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

reply to post by Afewloosescrews
I do not see these restrictions changing just the reflection of the 2 consenting adults in place of man/woman. This effectively re-writes the contract of marriage in the eyes of the government while allowing religions that want to keep their sanctity of "Holy Matrimony" or whatever defining words they use for their own contracts between the couple and their god(s) .

See this does work out and have a happy ending. Don't be so sacred Oh, I mean scared about change.

reply to post by OneisOne

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.

Fine. Guilty as charged. But only insofar as not fitting the definition of marriage. And in that sense...yes, they all fall under that category.

If today, marriage has been changed from a union between a man and woman to a union between consenting adults. What tomorrow?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by OneisOne

 

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.

Fine. Guilty as charged. But only insofar as not fitting the definition of marriage. And in that sense...yes, they all fall under that category.

If today, marriage has been changed from a union between a man and woman to a union between consenting adults. What tomorrow?

a bigger step towards equality for all, less dividing people based on 'Sexuality' and furthering the Unity of Equality

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


If we "change the definition of marriage" today, then tomorrow we'll "change the definition of adoption". There's really not much more to it than that.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by OneisOne

 

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.

Fine. Guilty as charged. But only insofar as not fitting the definition of marriage. And in that sense...yes, they all fall under that category.

If today, marriage has been changed from a union between a man and woman to a union between consenting adults. What tomorrow?

Are you saying that a union between a man and a woman is NOT between consenting adults?

reply to post by KeliOnyx
I understand that it is not this way now but the laws on which this OP is based go way back in draconian times when this was the case.
I do not believe in the property argument either but that was why the laws were set up that way. My wife and I believed in getting married but we both have our last names intact. I believe that marriage should be available to those seeking it. Next time I will use more current examples but my point still stands that the law should change to meet the current times.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

You mean procreation? They can, and do.

No. I mean a relationship between two people of the same sex, and a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. By definition they are different, and therefore not equal.

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.

I'm all about progress. I also believe in seat belts.

Ha ha. Pet Panda. This discussion definitely needed a little lightening of tone, so thanks for that.

reply to post by DonVoigt


My link here www.abovetopsecret.com... is also from Webster. Are you reading my posts?

Originally posted by DonVoigt
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Miriam Webster is after all how we define words.

My quote is from Webster.

you have to accept the reality that humanity had had this discussion countless times and it always ends the same way as marriage being between a man and a woman

I do not have to accept that. It's not true. No one put a definition on marriage until gay people started wanting to get married.

and how one generation thinks they are going to force generations of people to see something that way just because a small minority of people want the majority to change to suit their precious feelings, that's not going to happen,

One generation? I'm 55 years old. What are you talking about? There are gay couples in their 70s. You think all gay people are young?

23 Portraits of Gay Couples that Can't get Married

Ed Watson is 78 years old and has Alzheimer’s. He’s worried that by the time the court finally rules on Prop 8, he won’t be able to recognize Derence, his partner of over 40 years.
...
Jan is a retired nurse and Mary Anne is a retired pediatric neurologist. They have been together for more than 25 years and live in Helena, Montana.
...
Jim Early and Garland Tillery of Norfolk, Virginia have been together for over 30 years. In this photo they’re pictured trying to apply for a marriage license. They were rejected.

I think you have a lot to learn before you have an intelligent discussion about this issue.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Are you saying that a union between a man and a woman is NOT between consenting adults?

Umm...no.

Meh, I agree with most of the posters on here

Here is an interesting snippet

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

It seems Gods laws for marriage also changed over the years.

The worst of this 'slippery slope' has probably already happened and will keep happening we just don't have indoctrinated papers giving the social "okay" to do so. If you're scared you'll actually start to see it in the news i'm sorry but wake up. This changes nothing about the world except for tax season.

I agree with whoever said a sterile man and woman marrying has the same argumentative value as a homosexual couple. If pro-creation is the grounds for marriage than couples who can't have children should not be allowed to marry.

I believe equality lies in the hearts of us all not what a piece of paper, or a congregation, or a government, or history say.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Are you saying that a union between a man and a woman is NOT between consenting adults?

Umm...no.

Okay, then the definition really hasn't changed. Men and women are consenting adults. Men marrying women, men marrying men, women marrying women. All are consenting adults.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The ONLY problem with the whole Gay Marriage issue is the Prop8 reversal. That sets a dangerous precedent for SCOTUS to overturn the people's will based on morality, not law.

~Tenth

No that is not a problem. The Prop 8 reversal was appropriate and can only apply in California, The reason is the State Government already was recognizing same sex marriage. Prop 8 came along making same sex marriage unconstitutional at the State level. Putting it into a position where the courts had to then look at the US Constitution, to see if the State can acknowledge rights and then remove those rights later. The decision was the State could do so, but had to provide solid substantiated proof that removing rights it had already granted were detrimental to the State and against it's best interests socially and economically. Prop 8 was rightly struck down, because no such proof exists.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Okay, then the definition really hasn't changed. Men and women are consenting adults. Men marrying women, men marrying men, women marrying women. All are consenting adults.

Au contraire. The definition expands to include ALL consenting adults rather than a consenting man and a consenting woman.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

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

And the definition of "to marry" was never arbitrarily changed. Just the demographic of participating members.

Either that OR:

If the definition of "to vote" used to be that a MAN went to the voting place and cast a ballot.
The definition was changed to be "a MAN or a WOMAN went to the voting place and cast a ballot."

I'm glad we can agree on this.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Okay, then the definition really hasn't changed. Men and women are consenting adults. Men marrying women, men marrying men, women marrying women. All are consenting adults.

Au contraire. The definition expands to include ALL consenting adults rather than a consenting man and a consenting woman.

There are only two kinds of consenting adults: men and women. So by ALL, you mean TWO kinds of consenting adults. Only the demographics of each marriage has changed - not the definition.

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

I understand that it is not this way now but the laws on which this OP is based go way back in draconian times when this was the case.
I do not believe in the property argument either but that was why the laws were set up that way. My wife and I believed in getting married but we both have our last names intact. I believe that marriage should be available to those seeking it. Next time I will use more current examples but my point still stands that the law should change to meet the current times.

Oh I completely understand where he is trying to come from. But the fact is he is trying to apply an outdated inapplicable belief and custom as reasoning to deny same sex couples the right to marry. He uses this as the definition of marriage in it's totality, despite the fact this definition has already been changed and no longer applies in this moment in time.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Like all people when you are losing an argument you resort to insulting my intelligence, I understand you can't face this discussion with any validity since I said nothing derogatory to you, psychology suggests that a person who can't handle losing an argument resort to insulting and degrading the person they were arguing with. So my discussion with you is over. Good luck

reply to post by Whatifitdidhappen

It seems Gods laws for marriage also changed over the years.

You are obfuscating the issue. Regardless, the Bible's definition of marriage has always been that of a union between man and woman.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

By definition they are different, and therefore not equal.

1+1 and 3-1 are by definition different equations however they are equal. So even though you say homosexual and heterosexual marriage are different why do they have to be unequal?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Whatifitdidhappen

 

It seems Gods laws for marriage also changed over the years.

You are obfuscating the issue. Regardless, the Bible's definition of marriage has always been that of a union between man and woman.

The concept of marriage predates the Bible.