Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

You're quite right. The moralists could try to do this to invalidate same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, they have yet to find a legitimate argument to make that case without falling into a logically fallacious "Slippery Slope' argument that convinces no one. But, hey! Good luck with that. You guys keep trying to do that. Lemme know how that works out for ya...

 

[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.

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.

Opposing homosexuality does not preclude those opponents from being on the same page as you are, with respect to hunger, greed, etc.

 

[TooTall]

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?

I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?

 

[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

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.

Atheist just cherry pick the ones that are convenient for the moment and pretend religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Katzndogz]

We can stop calling it marriage now. Marriage has been devalued to the point where it is meaningless. Think up a new term. Maybe a Covenant instead.

 

[Czernobog]

The only people being "denied" something, are sexual deviants who want to change marriage so as to include their sexual deviancy. Under any current law of any state, a homosexual can obtain the same exact marriage license as a straight person, in fact, they will not even ask if you are a homosexual. So there is nothing being denied to homosexuals except the right to change and modify marriage to include their sexual behavior.

I am a Constitutionalist, I believe in the Constitution. When it says that we cannot afford certain rights to one group of people without affording those rights to all other groups, I believe that is fundamental "equal protection" and our obligation under the Constitution. Therefore, if marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, it also has to include pedophiles, people who fuck animals, polygamists, necrophiliacs, or any other sexual proclivity who wishes to have their deviancy legitimized under the law. There is no slippery slope, the slope has been removed entirely. It's now just a bottomless drop into the immoral abyss... no slope... no slipping.

Denying that you are employing a slipper slope argument, while employing a slippery slope argument just makes you sound stupid. Since I have no intention of debating a logical fallacy because it, by definition, is devoid of logic, and fails, I'll just leave my comments on this little bit of stupidity there.

Now, instead of opening up this can of immoral worms that no one is going to want to deal with in the future, instead of insisting that government protect and sanction a sexual lifestyle which it will constitutionally have to protect for all sexual lifestyles, why not simply change how government deals with domestic relationships? Adopt a reform to comprehensive civil unions, where the government only recognizes a universal 2-party contract and not "marriage" at all

Most of us would be okay with that. Good luck getting Christians to give up their "marriage".

Nope...not good enough for those who push for gay marriage. You see, this isn't about gay couples getting rights being denied at all. It is a radical leftist attempt to destroy the moral underpinnings of society. To take a big steamy dump on the Church and religious sanctity of marriage. THAT is what they are after, THAT is what they want.

The only reason that isn't "good enough" for us who push for gay marriage is because what you are proposing is not being proposed. What's being proposed is that "The Gays" can have civil unions, while all of the "normal, proper" people get to keep their marriage. You have to know that isn't going to be acceptable.

 

[MaryL]

Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals, and they always have. Any of you comprehend that simple fact? No, that isn't enough. The supreme court doesn't understand that. Marriage is about sheltering children, not validating perverted weirdo's. This country is lost. We might as well dig a hole and jump in and pull the dirt down over our heads if the supreme court feeds into this inanity.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.

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?

Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.

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?

An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.

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?

A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.

Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad.

Valid answers do not include
1) God said so.
2) I think it's icky.

Thanks. Have at it.

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.

And that's the point. We can change the law. The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument.

You could make an argument against polygamy, in that it isn't an "equal" partnership. Really, people are too jealous for that to work unless someone has beaten everyone else down.

 

[Czernobog]

Its none of my business what two consenting adults do. If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you. As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me? Answer? It doesn't. Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral

But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.

How? Fuck the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.

 

[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.

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

No, we are demanding (and receiving) equal protection under the law for our civil marriages.

And it is for those that we are emotionally attracted to, sex is just the fringe benefit.

You can be gay and a virgin, you do realize.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals, and they always have. Any of you comprehend that simple fact? No, that isn't enough. The supreme court doesn't understand that. Marriage is about sheltering children, not validating perverted weirdo's. This country is lost. We might as well dig a hole and jump in and pull the dirt down over our heads if the supreme court feeds into this inanity.

If your twisted world view were indeed fact, no one that was unable to unwilling to procreate would be allowed to civilly marry. Where is that the case? Oh, no where you say?

As for the latter hyperbole in your post...that sound like a good thing for YOU to do...the rest of the country will go on living and gays will go on marrying. It will effect no one but those getting married.

 

[Czernobog]

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

It's irrelevant what atheists use for their moral base. The point is that just because their morals are different than yours doesn't make them "immoral". To suggest such is an indication of self-righteous religious prejudice.

 

[Boss]

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.

Yes, you are what is called a "useful idiot" carrying the water for Marxist Socialism. Tearing down religious moral constructs is important to bringing about Marxist reform in a free society. Also important is attacking and destroying free market capitalism. You depend on purely emotive bleats to work the masses into a frenzy so they will support your Marxist reformists.

As a society, we literally spend billions upon billions each year through the government to ensure not a single child in America goes to bed hungry. This is in addition to the billions upon billions spent and distributed by charity organizations and churches committed to the same purpose.

Now, I am not a "rich asshole" but here is what I will do... I will donate $10k to the charity of your choice if you can provide me with one verifiable example of a child who has died from preventable starvation in America within the past 50 years.

 

[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.

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.

Atheist just cherry pick the ones that are convenient for the moment and pretend religion has nothing to do with it.

And yet, oddly, most religions follow the same basic rules which means they aren't religious rules, they are societal rules. Religion is just the wrapping around them to control the masses.

Good and bad does not have to come from religion. You don't do bad things because you think god is watching and he'll make you suffer. How does that make you more moral than the atheist who doesn't do bad things because they are bad things?

 

[Kondor3]

One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

You're quite right. The moralists could try to do this to invalidate same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, they have yet to find a legitimate argument to make that case without falling into a logically fallacious "Slippery Slope' argument that convinces no one. But, hey! Good luck with that. You guys keep trying to do that. Lemme know how that works out for ya...

You're correct.

With the key word being 'yet'.

That's what 'continuing to try until you succeed' is all about.

We may know more within four to eight years of the beginning of the next conservative Presidency.

 

[dilloduck]

lol the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.

 

[Czernobog]

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

That may be "covered" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't practice it as a part of their moral code. You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives. Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?

If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.

 

[dilloduck]

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

It's irrelevant what atheists use for their moral base. The point is that just because their morals are different than yours doesn't make them "immoral". To suggest such is an indication of self-righteous religious prejudice.

not uncommon response when atheist claim to be more moral than religious people.

 

[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

That may be "covered" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't practice it as a part of their moral code. You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives. Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.

so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.