if you wanted you couldn't marry the same sex, even you as a heterosexual, if you so desired you could not marry the same sex,

I get that. And my whole point is that if we grant "equal rights to marry who we want", we effectively change what the fundamentals of marriage is, and at the same time open the door for just about anyone marrying anything/anyone. It's the obvious logical progression if you let it play out.

is that a logical progress though? no T no shade, but is that truly the logical progression to allow Humans to get married, because in the end we are both Humans, gay or straight,

Give it up. We've had gay marriage in Canada on a Federal level for 10 years + now, it's had absolutely zero impact on the lives of anyone, other than to allow gay couples to marry.

America says that it's the land of freedom and loves to criticize others for their human rights record, how about you start giving human rights to ALL of your citizens before you start criticizing others for their records?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Of course homosexuality is different than pedophilia or bestiality. My point was not to compare homosexuality to one of these, but rather to point out that redefining the meaning of marriage opens up the door to a very broad range of relationships.

Ad hominem attacks such as yours do seem to generate quite the accolades from those of your ilk, but really don't do much to help your stance...which as noble as it may seem, is quite naive to the realities of the world in which we live.

Then please explain why giving women the right to vote didn't lead us down the slippery slope of having to give children and animals the right to vote?

reply to post by Wertdagf


If a the definition of marriage can shift from man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, why shouldn't we believe it can shift even further to man/child, woman/horse in the future?

Again, as I'm sure accusations are on their way, I am not equating homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Then please explain why giving women the right to vote didn't lead us down the slippery slope of having to give children and animals the right to vote?

Easy. The definition of "to vote" was never arbitrarily changed. Just the demographic of participating members.

Based on historical data, homosexual unions were recognized in many cultures in the ancient world until christianity became the official religion of the roman empire.

It seems to me that it was the christians that changed the definition of marriage.

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

I do not think you or I were allowed to marry our immediate family, our 1st cousins or anybody not of the age to consent. Objects and animals do not have the ability to give consent so there should never be a problem there. What have I missed that you are so guarded about?

You are correct. And that's just it. In times past marriage has had limitations, and for good reason. Presently, however we have decided to shift those boundaries because a group of people are demanding that we do. My question for you is, who decides where that shift stops?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Then please explain why giving women the right to vote didn't lead us down the slippery slope of having to give children and animals the right to vote?

Easy. The definition of "to vote" was never arbitrarily changed. Just the demographic of participating members.

You could say the EXACT same thing about same-sex marriage. Marriage is still a contract between two consenting adults. That contract can be broken by mutual agreement. Children may or may not be involved.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

If a the definition of marriage can shift from man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, why shouldn't we believe it can shift even further to man/child, woman/horse in the future?

You mean to say why shouldn't we believe this is a catalyst to us completing abandoning our sense of morality?

Well because there is no evidence to support that belief.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

If a the definition of marriage can shift from man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, why shouldn't we believe it can shift even further to man/child, woman/horse in the future?

Again, as I'm sure accusations are on their way, I am not equating homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.

Of course you are equating homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.

You have thrown them all in the same category (under your slippery slope heading) and refuse to accept that gay marriage is about consenting adults. It has NOTHING to do with children or animals.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

because in the end we are both Humans, gay or straight,

Right.But aren't children also humans? And along those lines, who's to say animals aren't sentient beings...as I recall there are recent studies that claim they are.

Originally posted by evc1shop

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman. In order to properly call a homosexual relationship a marriage, we are forced to change the definition and fundamental basis of what a marriage is.

Okay,this is where I think the problem lies. Throughout history marriage has been a "contract" where a man takes a woman as his property. This really screws up all of the common laws and things when you have two husbands or two wives in a committed relationship. The government extends rights to the married couple so the man can keep care of his property... (I know, overly simplified but it's late here) much like we get benefits for "owning" our home.

Umm sorry using your own definition of marriage you just invalidated your own argument. Defining the woman as a mans property went out the window quite some time ago. I have not and will not ever be my husbands property, nor will he ever be mine. The only person that "owns" me is in fact me.