US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

as long as it is not like a cult where these old guys are marrying 13 year olds and the women all look like little house on the prarie

Oh! Absolutely! We're talking about consenting adults, as in any "traditional" marriage. But when people hear polygamy, many do think about the forced marriages of children, which is despicable.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So if gay marriage is ruled legal, that means polygamy will be next. There is no logical reason for polygamy to be illegal if gay marriage is legal.

You may be right. And I would support that, too. What possible reason would there be to deny polygamous marriages? I can see the state (or feds) putting restrictions on some things, like tax benefits, healthcare benefits, to prevent one man from marrying 10 women to give them all health care. That may end up costing the state (or feds) a lot of money. But to let one person marry multiple partners? I don't see an issue.

That's my point. There is a slippery slope and I suspect polygamy will have to be ruled ok as well as marriage between immediate family members. We are basically redefining marriage to be a legal construct between consenting adults. So if that is the case, then there is no logical reason to keep a man from having two or three wives or a woman from having two or three husbands. Nor is there a reason for preventing brother and sister or other close family members from marrying.

Government regulates marriage because marriage traditionally has been viewed as good for society. While it is certainly religious in nature too, that isn't necessarily why government is involved. Marriage to me is more than just some legal construct. I'm not religious. In fact, I pretty much agnostic. I got married in an art museum with some questionable art pieces on the wall, but I still view marriage as a sacred commitment to another person.

I'm not "for" gay marriage, but I don't really give a damn enough to really care one way or another. However, I do know that if gays can get married, then there will be other marriages that also need to be legal.

a reply to: Edumakated

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. It invalidates everything you said.

I'm pretty sure I know how this is going end up, and I'm pretty excited about it!

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Edumakated

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. It invalidates everything you said.

How is it a logical fallacy? You cannot logically say it is ok for two men or two women to be married but then say it is illegal for one man and three women to be married. Who are you to say that one man can't love three different women? Who are you to say that a brother can't love a sister or a cousin? The operative phrase is "consenting adults".

The logically fallacy is in saying that gay marriage would open the door to say some guy deciding to marry his dog. But even then, why not? The only reason I can think of to say he can't is because the dog technically can't consent, but people leave inheritances to pets all the time. Why not marry one? After all, marriage is just a legal contract remember? As long as the dog isn't being abused who is society to say who a man can love?

Yes, there is a slippery slope. And no, I don't agree that bans on interracial marriage are the same as bans on gay marriage.

a reply to: Edumakated

It is a logical fallacy. Try googling it if you "don't understand". Everything you say invalidated. If you want to be taken seriously use adult arguments. You argue like you're four.

a reply to: Edumakated

You're right, the nanny state needs to stop telling us who we are allowed to marry.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I would like to "Ban The Government" out of marriage.

Marriage is a social, legal, and sometimes religious union.

There should be no "wins or losses" because someone is single, married, etc.

Seeing as how legality is entirely a function and expression of the government. By your own argument marriage being a legal issue makes it a government one.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So if gay marriage is ruled legal, that means polygamy will be next. There is no logical reason for polygamy to be illegal if gay marriage is legal.

You may be right. And I would support that, too. What possible reason would there be to deny polygamous marriages? I can see the state (or feds) putting restrictions on some things, like tax benefits, healthcare benefits, to prevent one man from marrying 10 women to give them all health care. That may end up costing the state (or feds) a lot of money. But to let one person marry multiple partners? I don't see an issue.

If polygamy were to become legal I'd turn marrying immigrants into a full time job.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Edumakated

It is a logical fallacy. Try googling it if you "don't understand". Everything you say invalidated. If you want to be taken seriously use adult arguments. You argue like you're four.

And you are arguing like you don't have a position to stand on. Next I supposed you'll just say I'm racist or a bigot without providing logic or reasoning for your position.

If you are going to debate, then clearly state why you think something is wrong. My position is simply that it is logically inconsistent to support gay marriage, but to then say polygamy shouldn't be legal.

The entire argument for gay marriage is based on that you have two consenting adults of the same sex who want to be married and that it is discrimination to prevent them from being married and claiming any all legal benefits of marriage. If this is true, then what logical reason do you have for saying that polygamy should not be legal? I can tell you unequivocally, any argument you have against polygamy would also apply to gay marriage. Therefore, it is a slippery slope because you cannot be for one and not the other without being a hypocrite. The courts will see this and as soon as gay marriage is completely legal, you will see challenges to support making polygamy legal. Slippery slope.

originally posted by: Edumakated
We are basically redefining marriage to be a legal construct between consenting adults.

That's what the legal construct has ALWAYS been. A secular contract between people and the state.

So if that is the case, then there is no logical reason to keep a man from having two or three wives or a woman from having two or three husbands. Nor is there a reason for preventing brother and sister or other close family members from marrying.

I don't see any reason for brothers and sisters not to marry, either. They shouldn't have children, but if they want to marry each other, why not?

Marriage to me is more than just some legal construct. I'm not religious. In fact, I pretty much agnostic. I got married in an art museum with some questionable art pieces on the wall, but I still view marriage as a sacred commitment to another person.

I agree with you. MY marriage was in the courthouse and no religious words were included, but it's a cherished commitment to me.

I'm not "for" gay marriage, but I don't really give a damn enough to really care one way or another. However, I do know that if gays can get married, then there will be other marriages that also need to be legal.

That may or may not happen. And I don't really see any reason to be against it. It doesn't affect my marriage one bit.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


That may or may not happen. And I don't really see any reason to be against it. It doesn't affect my marriage one bit.

And that is what it all boils down to. It seems to me that people against gay marriage are truly afraid that something terrible is going to happen - either to their community or to their own marriage. These are groundless fears.

This will promote stability in the community, it's good for the economy, and many gays who get married end up adopting children who have been stuck in the foster care system nightmare, offering them loving homes. This is a GOOD thing, not a terrible thing to be afraid of. If your religion is against it, then don't marry someone of the same gender. No one will force you to. If you have a good marriage, it will endure, regardless of whether gays get a marriage license or not. Don't be afraid - change isn't always bad.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Edumakated

It is a logical fallacy. Try googling it if you "don't understand". Everything you say invalidated. If you want to be taken seriously use adult arguments. You argue like you're four.

If you would step down off your pedestal maybe you would realize who the one arguing 'like you're four' is.
Maybe if you stopped trying to belittle your 'opponent' and contribute to an 'adult' discussion, you would be taken 'seriously'.

Personally I don't care about the subject, but hate to see people using tactics like you.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hopefully they allow each state to make their own decision....Government shouldn't be allowed to make states do it that don't want to....The people need to vote, not the government telling!

There is that pesky little thing called the 14th Amendment, that says states cannot make laws that treat their citizens differently...

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
What kind of world are we living in Benevolent Heretic???

A Crazy Chicken World... (First noted by "The Bowler" in Mystery Men)

The logical next step is single people will argue that benefits afforded married couples are discriminatory, and they'd be right

originally posted by: Jamie1
The logical next step is single people will argue that benefits afforded married couples are discriminatory, and they'd be right

Hey, I'm all for the government getting OUT of marriage and not offering any "incentives", etc. Hopefully, sometime in the future, that will happen. But in the meantime, since there IS a structure called "marriage" that's regulated by the state and federal governments, it should be applied equally to all citizens.

Right on schedule.

Same time frame that was taken with anti-miscegenation laws. SCOTUS had to finally get involved to keep the South from denying inter-racial marriages.

originally posted by: Jamie1
The logical next step is single people will argue that benefits afforded married couples are discriminatory, and they'd be right

Personally, I'm hoping the next step is plural marriages.

a reply to: TheArrow

Yep, they are pretty much using the same playbook here.

a reply to: stosh64

Oh ya? Next time I'll just let him get away with an intellectually dishonest argument.... not! I deny him and his flawed stances.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: stosh64

Oh ya? Next time I'll just let him get away with an intellectually dishonest argument.... not! I deny him and his flawed stances.

Oh ya? I'm right your wrong, your stupid and I'm smart so just shut up. That's what you come across like.

That argument goes across on youtube quite well. But on ATS a little more is usually expected.

ETA: To post on subject, get married to whatever you want.

Do what though wilt, right?