What's your opinion of people who disagree with you politically?

[elprincipe]

What's your opinion of people who disagree with you politically? I mean, do you respect their opinion or think they are ignorant and/or stupid?

[Scrubking]

I have absolutely no respect for radical shit heads like Quack and some others on this board who don't have a single ounce of common sense.

I respect all other level headed ideas.

[Kaijufan]

I dont care about a person's political opinions.

[ananag112]

I respectfully disagree with their opinion. I have some hard core Bush supporting friends, and I respectfully disagree with their opinions, but still remain their friend.

[Firebrand]

What people call competent leadership I call an illusion.

[CaseyRyback]

the only people I hate are people who vote for someone because they are told to. My friend was bashing Kerry/Edwards the other day and I asked him why he felt inclined to bash that person for not removing their bumper sticker? The only reason he could give is his whole family votes republican, so he does as well. I told him not to vote again until he comes up with an opinion of his own (because basically his family votes party line no matter what, even when the republicans were extremely to the right and the democrat was moderate). If you are going to vote, make an informed decision, and do not vote for someone because you were told to

That said I have had some good debates with people who are republicans, and can agree with a lot of the things they say and not on other issues( I consider myself moderate, in a heavily leaning right state, and vote for the guy who is going to help me economically and not vote for me on some moral mandate)

[MrBadExample]

It all depends on the person and how they choose to argue their point. Reasonable people can disagree and remain reasonable.

[bignick]

I have absolutely no respect for radical shit heads like Quack and some others on this board who don't have a single ounce of common sense.

I respect all other level headed ideas.
I agree. I also hate the people that get so involved in a disagreement, you want to kick the living shit out of them. You know the ones Im talking about. The ones that cant let shit drop.

[alonzomourning23]

Depends on the argument being made, being in canada I complain just as much about idiot liberals (like one of my TA's in university who thinks we went into afghanistan because we didn't like their culture), as I do about idiot conservatives. Though, the difference being is while the arguments of some liberals I find stupid, their opinions are most likely going to be closer to mine than far right and neo cons.

[Quackzilla]

I have absolutely no respect for radical shit heads like Quack and some others on this board who don't have a single ounce of common sense.

I respect all other level headed ideas.

And you are a mild mannered polite moderate?

[alonzomourning23]

I have absolutely no respect for radical shit heads like Quack and some others on this board who don't have a single ounce of common sense.

I respect all other level headed ideas.

And you are a mild mannered polite moderate?

Heh, I can't believe either of you would complain about radicals.

[Kaijufan]

The one thing that really bothers me is political signs or stickers, especially the ones up after the elections.

[elprincipe]

The one thing that really bothers me is political signs or stickers, especially the ones up after the elections.

Yeah, that's annoying. The worst are the ones that continue to litter the highways where they were put up illegally and not removed.

[evilmax17]

I guess I'll offer up on why I picked "I think they're stupid" instead of "I respectfully disagree" (which I assume is meant to be the "mature" or "correct" answer).

I'll use the example of gay marriage, which I approve of and support. One of the main arguements against this is that it "violates the sanctity of marriage". This is being said btw, by the people who are on their third divorce. In a country where the divorce rate is at an all time high, I don't see how ANYBODY can start preaching about marriage being sacred.

If you want to ban gay marriage on the principle that "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman", then ban divorce as well. I don't "respectfully disagree" with this hypocratic bigotry, I think it's idiocy.

[elprincipe]

I guess I'll offer up on why I picked "I think they're stupid" instead of "I respectfully disagree" (which I assume is meant to be the "mature" or "correct" answer).

I'll use the example of gay marriage, which I approve of and support. One of the main arguements against this is that it "violates the sanctity of marriage". This is being said btw, by the people who are on their third divorce. In a country where the divorce rate is at an all time high, I don't see how ANYBODY can start preaching about marriage being sacred.

If you want to ban gay marriage on the principle that "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman", then ban divorce as well. I don't "respectfully disagree" with this hypocratic bigotry, I think it's idiocy.

There is no "correct" answer. I was just interested to see people's attitudes towards those who have a different point of view.

On the gay marriage issue, a question for you as a supporter of legalizing it. Would you also allow bigamy or polygamy? Personally I don't see the difference between those things. What about siblings marrying? After all, they might love each other and that's nobody else's business to deny them that right, right?

[Heyricochet]

On the gay marriage issue, a question for you as a supporter of legalizing it. Would you also allow bigamy or polygamy? Personally I don't see the difference between those things. What about siblings marrying? After all, they might love each other and that's nobody else's business to deny them that right, right?

You don't see the difference? Do you not think a marriage between two people, and marriage between multiple people, or multiple marriages are all different? Its obviously different things, one is between two people, the others have lots of people. And two people of the same sex won't have the ramifications that two siblings would have together. Its already been proven that incest can make extremely messed up kids because of the gene pools being the same. Gay marriage makes no kids, thus it is free of the reason that siblings shouldn't be together.

[elprincipe]

On the gay marriage issue, a question for you as a supporter of legalizing it. Would you also allow bigamy or polygamy? Personally I don't see the difference between those things. What about siblings marrying? After all, they might love each other and that's nobody else's business to deny them that right, right?

You don't see the difference? Do you not think a marriage between two people, and marriage between multiple people, or multiple marriages are all different? Its obviously different things, one is between two people, the others have lots of people. And two people of the same sex won't have the ramifications that two siblings would have together. Its already been proven that incest can make extremely messed up kids because of the gene pools being the same. Gay marriage makes no kids, thus it is free of the reason that siblings shouldn't be together.

No, I don't see the difference. The argument for gay marriage is that the government has no right to deny marriage to people who love each other. Therefore, why deny it to three people who love each other? Four? Five? Etc. Why should the government deny their right to marry and have their lifestyle choice accepted but allow gays to marry legally?

[Pylis]

Good point.

[evilmax17]

Your examples don't really apply to the situation, even though they all involve marriage situations that currently aren't legal. Your whole arguement is a pretty big slippery slope: "well if we let the gays marry, soon we'll have to let EVERYONE MARRY! People with animals!"


A few things:

The first thing that i see wrong with the legalization of Polygamy are the potential benefits. Would the tax-breaks be proportional to the number of spouses? If that is the case, it can be easy to see how quickly this would be exploited. Morally, I don't agree with this. Note: I morally think that gay marriage is fine. I'll explain later.

Siblings marrying? The genetic consequences of them having children are something to consider. Knowingly concieving children that will be genetically deformed should be considered abuse. So, two siblings getting together wouldn't be "their own business", as a child would be directly and adversely affected by this. Again, morrally i don't agree with this at all, and the comparison between this and gay marriage is silly.

I guess a person's view on this more-or-less hinges on the way they view homosexuality: as a sexual preference or as a disease. In NO way can incest be looked at as anything other than a disorder (the product of a traumatic upbringing, or severe sexual abuse). Polygamy could theoretically be looked at as a sexual preference, so it's slightly more valid of an arguement. If that's your thing, go to Utah, I hear there's plenty of it there. As it stands however, there is no need to even address this issue. If there were millions of pro-polygamists lobbying for equal rights, then maybe we would delve into the issue a little deeper. If you believe that homosexuality is a disease, then well, I can't argue with you because I don't agree with it at all (and I would think that you're stupid :wink: ). But, I believe that homosexuality can be a natural thing. There is enough evidence to show that homosexuals can live in and promote healthy family environments, that they are normal people who function just like everybody else in society, and as I said before, can be more deserving of marriage than many of the heterosexual couples that marry today.

So what are your thoughts on divorce and marriage, both hetero and homo?

[JSweeney]

I have absolutely no respect for radical shit heads like Quack and some others on this board who don't have a single ounce of common sense.

I respect all other level headed ideas.

And you are a mild mannered polite moderate?

Heh, I can't believe either of you would complain about radicals.

Technically, I think one would be a radical and the other a reactionary :)

[Scrubking]

Gay marriage is a pandora's box. As soon as it was mentioned people started suing to be able to legalize marrying 20 wives and crap.

There are two choices in the matter: leave things the way they are now or open the door for incest marriage, animal/human marriage, human/alien marriage, etc.

There is NO way around it cause if gays have the right to get married (they don't), then any couple no matter how ridiculous has the same right.

[JSweeney]

Your examples don't really apply to the situation, even though they all involve marriage situations that currently aren't legal. Your whole arguement is a pretty big slippery slope: "well if we let the gays marry, soon we'll have to let EVERYONE MARRY! People with animals!"

Start tinkering with one type of activity that defies a social norm, and your going to have to deal with all of the other related issues.
It would be completely hypocritical to say that homosexual marraige would be ok, but polygamy should still be illegal.
Incest is different because of the medical risk it would put any offspring in, and thus saying that homosexaul marriages should be legal and incest illegal is far more tenable.


The first thing that i see wrong with the legalization of Polygamy are the potential benefits. Would the tax-breaks be proportional to the number of spouses?

Does it really matter? That's really a non-issue when considering the morality and necessity of a change in laws.

If that is the case, it can be easy to see how quickly this would be exploited.

Marriage can already be used as a tax shelter. A change like legalizing polygamy wouldn't change that. Heck, if they legalized same sex marriage, business partners could enter a legal union for the expressed purpose of creating a tax shelter. People could use your same thinking as a con point for the legalization of same sex marriage.

Morally, I don't agree with this.
That's deeply hypocritical.

Note: I morally think that gay marriage is fine. I'll explain later.
I'll be waiting.

Siblings marrying? The genetic consequences of them having children are something to consider. Knowingly concieving children that will be genetically deformed should be considered abuse. So, two siblings getting together wouldn't be "their own business", as a child would be directly and adversely affected by this. Again, morrally i don't agree with this at all, and the comparison between this and gay marriage is silly.

Technically, it isn't silly when comparing them on the basis that both are unions that violate current societal norms. However, I do agree that there is a societal benefit for having incest be illegal.

I guess a person's view on this more-or-less hinges on the way they view homosexuality: as a sexual preference or as a disease. In NO way can incest be looked at as anything other than a disorder (the product of a traumatic upbringing, or severe sexual abuse).

That seems fairly shortsighted.


Polygamy could theoretically be looked at as a sexual preference, so it's slightly more valid of an arguement. If that's your thing, go to Utah, I hear there's plenty of it there.

Heck, why don't you just tell homosexual people to move to San Fransico?
Both statements are just terrible distasteful, hateful, and bigoted.
You're not doing your point of view any benefit by saying something like that.


As it stands however, there is no need to even address this issue.
As it stand, I see no real need to address homosexual marriage.
Of course, gay men and women would disagree with me. Just like poligamists would disagree with you.
So far, you're post is just rife with hypocrisy.


If there were millions of pro-polygamists lobbying for equal rights, then maybe we would delve into the issue a little deeper.

Why is it any more wrong that one's class' rights are being trampled, but because another class is less vocal that thier rights are less important and less valid to be concidered?
Which way to you want it? If homosexuality is sexual preference, you can't downplay the viability of poligamy. If homosexuality is a disorder, you couldn't downplay the viability of incest.

If you believe that homosexuality is a disease, then well, I can't argue with you because I don't agree with it at all (and I would think that you're stupid :wink: ).

Yet you quickly relegate incest to the same fate. You realize that this includes stepfamilies, where the children could be of legal age, and of no blood relation to the stepparent? (and possibly even the same age)?
While it's distasteful in the eyes of some, so is homosexuality.


But, I believe that homosexuality can be a natural thing. There is enough evidence to show that homosexuals can live in and promote healthy family environments, that they are normal people who function just like everybody else in society, and as I said before, can be more deserving of marriage than many of the heterosexual couples that marry today.

Yet you talk down poligamy? There's more proof of poligamy as being natural (look at pack animals. The alpha male is often the sire of every single child in that pack.)
You're letting your beliefs blind you. That's a dangerous place to be in.

[CTLesq]

Because after all - shouldn't every thread be a gay marriage thread?

How fucking irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I don't have a problem with people on this forum and I could give a shit if they have a problem with me.

I do this for amusement and amusement only, when that ends I leave.

I would offer one final comment though. The biggest problem with forums such as this is that you either whole heartedly support Position A, Candidate B, or News Story C. There is NEVER any middle ground. Never.

CTL

[JSweeney]

Because after all - shouldn't every thread be a gay marriage thread?
Well, treadjackings help all of the time.

How shaq-fuing irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Perhaps, but there are more polite ways to deal with it.
Threadcrapping rarely tends to help.

I don't have a problem with people on this forum and I could give a shit if they have a problem with me.
That statement seems severely lacking in empathy, almost as if you don't realize that on the other end of these posts there are actual human beings, and not just machines spitting out random posts per some obtuse AI.

I do this for amusement and amusement only, when that ends I leave.
That seems very selfish.

I would offer one final comment though. The biggest problem with forums such as this is that you either whole heartedly support Position A, Candidate B, or News Story C. There is NEVER any middle ground. Never.

There is plenty of middle ground. But people in the middle ground don't tend to post 15 times in a thread in a half hour. Because of this, they usually get drowned out in the furor taking place around them.

[CTLesq]

Well, treadjackings help all of the time.
Perhaps, but there are more polite ways to deal with it.
Threadcrapping rarely tends to help.

I didn't offer my comment to help. I offered it because that was my opinion. Apparently it was my time of the month to realize, oh gee another gay marriage topic, I wonder what old ground we can retread on this subject in a thread that has nothing to do with it.

That statement seems severely lacking in empathy, almost as if you don't realize that on the other end of these posts there are actual human beings, and not just machines spitting out random posts per some obtuse AI.

And? Let me suggest something. As far as opinions go and caring about what other people think I care only about two of them. My wife's and ther person that pays me every two weeks. I advise everyone else to do the same. I think you may value internet "friends" and internet "opinions" too much if you reading that much, or that little, into my position.

That seems very selfish.

And? Did I sign a contract of get sent here to do community service by a judge?

There is plenty of middle ground. But people in the middle ground don't tend to post 15 times in a thread in a half hour. Because of this, they usually get drowned out in the furor taking place around them.

Meaning there is no middle ground.

CTL

[JSweeney]

I didn't offer my comment to help. I offered it because that was my opinion.

Good for you. Try to actually say something insightful or interesting next time.


Apparently it was my time of the month

Apparently.

to realize, oh gee another gay marriage topic, I wonder what old ground we can retread on this subject in a thread that has nothing to do with it.

The offshoot, while not strictly part of the topic, flowed naturally from the thread. Politely stating your issue would have better served your purpose.
An incediary post such as you made is only going to spark discontent.


And? Let me suggest something. As far as opinions go and caring about what other people think I care only about two of them. My wife's and ther person that pays me every two weeks.

Ah, the traditional badge of honor of the ignorant: Self Importance.

I advise everyone else to do the same. I think you may value internet "friends" and internet "opinions" too much if you reading that much, or that little, into my position.

I respect others and thier right to have thier own beliefs. While I may argue fiercely against them, I still believe they have the right to thier opinion. Respecting that right does not tacitly imply value being place upon it.

Disrespect of others opinons usually implies either argogance or ignorance, or often both.


And? Did I sign a contract of get sent here to do community service by a judge?

You reap what you sow. If you act like an ass and foster an air of disconcent, arrogance or conciet, you creat a fertile group for like behaviors to grow. I tend to find that people of your opinion don't get along well with others with similar mindsets but opposing opinions.

Meaning there is no middle ground.

There is plenty of middle ground. Despite the fact that the bulk of posts are made by the more radical or reactionary, posts are often full of one or two posts from multiple posters that hold an opinion somewhere in the middle ground.

[CTLesq]

Good for you. Try to actually say something insightful or interesting next time.

Again you comment under the mistaken impression I post for anyone but myself.

The offshoot, while not strictly part of the topic, flowed naturally from the thread. Politely stating your issue would have better served your purpose. An incediary post such as you made is only going to spark discontent.

And then proceeded to consume the thread until I posted. As for incendiary it certainly got your attention did it not?

Ah, the traditional badge of honor of the ignorant: Self Importance.

Self-assured.

I respect others and thier right to have thier own beliefs. While I may argue fiercely against them, I still believe they have the right to thier opinion. Respecting that right does not tacitly imply value being place upon it.

Did I state you or anyone else is not entitled to an opinion? Or did I state I could care less about your opinion? Nice jump you made.

Disrespect of others opinons usually implies either argogance or ignorance, or often both.

Disrespect of people on the internet? You are joking.....

Is this comprable to internet dating relationships where two people have never met but are in love?

You reap what you sow. If you act like an ass and foster an air of disconcent, arrogance or conciet, you creat a fertile group for like behaviors to grow. I tend to find that people of your opinion don't get along well with others with similar mindsets but opposing opinions.

That may be because people care about other people's opinions on the internet. If they didn't care they wouldn't take it personally.

There is plenty of middle ground. Despite the fact that the bulk of posts are made by the more radical or reactionary, posts are often full of one or two posts from multiple posters that hold an opinion somewhere in the middle ground.

Keep telling yourself that. Its one side or the other. You either support propostion A or you don't. As for there being 2 out of 10 posters in a thread that hold the middle ground, I think that makes my point.

CTL

[bignick]

... human/alien marriage...

If it was a humanoid female, I would be down with it.

[JSweeney]

Again you comment under the mistaken impression I post for anyone but myself.

It must take amazing flexibility to fold yourself over like a garment bag so often.

And then proceeded to consume the thread until I posted. As for incendiary it certainly got your attention did it not?

It will likely continue after the involved parties log back on.
This will likely just be a short digression.
Then, after than argument peters out a new one will spark off.
This thread will be great for that, because it provides such a welcoming soapbox for someone to post thier opinoin... if anything, the gay marriage debate shows that.

Self-assured.
Poise? You?
Plan to make a claim to decorum and tact next?



Did I state you or anyone else is not entitled to an opinion? Or did I state I could care less about your opinion? Nice jump you made.

Not much of a jump.



Disrespect of people on the internet? You are joking.....
Just because you're not looking at them face to face doesn't mean they aren't any more entitled to at least a modicum of decorum.

Is this comprable to internet dating relationships where two people have never met but are in love?
Not at all. I guess the illusion of anonymity gives you a little feeling of power where you can just spout your little missives and not expect any reprocussion... since it's just your opinion.

That may be because people care about other people's opinions on the internet. If they didn't care they wouldn't take it personally.

Yet again, you show your complete lack of respect for others opinion.
Just because the conversation takes place on the internet doesn't make the argument any less valid than if it were in a public place or through written text.


Keep telling yourself that. Its one side or the other. You either support propostion A or you don't. As for there being 2 out of 10 posters in a thread that hold the middle ground, I think that makes my point.

How can there be 2 out of 10 posters in a thread that are holding the middle ground if there is no middle ground?
Opinions are a continuum.

For ten people, the average distribution would be...

2 radicals, 2 liberals, 2 holding the middle ground, 2 conservatives, and 2 reactionaries.

Most of the more fierce arguments happen when these numbers get skewed to either end, but there still is often people occupying the middle ground.

[camoor]

Gay marriage is a pandora's box. As soon as it was mentioned people started suing to be able to legalize marrying 20 wives and crap.

There are two choices in the matter: leave things the way they are now or open the door for incest marriage, animal/human marriage, human/alien marriage, etc.

There is NO way around it cause if gays have the right to get married (they don't), then any couple no matter how ridiculous has the same right.

Ahhh the good ol' slippery slope. You can't legalize same-sex marriage, because then you have to legalize sex with goats!

This makes no sense. Why would allowing marriage between people lead to inter-species marriage, or marriages that would be genetically dangerous for prodigy? Where is the logical connection here?

The attitudes against homosexuality are just a taboo that's part of the American mythos of the rugged frontier man and his emotional but strong wife. These attitudes are propped up by selectively reading passages of the bible (the same thing was done to support slavery in the south and it's similar to the way clerics in the in the middle east use the koran to support Jihad) Unfortunately, it's not a harmless prejudice, as many people's lives are hurt or destroyed.

If you are worried about the spread of AIDS, you should let gays marry so they can be monogomous. If you want to do the just and humane thing you should let them marry.

[JSweeney]

Ahhh the good ol' slippery slope. You can't legalize same-sex marriage, because then you have to legalize sex with goats!

This makes no sense. Why would allowing marriage between people lead to inter-species marriage, or marriages that would be genetically dangerous for prodigy? Where is the logical connection here?

I've got to agree there. That's just an unsound argument.

The attitudes against homosexuality are just a taboo that's part of the American mythos of the rugged frontier man and his emotional but strong wife. These attitudes are propped up by selectively reading passages of the bible (the same thing was done to support slavery in the south and it's similar to the way clerics in the in the middle east use the koran to support Jihad) Unfortunately, it's not a harmless prejudice, as many people's lives are hurt or destroyed.

True. That's a big reason for the difference in viewpoints between the US and Europe. Of course, I'd hate to even think of what the persecution is like in the Middle East.

If you are worried about the spread of AIDS, you should let gays marry so they can be monogomous. If you want to do the just and humane thing you should let them marry.

But camoor, why should the government invade the domain of religion?
Civil unions are great, and should be offered without delay, and should be treated as if they were marriages in terms of benefits and financial matters. The big problem here is that you have religious and state insitutions intertwined here.

[CTLesq]

JSweeney: enjoy having the last word.

[camoor]

But camoor, why should the government invade the domain of religion?
Civil unions are great, and should be offered without delay, and should be treated as if they were marriages in terms of benefits and financial matters. The big problem here is that you have religious and state insitutions intertwined here.

Good point. If you want to name it a civil union, and give it all the legal rights of marriage, you have my vote.

However I thought there were some legal differences between how the govt recognizes civil unions and marriages.

[Heyricochet]

The first thing that i see wrong with the legalization of Polygamy are the potential benefits. Would the tax-breaks be proportional to the number of spouses?

Does it really matter? That's really a non-issue when considering the morality and necessity of a change in laws.


Thats actually one of the main reasons that gay marriage is such a big deal, they want equal rights to tax breaks and hospital visitation rights and other such things.

[Dead of Knight]

As long as they're not assholes about it, I respect their opinion. For example, this nice junior girl (I'm a senior) who had been in my history classes for 10th and 11th grade (due to moving from one school to another in 10th) noticed my Kerry sticker on my folder and I asked who she liked. She said Bush, and ended it there. THAT is fine.

But when my aunt, who is an ex-nun and considered the matriarch of the family (she holds a Xmas Eve party annually), sent me a right-wing website's article on how Bush supposedly scored more on the Army IQ test than Kerry that used the "dirty" L-word like it was the c or f word.... well then, I blew my top.

[elprincipe]

Well, you and JSweeney have pretty much thoroughly discussed this subject, but since this was in response to me I'll add a couple of comments perhaps.

The first thing that i see wrong with the legalization of Polygamy are the potential benefits. Would the tax-breaks be proportional to the number of spouses? If that is the case, it can be easy to see how quickly this would be exploited. Morally, I don't agree with this. Note: I morally think that gay marriage is fine. I'll explain later.

I don't see why this makes any difference. We're not talking about the details of benefits, but what is right and wrong and what is fair. You could easily get around the benefits for all spouses thing anyway. I don't see why this is an issue.

Siblings marrying? The genetic consequences of them having children are something to consider. Knowingly concieving children that will be genetically deformed should be considered abuse. So, two siblings getting together wouldn't be "their own business", as a child would be directly and adversely affected by this. Again, morrally i don't agree with this at all, and the comparison between this and gay marriage is silly.

I don't know that the comparison is that silly, but I agree with the argument you're making about this sort of union possibly harming children. What if two sisters wanted to marry? I don't think that's any different than two non-related women, do you? I mean, they can't concieve with each other's genetic material and cause birth defects, can they?

IPolygamy could theoretically be looked at as a sexual preference, so it's slightly more valid of an arguement. If that's your thing, go to Utah, I hear there's plenty of it there.

What an ignorant and bigoted remark. You obviously know little to nothing about Utah, Mormons and the history of both.

As it stands however, there is no need to even address this issue. If there were millions of pro-polygamists lobbying for equal rights, then maybe we would delve into the issue a little deeper.

So let me get this straight, if you are a very small minority with no real political voice or power it's okay to trample your rights?

But, I believe that homosexuality can be a natural thing. There is enough evidence to show that homosexuals can live in and promote healthy family environments, that they are normal people who function just like everybody else in society, and as I said before, can be more deserving of marriage than many of the heterosexual couples that marry today.

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, how do you explain homosexuality as natural?

So what are your thoughts on divorce and marriage, both hetero and homo?

Personally, as long as the government isn't getting involved in religion, I'm pretty much oblivious. I feel states should have the right to decide what their governments recognize consistently with the wishes of those states. I also feel that some states shouldn't force their will on others through courts. In any case, even if marriage wasn't allowed, I don't see why gay couples couldn't just sign legal agreements giving each other the same rights as a spouse.

[camoor]

But, I believe that homosexuality can be a natural thing. There is enough evidence to show that homosexuals can live in and promote healthy family environments, that they are normal people who function just like everybody else in society, and as I said before, can be more deserving of marriage than many of the heterosexual couples that marry today.

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, how do you explain homosexuality as natural?


Homosexuality is natural (from a scientific standpoint).

The theory of evolution postulates that many genetic traits (originally occuring in a mutation) will naturally occur in a given species, and the traits that aid a species to survive or procreate have a greater likelihood of being passed around the gene pool. However there are also plenty of anti-survival/procreation mutations running around the human gene pool, such as low sperm count, stupidity, physical handicaps, allergies, and just plain ugliness. All of these, including homosexuality, are naturally occuring genetic traits or mutations.

Remember, just because someone has homosexual tendencies doesn't mean that they can't (and won't) make babies.

PS I am not defining homosexuality as a negative trait or disease. I'm just pointing out that it's an anti-procreation trait.

[evilmax17]

If you are worried about the spread of AIDS, you should let gays marry so they can be monogomous. If you want to do the just and humane thing you should let them marry.

But camoor, why should the government invade the domain of religion?
Civil unions are great, and should be offered without delay, and should be treated as if they were marriages in terms of benefits and financial matters. The big problem here is that you have religious and state insitutions intertwined here.

Since when does marriage = religion? Are you saying that atheists can't get married? I was under the assumption that while you CAN marry through the church, you could also marry through the state.

And I thought there were differences between marriage/civil-union also. If they're exactly the same (minus the name), then yeah, it's a pretty silly arguement. Regardless of WHATEVER you call it, I think that both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be entitled to the exacy same benefits through the state.

[David85]

I voted that they are evil, but I think everyone is evil so thats ok.

It matters through, a lot of people are idoits, like Quack, and Scrubking, and others are missinformed.

[Drocket]

Just to explain why gay marriage can/should be allowed and human/goat marriages are not:

Marriage is ultimately a form of a contract between two people (but lets use the term 'being' instead of human for this dicusssion, to avoid any pro-human bias.) One of the neccessary attributes for entering into a contract is that both parties must be rational and able to make informed decisions. You cannot enter into a contract with a 4 year old because 4 year olds are not considered to be capable of thoughtful, rational decisions. Neither is a goat.

Now, if you can prove that goats are capable of deep rational thought, then by all means, you should have the right to marry one. Since goats DON'T have that sort of mental capacity, you inherently can't enter into a contract with a goat. So no marrying a goat, and no selling them a car, either.

The same argument would apply to aliens, too, BTW: If you can prove that aliens are sentient, rational beings (and if they managed to build a spaceship and fly it all the way here, then presumably they are), then by all means you should have the right to marry one.

Also, for the record, I'm pro-gay marriage, and pro-multi-marraige (assuming that all involved have agreed to this, of course.) People have the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. In terms of marrying siblings, the key concern there would be any potential offspring who may suffer genetic problems. Because they're doing something that could potentially hurt others, it IS fair and right for society to step in. If one or both parties would be willing to be sterilized, preventing any possible offspring, then I really don't see a problem with them marrying. Of course, I think EVERYONE should be sterilized and only given permission to reproduce after they pass some basic parenting tests :twisted:

[Scrubking]

David85, you are the idiot - especially if you lack the intelligence to compare me with Quack. Nobody on CAG compares with him.

This makes no sense. Why would allowing marriage between people lead to inter-species marriage, or marriages that would be genetically dangerous for prodigy? Where is the logical connection here?

The logical connection is that if gays can have marriage then others will want it too. This IS a fact people. Wake up and realize that this will happen once you open the door. It's has already been proven so stop trying to argue it.

[evilmax17]

David85, you are the idiot - especially if you lack the intelligence to compare me with Quack. Nobody on CAG compares with him.

This makes no sense. Why would allowing marriage between people lead to inter-species marriage, or marriages that would be genetically dangerous for prodigy? Where is the logical connection here?

The logical connection is that if gays can have marriage then others will want it too. This IS a fact people. Wake up and realize that this will happen once you open the door. It's has already been proven so stop trying to argue it.

I said it before, but you're using the Slippery Slope fallacy. I learned about it in a high school ethics class, but I'm sure it can be picked up in many other places. Here's a wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's really quite silly.

[Scrubking]

What part of history don't you want to accept that when gays started asking for marriage rights everyone started coming out of the woodwork and doing the same?

It happened, but thankfully on a small scale. Go all the way with gay marriage and it will blow up in your face.

[camoor]

This makes no sense. Why would allowing marriage between people lead to inter-species marriage, or marriages that would be genetically dangerous for prodigy? Where is the logical connection here?

The logical connection is that if gays can have marriage then others will want it too. This IS a fact people. Wake up and realize that this will happen once you open the door. It's has already been proven so stop trying to argue it.

Huh? So what if the inter-species/genetic-danger marriage advocates want it? The government just doesn't give everybody what they want. The government should grant it's citizens rights based on what is fair. I firmly believe fairness dictates that you grant marriage rights to gays and not to inter-species/genetic-danger groups.

Your position is insulting. When America granted women the right to vote, it did not result in granting kids under 18 or animals the right to vote too. Yet somehow granting homosexuals the right to marry (or civil-unionize) will lead to people getting married to goats and their sisters.

Besides, giving gays their right to marry is the morally correct thing to do. America shouldn't be a place where you don't grant someone their due rights just because it's going to be hard to legislate and protect these rights.

[JSweeney]

But camoor, why should the government invade the domain of religion?
Civil unions are great, and should be offered without delay, and should be treated as if they were marriages in terms of benefits and financial matters. The big problem here is that you have religious and state insitutions intertwined here.

Good point. If you want to name it a civil union, and give it all the legal rights of marriage, you have my vote.

However I thought there were some legal differences between how the govt recognizes civil unions and marriages.

There are. That's actually a major problem I have. I really think that all current marriages should be deemed civil unions, and then any religion they follow can then "marry" them.

The system as it stands is ridiculous, but as it's stands, it's very hard to remove the centuries of religous precedent in the ceremony and status of "married".

The reason this is a problem is because marriage is still a "religous" concept with legal acknowldgements of status thrown on top.

Until someone reworks the system, this inherent issue will keep coming up.

[JSweeney]

If you are worried about the spread of AIDS, you should let gays marry so they can be monogomous. If you want to do the just and humane thing you should let them marry.

But camoor, why should the government invade the domain of religion?
Civil unions are great, and should be offered without delay, and should be treated as if they were marriages in terms of benefits and financial matters. The big problem here is that you have religious and state insitutions intertwined here.

Since when does marriage = religion? Are you saying that atheists can't get married? I was under the assumption that while you CAN marry through the church, you could also marry through the state.

And I thought there were differences between marriage/civil-union also. If they're exactly the same (minus the name), then yeah, it's a pretty silly arguement. Regardless of WHATEVER you call it, I think that both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be entitled to the exacy same benefits through the state.

I don't disagree with you at all on that. Everyone should be afforded equal protection under the law. The issue is so tight a coupling between a legal and religious status and concept. Because of this tightness of coupling, it does allow religion to complain (with a decent amount of validty) about the state corrupting "marriage".

Unfortunately, since no one is about to go back and rewrite centuries of case law, this is a problem that isn't going anywhere.
Of course, nothing would make me happier than seperating the civil and religious aspects of marriage.

[elprincipe]

But, I believe that homosexuality can be a natural thing. There is enough evidence to show that homosexuals can live in and promote healthy family environments, that they are normal people who function just like everybody else in society, and as I said before, can be more deserving of marriage than many of the heterosexual couples that marry today.

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, how do you explain homosexuality as natural?


Homosexuality is natural (from a scientific standpoint).

The theory of evolution postulates that many genetic traits (originally occuring in a mutation) will naturally occur in a given species, and the traits that aid a species to survive or procreate have a greater likelihood of being passed around the gene pool. However there are also plenty of anti-survival/procreation mutations running around the human gene pool, such as low sperm count, stupidity, physical handicaps, allergies, and just plain ugliness. All of these, including homosexuality, are naturally occuring genetic traits or mutations.

Remember, just because someone has homosexual tendencies doesn't mean that they can't (and won't) make babies.

PS I am not defining homosexuality as a negative trait or disease. I'm just pointing out that it's an anti-procreation trait.

I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.

Now look, before anyone goes off the handle here, I don't care if people are gay. I really don't. I don't care what you do in your sex life and I don't believe you should care about mine. However, you can't deny that on the one hand the theory of evolution is against it, and on the other every mainstream religion...

[David85]

Oh yes like women asking for rights when they were getting married, and then interracail marriage, now gay marriage.

It's all leading to the end of the world, it's all those damn womens fault that wanted to have rights when they got married and not be sold (ended in 1887), or could legally be raped by their husbands (legal until 1974).

It's the wemon that started the "slippery slope" we most take their rights away to save the world.

Like I said, you are a dumbass.

[camoor]

I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.


By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)

[Scrubking]

Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:

[camoor]

Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:

Yeah and now if a father rapes a daughter, the daughter can't abort the baby without the rapist father's consent. Obey thy father! Hooray for the New Moral Order!

[Scrubking]

Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:

Yeah and now if a father rapes a daughter, the daughter can't abort the baby without the rapist father's consent. Obey thy father! Hooray for the New Moral Order!

Hoorayy for heavy handed, blanket solutions to all problems1!!!!!11

[David85]

I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.


By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)


What people don't get about evolution (besides the people that say there is no proof, then believe God did everything because he's god) is that in evolution the species needs to find ways to live, some birdes get smaller beaks, others get longer ones. But then if there are too many the species still might die because they are fighting for food. Now gays won't have any kids, most of them, and that would help the birth rate and is a polulation control.

That is the problem with Right Winged Relgious Wackos, they think marriage is about having kids, but then when asked what straight people who don't wants kids should be allowed to marry they have some fucked thing they say.

[camoor]

Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:

Yeah and now if a father rapes a daughter, the daughter can't abort the baby without the rapist father's consent. Obey thy father! Hooray for the New Moral Order!

Hoorayy for heavy handed, blanket solutions to all problems1!!!!!11

Last time I looked, it wasn't the progressives who were sewing the ten commandments into their robes or trying to tack their religious beliefs onto the US Constitution.

[DCriminal]

Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.

[JSweeney]

Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.

I still think that bigamy and polygamy would have to be revisited.
Incest and bestiality would have no ground to stand on, as the actives on thier surfuce are detrimental to the human condition, introducing genetics/diseases that are dangerous to the continued existance of the human race (This is especially dangerous considering that HIV is believed to be disease that was first transfered to a human from an animal.)

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.

Some people take that argument to far and create a slippery slope, but to deny one activity whose basis is similar to the one you're championing and declaring it null and void is completely hypocritical.

[elprincipe]

I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.


By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)

The way I read the theory of evolution is obviously different from the way you read it then. As I read it, there should be no homosexuality through genetics unless through mutation. I don't see how natural selection would select for a trait that causes 0 genes to be passed on. Even in your instance only two of three children pass their genes on instead of three of three. It's less effective. Due to the long period of time over which the theory of evolution is regarded to have taken place, that difference would amount to an extinction of that trait, unless somehow you can point to some evidence that homosexual tendencies have a positive effect on passing on your genes or no effect.

As for your miscarriages, birth defects, etc. those are not phenomena that normally occur. Those are caused by defective genes, not normal ones, or by some sort of outside influence early in development like drugs. There are some rare genetic diseases that are that serious, yet nowhere near the portion of homosexuals thought to in the general population (~1 percent).

[elprincipe]

Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.

I still think that bigamy and polygamy would have to be revisited.
Incest and bestiality would have no ground to stand on, as the actives on thier surfuce are detrimental to the human condition, introducing genetics/diseases that are dangerous to the continued existance of the human race (This is especially dangerous considering that HIV is believed to be disease that was first transfered to a human from an animal.

No one answered my query about two sisters or two brothers who might want to get married? Is that okay then, taking this to its ultimate conclusion? I mean, they can't conceive through their relationship, obviously.

[camoor]

I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.


By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)

The way I read the theory of evolution is obviously different from the way you read it then. As I read it, there should be no homosexuality through genetics unless through mutation. I don't see how natural selection would select for a trait that causes 0 genes to be passed on. Even in your instance only two of three children pass their genes on instead of three of three. It's less effective. Due to the long period of time over which the theory of evolution is regarded to have taken place, that difference would amount to an extinction of that trait, unless somehow you can point to some evidence that homosexual tendencies have a positive effect on passing on your genes or no effect.

As for your miscarriages, birth defects, etc. those are not phenomena that normally occur. Those are caused by defective genes, not normal ones, or by some sort of outside influence early in development like drugs. There are some rare genetic diseases that are that serious, yet nowhere near the portion of homosexuals thought to in the general population (~1 percent).

OK, this is a scientific discussion and I didn't major in biology.

However there have been great civilizations in the past where a majority of the population was bisexual. Yet now it's all been whiped out due to the miracle of evolution and christ, and the only remnants of it are mutants.

How do you explain an American prison under this neat theory?

[Drocket]

No one answered my query about two sisters or two brothers who might want to get married? Is that okay then, taking this to its ultimate conclusion? I mean, they can't conceive through their relationship, obviously.
Its fine with me. Well, a bit more accurately, I think its a bit tasteless and tacky, at the very _least_, but I don't think that its government's job to enforce good taste. so yes, I think they should have the legal right to do so. Of course, its their neighbor's legal right to smirk and giggle.

[David85]

Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.


Just like it you like a black women would be a "preference" over a whit ewomen?

You truely are an idiot.

[JSweeney]

Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.


Just like it you like a black women would be a "preference" over a whit ewomen?

You truely are an idiot.

David, quiet down and let the grown-ups talk.
If you have something productive, informative, or interesting to say, go ahead and post. This trainwreck of a post you made could hardly be considered any of the above. Any type of proposed change to a norm adhered to by a society will lead to the examination of other related situations. Suggesting that if you allow homosexual to marry that everyone will be running to marry thier brother, sister or dog is ridiculous, but having to reexamine other types of unions previously banned only on moral grounds is completely reasonable. As terrible as it is, that was frowned upon based on a societal norm.
Yes, that is disgusting, but it was the way it was. But, it didn't shake the foundations of what the institution of marriage was... it was one man and one woman.

It really isn't unreasonable to think that if people redefined marriage to allow men and men, or woman and woman that people would start questioning why 2 men and one woman, or vice versa, could not marry.

To suggest that marraiges would then be non-standard polygamist, incesteous or to parters outside of the human race is pure folly.
But to suggest that such a radical redefinition of marriage wouldn't spark of demands for other changes is just as foolhardy.

[elprincipe]

I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.


By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)

The way I read the theory of evolution is obviously different from the way you read it then. As I read it, there should be no homosexuality through genetics unless through mutation. I don't see how natural selection would select for a trait that causes 0 genes to be passed on. Even in your instance only two of three children pass their genes on instead of three of three. It's less effective. Due to the long period of time over which the theory of evolution is regarded to have taken place, that difference would amount to an extinction of that trait, unless somehow you can point to some evidence that homosexual tendencies have a positive effect on passing on your genes or no effect.

As for your miscarriages, birth defects, etc. those are not phenomena that normally occur. Those are caused by defective genes, not normal ones, or by some sort of outside influence early in development like drugs. There are some rare genetic diseases that are that serious, yet nowhere near the portion of homosexuals thought to in the general population (~1 percent).

OK, this is a scientific discussion and I didn't major in biology.

However there have been great civilizations in the past where a majority of the population was bisexual. Yet now it's all been whiped out due to the miracle of evolution and christ, and the only remnants of it are mutants.

How do you explain an American prison under this neat theory?

I don't deny that there have been homosexuals throughout history. That is obvious. However, we are arguing whether it's genetic or not, not whether it exists. Behavior can be learned, even with no genetic tendencies, not to mentioned genetic determinations. I feel that if you take the theory of evolution as fact then it's very hard to make a good argument that there is a gene that selects people to be homosexual.

[jmcc]

Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.


Just like it you like a black women would be a "preference" over a whit ewomen?

You truely are an idiot.

David, quiet down and let the grown-ups talk.
If you have something productive, informative, or interesting to say, go ahead and post. This trainwreck of a post you made could hardly be considered any of the above. Any type of proposed change to a norm adhered to by a society will lead to the examination of other related situations. Suggesting that if you allow homosexual to marry that everyone will be running to marry thier brother, sister or dog is ridiculous, but having to reexamine other types of unions previously banned only on moral grounds is completely reasonable. As terrible as it is, that was frowned upon based on a societal norm.
Yes, that is disgusting, but it was the way it was. But, it didn't shake the foundations of what the institution of marriage was... it was one man and one woman.

It really isn't unreasonable to think that if people redefined marriage to allow men and men, or woman and woman that people would start questioning why 2 men and one woman, or vice versa, could not marry.

To suggest that marraiges would then be non-standard polygamist, incesteous or to parters outside of the human race is pure folly.
But to suggest that such a radical redefinition of marriage wouldn't spark of demands for other changes is just as foolhardy.

I believe it's called a slippery slope argument, actually, and it's a common rhetorical technique. Of course, it's a logical fallacy as well and, as such, shouldn't really be taken seriously, despite it's common use these days, especially when arguing against gay rights.

David's point wasn't supported the best, since I don't know that interracial marriage was ever officially against the law, but it's a good direction to debate. The question he should have posed would be: when gays were allowed civil unions, did pedophiles and bestialitists (word?) come out of the woodwork and demand that they be allowed civil unions with the children/animals they were with?

[JSweeney]

I believe it's called a slippery slope argument, actually, and it's a common rhetorical technique.

Only if you want to conceed any argument at that point.
That fallacy will lead to the systematic picking apart of what you say.
O

Of course, it's a logical fallacy as well and, as such, shouldn't really be taken seriously, despite it's common use these days, especially when arguing against gay rights.

There is a difference between suggesting that amending marriage laws will likely lead to discussion about other currently taboo unions being less restricted, and suggesting that that the change would lead to everyone marrying thier sister and/or dog.
One is a slippery slope fallacy. The other is not.


David's point wasn't supported the best, since I don't know that interracial marriage was ever officially against the law, but it's a good direction to debate.

It was phrased much better before he brought it up, and discussed in more reasonable and logical terms. More likely, he wanted to use that comment to mount a personal attack.
It's hard to argue he doesn't when he begins a bulk of his posts with "You idiot", or "You Dumbass".

Yes, it is a good point. But it was discussed with more decorum and more politely before David brought it up. Had he brought it up in a manner more civil, like you have, then I'd be more likely to dicuss it rather than immediately dismiss him.

The question he should have posed would be: when gays were allowed civil unions, did pedophiles and bestialitists (word?) come out of the woodwork and demand that they be allowed civil unions with the children/animals they were with?

Pedophila is much more taboo than homosexuality. Someone openly admitting they are a pedophile would land them in jail and on the sex offender's registry. The same cannot be said for homosexuals, except maybe in some towns that go apeshit and overenforce anti-sodomy laws.

Bestiality would never be granted protection under law because there is a benefit to society from prevent people from having sex with animals... it prevents the transfer of diseases from animal to human... many of which the human immune system would likely not handle well.

[Quackzilla]

Actually, children and animals cannot legally consent to sex.

Adults can, and animals can have sex with each other.

But without consent, sex is rape. Rape is illegal.

[jmcc]

I believe it's called a slippery slope argument, actually, and it's a common rhetorical technique.

Only if you want to conceed any argument at that point.
That fallacy will lead to the systematic picking apart of what you say.
O

Of course, it's a logical fallacy as well and, as such, shouldn't really be taken seriously, despite it's common use these days, especially when arguing against gay rights.

There is a difference between suggesting that amending marriage laws will likely lead to discussion about other currently taboo unions being less restricted, and suggesting that that the change would lead to everyone marrying thier sister and/or dog.
One is a slippery slope fallacy. The other is not.


David's point wasn't supported the best, since I don't know that interracial marriage was ever officially against the law, but it's a good direction to debate.

It was phrased much better before he brought it up, and discussed in more reasonable and logical terms. More likely, he wanted to use that comment to mount a personal attack.
It's hard to argue he doesn't when he begins a bulk of his posts with "You idiot", or "You Dumbass".

Yes, it is a good point. But it was discussed with more decorum and more politely before David brought it up. Had he brought it up in a manner more civil, like you have, then I'd be more likely to dicuss it rather than immediately dismiss him.

The question he should have posed would be: when gays were allowed civil unions, did pedophiles and bestialitists (word?) come out of the woodwork and demand that they be allowed civil unions with the children/animals they were with?

Pedophila is much more taboo than homosexuality. Someone openly admitting they are a pedophile would land them in jail and on the sex offender's registry. The same cannot be said for homosexuals, except maybe in some towns that go apeshit and overenforce anti-sodomy laws.

Bestiality would never be granted protection under law because there is a benefit to society from prevent people from having sex with animals... it prevents the transfer of diseases from animal to human... many of which the human immune system would likely not handle well.

Uh-huh. Again: were there or were there not protestors trying to get civil unions legalized for every fringe sexuality under the sun coming out en masse when homosexuals were allowed them? It simply doesn't follow that allowing gays to get married would mean every group of perverts in the country would demand the same treatment, nor would it mean that the government would have to give in to their demands if they did.

[JSweeney]

Uh-huh. Again: were there or were there not protestors trying to get civil unions legalized for every fringe sexuality under the sun coming out en masse when homosexuals were allowed them? It simply doesn't follow that allowing gays to get married would mean every group of perverts in the country would demand the same treatment, nor would it mean that the government would have to give in to their demands if they did
Perverts? Who are you to say the life practiced by bigamists and polygamists is perverse? That seems more like a religious, moral or ethical distiction that anything else.

You're lumping arguments together. My arguments are far from the slippery slope arguements offered by so of the other posters, yet you continue to try and attack them as if they were.

Anyways, how are you using as the baseline for this assumption that there was not an increase in the demands for equal treatment of poligamists? Media reports? Minutes from the sessions of state congresses? To suggest that there was no push by others groups with non-standard beliefs is hard to do... just because a group doesn't have a successful lobby or the ear of the mass media doesn't mean that there aren't groups out there working towards those aims.

I've not said that anything is a certainty, but if you're going to review the standards on how you define marriage to suit one group with non-standard practices, it's disengenous at best, and hypocritical at worst to exclude all other non-standard groups just because they lack the lobbying power that another group has.

To suggest that two men or two women have more of a right to marry than two women and one man, or two men and one woman is deeply hypocritical.

[jmcc]

Uh-huh. Again: were there or were there not protestors trying to get civil unions legalized for every fringe sexuality under the sun coming out en masse when homosexuals were allowed them? It simply doesn't follow that allowing gays to get married would mean every group of perverts in the country would demand the same treatment, nor would it mean that the government would have to give in to their demands if they did.

Perverts? Who are you to say the life practiced by bigamists and polygamists is perverse? That seems more like a religious, moral or ethical distiction that anything else.

You're lumping arguments together. My arguments are far from the slippery slope arguements offered by so of the other posters, yet you continue to try and attack them as if they were.

Anyways, how are you using as the baseline for this assumption that there was not an increase in the demands for equal treatment of poligamists? Media reports? Minutes from the sessions of state congresses? To suggest that there was no push by others groups with non-standard beliefs is hard to do... just because a group doesn't have a successful lobby or the ear of the mass media doesn't mean that there aren't groups out there working towards those aims.

I've not said that anything is a certainty, but if you're going to review the standards on how you define marriage to suit one group with non-standard practices, it's disengenous at best, and hypocritical at worst to exclude all other non-standard groups just because they lack the lobbying power that another group has.

To suggest that two men or two women have more of a right to marry than two women and one man, or two men and one woman is deeply hypocritical.

I don't think I said anything about multiple partner relations. My point is, there's nothing historically or logically to indicate that letting homos get married would lead to the mass anarchy a lot of people say it will.

Frankly, though, I'm behind the idea I think you brought up earlier. Marriage should not be recognized at all by the government, technically. Everyone who wants to get together should join in a civil union and then if they want to get married, they're free to do that, but the marriage shouldn't carry any special rights or privileges like it does now, as far as I'm concerned. Then everyone would be on even footing, but the religious could still keep gays out of their sacred bonding rituals.

[Moxio]

It depends. There can be a rival who has a respectable perspective, and there can be an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[zionoverfire]

To suggest that two men or two women have more of a right to marry than two women and one man, or two men and one woman is deeply hypocritical.

True but society is often quite hypocritical with plenty of ambigious double standards. Maybe in 10 years Gays will be allowed to marry because society tolerates it and perhaps in another few decaced 10 people could all marry eachother.

The one thing that has always gotten me is the sanctity of marriage bit. Marriage was originally a government creation then it became church run and in america it again fell under the government's control. Yet people seem to insist that there is a sanctity to it, some sort of holly aura in a quite mechanical process regulated by the government

I find it equally odd that so many people run around claiming we must protect the sanctity of marriage by declaring that marriage is a union between a man and a women yet I never hear them saying marriage must be a union between 1 man and 1 women, I suppose they mean to imply it but you'd really think while they are off banning gay marriage they'd ban the poligamists too.