Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Okay. Your argument fails on three points. Allow me to point them out for you:

Ad hominem: "...immoral atheists". This is a form of logical fallacy. It relies on attacking your opponent directly, while ignoring the content of his argument, to avoid responding to the actual argument with a rational, reasoned, logical response. Such an emotional response usually indicates that the person employing the attack has run out of logical things to say, and simply does not wish to admit defeat.

Red Herring: "Child abuse comes to mind." This is a text book case. This is rarely cited logical fallacy; mostly because most debaters confuse red herrings for the strawman argument. The Red Herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. You see, nothing in this discussion legitimizes bringing up child abuse. That should not, in any way, be mistaken for an admission that your stupid red herring cannot be refuted - only that this particular discussion is neither the time, nor place for such a debate.

And finally, back to "immoral atheists". There are two problems with your little ad hominem. First, like most religious zealots, you presume that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has no morals. This is simply not true. It only means that they have a different set of morals from you. Second, you presume, apparently since you directed this at me, that I am an atheist, simply because I am not a Christian. You do get that there are a plethora of theologies, and religions that are outside of the three that grew out of the Middle East Monotheistic El Yeshua worship, right?

By all means, do lemme know when you'd like to return to a discussion that actually responds to what I said with logic.

 

[Czernobog]

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

This fails as a straw man fallacy and is also ridiculous.

Actually, it's not, Clayton. Actually it's a Red Herring. It's an easy mistake to make, as the two are very similar. The difference is that the strawman attempts to introduce the irrelevant topic as an extension of something that the opponent has actually said, while the Red Herring just throws a whole new topic into the argument, with no point of reference at all.

 

[dilloduck]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

 

[JoeB131]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

 

[Kondor3]

...But it DOES affect you, it affects us all. We have to live in the society we create. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business what government sanctions...

This was well said.

I, for one, am not real keen on the idea that (nowadays) my government is leaning towards tolerating such perverse and unclean behaviors and lifestyle out in the open.

I want my government to reclaim its collective sanity and to reestablish a modicum of traditional moral perception into its dealings on the subject.

Whether that happens in future remains to be seen.

 

[dilloduck]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

That's already covered by religion

 

[Czernobog]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Yes I understand you want to call all things homosexual anything but homosexual.

The only way the Homosexuals win, is by changing the meaning of words, by not using any word that describes who they are, by killing any speech that speaks the truth.

Actually, it is not the Homosexuals who attempted to change the meaning of words - that would be the religious zealots, and the moralists, who attempted to revise the definition of marriage to include a restriction based on their religious, and moralistic desires to force people to behave the way they want them to. The Courts simply said, "Nope. You don't get to do that. Marriage is guaranteed to everyone." The moralist do that a lot.

 

[Seawytch]

Sexuality and procreative ability and intention are not requirements for marriage.

I didn't claim that sex was a requirement. I said sex had something to do with real marriages. You can stop the strawman stuff anytime.

But it does not have to. There is nothing in the civil marriage code requiring consummation.

 

[JoeB131]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

That's already covered by religion

Uh, no, actually, it predates Christianity- the Greek Philosophers thought of it first - and doesn't require a religious component.

 

[Czernobog]

Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.

Actually that is absolutely not true. "Perversion" is an entirely subjective term, which is why it has no business being used as a measure of what laws should legitimately be put into place.

Allow me to be clear. I am, in no way, saying that homosexuality is not a perversion. However, I am also not saying that it is. I am merely saying that whether it is or not, is a personal moral decision, and personal decision should never be used as a basis for Law.

 

[dilloduck]

Sexuality and procreative ability and intention are not requirements for marriage.

I didn't claim that sex was a requirement. I said sex had something to do with real marriages. You can stop the strawman stuff anytime.

But it does not have to. There is nothing in the civil marriage code requiring consummation.

oh please-----homosexuals demanded that the law be changed to benefit those who were SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to the same sex.

 

[JoeB131]

...But it DOES affect you, it affects us all. We have to live in the society we create. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business what government sanctions...

This was well said.

I, for one, am not real keen on the idea that (nowadays) my government is leaning towards tolerating such perverse and unclean behaviors and lifestyle out in the open.

I want my government to reclaim its collective sanity and to reestablish a modicum of traditional moral perception into its dealings on the subject.

Whether that happens in future remains to be seen.

I guess I have a different idea of what I consider "Perverse" and "unclean".

Two people who love each other being able to get married, meh, not so bad.

Children going to bed at night hungry while rich assholes are spending millions of dollars on dancing horses, that's really obscene and perverse.

 

[Boss]

So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
Animals can't consent under the law, as they aren't self-aware.
Corpses can't consent because they aren't alive to consent.

Why not? Aren't you simply pointing out how we are restricting people's rights to do what they want to do?

What you now define as 'children' includes humans who have reached age of sexual maturity, marked by natural changes such as menstrual periods, pubic hair and development of breasts, etc. So why should these humans be restricted to your pre-defined moral constraints on when you think they are capable of consent?

Animals are aware of themselves. They are capable of giving consent. Try giving a cat a bath without it's consent. Try riding a horse without it's consent. If a girl's german shepherd doesn't consent to mounting her, it won't. Again, who the hell are YOU to decide what is morally acceptable? How is that bothering you?

Dead people? What does it matter, they are dead? Is it harming you for someone to fuck a corpse? Again, why do you think you have the right to make that determination on behalf of someone else? Who are you to deny their love?

So really, that only leaves "Polygamists". And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.

Well there are LOTS of things we don't currently do. Seems to me "there's no danger because we don't allow that" is a stupid justification for allowing something we've never allowed before. If we can change the meaning of "marriage" we can change the meaning of "consent" or "children" or any damn thing else, all bets are off.... if we want to do it, we can simply change the law.

 

[dilloduck]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

That's already covered by religion

Uh, no, actually, it predates Christianity- the Greek Philosophers thought of it first - and doesn't require a religious component.

LOL---so atheists follow Greek Philosophy ?

 

[Seawytch]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?

 

[Czernobog]

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of your post is your personal opinion, and I will not debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

 

[Seawytch]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

I would argue that atheists are actually the more moral.

Who is making the more moral choice not to steal, the guy who is not being watched by the police or the guy that is.

 

[dilloduck]

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of yourpost is your personal opinion, and I will not, debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.

 

[dilloduck]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

I would argue that atheists are actually the more moral.

Who is making the more moral choice not to steal, the guy who is not being watched by the police or the guy that is.

Shocking opinion since you are one LOL

 

[Kondor3]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

That's already covered by religion

And, frankly, most of those morals and ethics are the product of generations of adaptation and transmission by religious organizational mechanisms of one kind or another.