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

If we do that, it opens up the gate for anyone to claim this right on the basis of "love" alone.

This isn't the first time the rules around marriage have been changed in the States. Interracial marriage. Lets not forget that. Would you say that opened up the 'gate' for gay marriage? Still having a hard time following your point.

Also...Just because someone makes a claim for something doesn't mean it's going to be automatically granted. Right? Seems obvious but your wording suggest you think it will be granted merely because they want it. You're skipping over a big chunk of the story. The whole process of deliberation.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


All your questions have been answered and your demands for proof have been supplied, yet you keep bringing them up over and over again. Read the thread. All the answers are there.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
I am just asking this simple question. If we are willing to shift the definition of what a marriage is to include homosexual couples, why shouldn't we think that other groups will demand the same rights in the future?

And your question has been answered several times. See this post by
MrSpad.

Originally posted by MrSpad
When women were giving the right to vote did people then demand that dogs and children also vote?

And the definition if marriage hasn't changed. Just the participants.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrewswhat about group marriage?

What about it? What if it became legal again? It was practiced in the bible. It's a part of our history and some people's religion. It's practiced in many countries today. As long as they are all consenting adults, why not let them marry if they want to? What are you afraid of?

Let me state that this thread is not driven by personal fear.

Yes it is. You are afraid of change and afraid that your son will grow up in a world without morals (for some reason). Every parent fears for their child. But what could possibly be wrong with people who love each other committing to spend their lives together? That doesn't indicate a lack of morals, it indicates morality. If people were all promiscuous and DIDN'T marry, then you might have a concern. But wanting to pair up, marry and have families is a pretty moral thing to do, right?

I am, however fearful for my son and the relativist, morally bankrupt world he will inevitably be subjected to grow up in.

Why do you associate people getting married with moral bankruptcy?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

What precedent? Other countries have already set this precedent and they're not having their pedos, necros, and dendros running wild marrying their philia of choice. We're late to this party and other girls are wearing our dress.

The precedent I am speaking of is the actualization that homosexual relationships can be considered a marriage. We have to keep in mind that this shift has only recently taken place. The LGBT movement has made huge strides in only the last few years. It only stands to reason that there will be other groups looking to follow suit in the coming years.

I also have to point out that there ARE less than savory movements just waiting in the wings to see their day, just as the gay rights movement has. To ignore this threat is to be complicit in their cause as far as I'm concerned.

Other girls may be wearing our dress, but frankly it looks quiet unbecoming on them.

It's been pointed out to you over and over again that there is no cultural shift to accepting criminal activity.

You are trying to compare homosexuality to kiddy fiddling, I can see this, and plenty of others can see this. You are making a carefully worded attack on gay people by constantly raising this comparison, using subtle and polite jabs to further your irrational homophobia.

The sexual exploitation of children is a criminal offense, there is a victim. This is what you are choosing to conveniently ignore. In gay partnership, or marriage, there is no victim. Why do you insist on pushing this irrational argument that sometime soon the abuse to minors will become legal, just because the acceptance of same sex partnerships has become legal?

I shouldn't really be astounded by it, but the level of complete ignorance on these forums sometimes does catch me off guard and by surprise. I mean, this is supposed to be a community of more intellectually aware people, those who can think more critically and behave more reasonably. The motto is deny ignorance FFS!

We're still seeing this BS in 2013, and it's very disappointing to me.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
The best culture can do is describe marriage (sometimes wrongly), but cannot define it.

Ultimately it is just a piece of paper / power of attorney. Significance is something the couple in question put on it..be it a medieval house unification, Victorian contract of service, true love, etc...that's all between the couple. Government standpoint should simply be of a legal variety...power of attorney as said...let the couple figure it out.

as a union between man and woman, then a homosexual relationship by definition does not qualify to be called a marriage.

Sure, simple. But times change.
Doctors are no longer just men, Golf has women players (which its very name speaks of men only)

As far as marriage is concerned, up until about 250 years ago, marriage was not a right, it was either a obligation, or simply not available due to land rights and the like. parents would often send their kids to nunnerys or the like in order to not divide up land and holdings, choosing only one person in their family as heir and arranging a marriage for land contracting more than anything else.

Traditional marriage...no, we don't want traditional marriage based on the actual traditions of the institution throughout history. Its a mess. Hollywood showing the star crossed lovers in ancient times wedding isn't an accurate portrayl. Game of thrones hits it well enough though, a father simply telling who is marrying who and who will not be married...that is close to the matter at hand. It wasn't really until the 1970s where marriage was viewed as a personal relationship between two people and not some big overbearing governmental/legal thing...since then, in my opinion, marriage signifies more than it ever has...aka, none of the govs business. Very untraditional, and finally in step with what one would consider to be the intent (a loving commitment between two verses a organized contract orchestrated by outside sources).

I find it funny that the party that is loudest about less government wants to push for traditional high government and outside influences in marriage when it should simply be a personal choice between two adults.

Less government..unless its your bedroom..then stick a politician in everyones bed.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Why is deeming a homosexual commitment a marriage a problem you mean? I have been trying to show why throughout this thread. In simple terms, a relationship between a man and a man is technically not a marriage, regardless of whether or not it looks identical to a heterosexual union in every other facet. Unless of course we change our understanding of what a marriage is. If we do that, it opens up the gate for anyone to claim this right on the basis of "love" alone. This should not be acceptable to anyone (gay or straight) considering the obvious implications.

edit on 29-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

Yes, changing marriage from man and woman to loving adult couples. consenting adults. This makes sense.

Keep in mind, "traditional marriage" allowed people to marry children in the past. It was the evolution of marriage that stopped that. Now, its being widdled down to the core basics...consenting adults.

I say no to polygamy on the front that, in regards to the state, it should only give one person full power of attorney...otherwise, I wouldn't care.

For my personal life...marriage will be one man / one woman. my preference..my neighbor may choose differently, I don't care..if my male neighbor marries a man, I will recognize them as married without any issue...as it does not effect me. Luckily he has a good sense of humor, so I will of course crack some jokes with him.

I have been prepped with this though. I am a gamer and sci-fi fanatic. Plenty of games and shows have had same sex couples as just a normal thing (set in the future), and not even batting a eyelash. and it did seem fairly normal and unremarkable. it seemed...normal, and it will be. So yes, the traditional view of marriage will evolve (again) as we become more advanced as a society and strive for actual equality

Originally posted by Rocker2013
I shouldn't really be astounded by it, but the level of complete ignorance on these forums sometimes does catch me off guard and by surprise. I mean, this is supposed to be a community of more intellectually aware people, those who can think more critically and behave more reasonably. The motto is deny ignorance FFS!

We're still seeing this BS in 2013, and it's very disappointing to me.

Just wanted to point out that you fixate on the very minority voice and paint the "community" with that? It doesn't really say anything about the community and more about yourself when you do that. Look again at this thread and see how many sensible people there are in a otherwise tin foil hat zone. All about seeing the overall positive verses hyping up the few bad seeds to a greater importance than they are.

Besides, Its good when there is opposing voices...allows for deeper thought and meaning. Trains the mind to truly consider a measure also verses just go with surface cheers.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

This isn't the first time the rules around marriage have been changed in the States. Interracial marriage. Lets not forget that. Would you say that opened up the 'gate' for gay marriage? Still having a hard time following your point.

I recognize that. I have already addressed this point, but in short...interracial marriage does and always has fallen within the boundaries of the definition of marriage. Man. Woman. This is a matter of comparing apples to oranges. Obviously "rules around marriage" have been adjusted as you have pointed out, but the topic at hand deals with changing the definition of marriage...not just adjusting the rules within its own parameter.

Also...Just because someone makes a claim for something doesn't mean it's going to be automatically granted. Right? Seems obvious but your wording suggest you think it will be granted merely because they want it. You're skipping over a big chunk of the story. The whole process of deliberation.

Yes, you are correct. What I am attempting to bring to light is this...the whole basis for allowing gay marriage is equality. If we are to shift the definition of marriage to accommodate one group of people, on the basis of equality wouldn't we also be required to do the same for another group who demands equal rights? If marriage is simply a long term commitment between two people who love each other, what is to stop say a brother and sister from being granted the same right to marry?

So, are my stump trained cows about to be legal? I can't wait.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

All your questions have been answered and your demands for proof have been supplied, yet you keep bringing them up over and over again. Read the thread. All the answers are there.

Funny, I don't remember making any demands for proof of anything. You have my word, I have read every word on this thread and taken it into account. Furthermore, I am doing my very best to give answers to those who have addressed me...at the point of feeling a bit redundant, as I am sure most of the commenters don't have the time to read the entire thread and continue to give the same arguments that I have already addressed. The point of this thread is to simply bring to light an issue that I perceive to have very serious implications for the future.

And your question has been answered several times. See this post by
MrSpad.

Interesting you would choose that particular post, as it is clearly nothing more than an ad hominem attack and a misrepresentation of my stance. In fact, if you feel so inclined you can find my response to MrSpad here.

And the definition if marriage hasn't changed. Just the participants.

Clearly by changing the participants, the definition changes. 1.) a formal union between man and woman, and 2.) a forman union between two consenting adults...seems quite straight forward to me.

What about it? What if it became legal again? It was practiced in the bible. It's a part of our history and some people's religion. It's practiced in many countries today. As long as they are all consenting adults, why not let them marry if they want to? What are you afraid of?

Wait. Is this an admission that it is likely we will be seeing other forms of marriage present themselves as a result of gay marriage? It is not necessarily group marriage I am afraid of (although I would be opposed to it for the same reasons I am not keen on the idea of calling a gay relationship a marriage). It is the fact that the door will be opened to whomever demands the right to be married on merely the premise of love.

Why do you associate people getting married with moral bankruptcy?

I don't. As marriage is between a man and a woman.

reply to post by Rocker2013

It's been pointed out to you over and over again that there is no cultural shift to accepting criminal activity.

You must be aware that homosexuality itself was deemed to be "criminal activity" in our recent past, and still is in many cultures. Now, please don't try and accuse me of trying to imply homosexuality is a crime (as I'm sure some will). In light of this simple fact, however, how can you make this assumption?

You are trying to compare homosexuality to kiddy fiddling, I can see this, and plenty of others can see this. You are making a carefully worded attack on gay people by constantly raising this comparison, using subtle and polite jabs to further your irrational homophobia.

You are entitled to this opinion, but that does nothing for you stance, and it does nothing to convince me you even remotely grasp the crux of this thread. I have never made this direct comparison, and I have already explained ad nauseam the reason for even mentioning pedophilia in this discussion. Please, if you're truly interested in my intent, go back and read more carefully.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

If we are to shift the definition of marriage to accommodate one group of people, on the basis of equality wouldn't we also be required to do the same for another group who demands equal rights?

Required? Why do you think it would be required? Was it required in the States for LGBT equality? No it wasn't required. Nor will it be in the future for these 'other groups'. See your wording again suggest they will be granted without deliberation... or voting.

It isn't as simple as group A believes in equality and group B is asking for equality.

If marriage is simply a long term commitment between two people who love each other, what is to stop ?

You're omitting important factors. It's not just about love. Actually that's not a requirement but an ideal

Marriage, including gay marriage where it's allowed, is between two human beings consenting to the union. Note 'consent' and 'human'. Additionally it's not causing harm to society. It's without victim. The only aspect that needed to be adjusted was gender. In the event of pedophilia there is a lack of consent and there is a victim. The equality supporters are not going to look at that and give it a green light. That's not equality for the victim.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


....Well for most of history there were no age requirements. Do you think that was a good or bad change to marriage?

Your picking a tiny sliver of time and saying this is when marriage was perfect, and now its all ruined. Which, in my opinion, is ignorant.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Ultimately it is just a piece of paper / power of attorney. Significance is something the couple in question put on it..be it a medieval house unification, Victorian contract of service, true love, etc...that's all between the couple. Government standpoint should simply be of a legal variety...power of attorney as said...let the couple figure it out.

No, as I have and will continue to argue, marriage is an institution that precedes government and even society. The government has chosen to recognize and encourage this institution because marriage/family is the very building block of a healthy society, (hence the contract, tax benefits, etc.). I agree that the government's involvement in marriage should continue to only be of the legal variety...the question I'm posing here doesn't so much have to do with government's involvement in marriage, but rather "what constitutes marriage?"

Sure, simple. But times change.
Doctors are no longer just men, Golf has women players (which its very name speaks of men only)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere that defines "doctor", or "golf" specifying that it is a profession/activity practiced exclusively by a gender specific role. I can acknowledge that there was a time in history when restrictions were applied to gender regarding certain activities, but these activities were never defined by this fact.

A better comparison might be the term "heir". Just because Bill Gates' next door neighbor might like to be entitled to the Gate's family inheritance, doesn't mean that they can arbitrarily change the definition of "heir" to read "a family member and/or one's next door neighbor."

I find it funny that the party that is loudest about less government wants to push for traditional high government and outside influences in marriage when it should simply be a personal choice between two adults.

Less government..unless its your bedroom..then stick a politician in everyones bed.

This assessment is quite unfair. I am not here advocating that the government should take a larger role in the matter of marriage. Furthermore, I am not trying to force anyone into your bedroom, or regulate what you do with your own freedoms. Heaven forbid.

My stance is that marriage, inside of or outside of government, is not what you would like us to believe it is. It is, and will always be, regardless of how successful the gay rights movement is at changing its fundamental definition, a union between man and woman.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Yes, changing marriage from man and woman to loving adult couples. consenting adults. This makes sense.

Maybe at face value. But have you considered the implications of this statement? If all that is required for marriage are these three qualifications: love, consent, and adulthood...wouldn't an incestuous relationship be fair game?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Required? Why do you think it would be required? Was it required in the States for LGBT equality?

No, because the definition of marriage hadn't been changed yet to include same sex couples. Now that it has been, why shouldn't we believe that it will be further expanded?

It isn't as simple as group A believes in equality and group B is asking for equality.

In my view, the gay rights movement has essentially hijacked the word equality to serve their purpose. I know that might sound alarming to you, but let me explain. Equality, in the sense that you're speaking of, is the idea that all men/women should be treated equally and offered the same freedoms and rights.

I've asked the follow question earlier on in this thread and still haven't had an answer. Maybe you could help me out. In the current debate, what right is being withheld from one individual that is granted to another?

Marriage, including gay marriage where it's allowed, is between two human beings consenting to the union. Note 'consent' and 'human'. Additionally it's not causing harm to society. It's without victim. The only aspect that needed to be adjusted was gender. In the event of pedophilia there is a lack of consent and there is a victim. The equality supporters are not going to look at that and give it a green light. That's not equality for the victim.

I agree with at least part of this statement. However, it strikes me that the definition of the word "consent" actually isn't contingent on age. It simply means to give permission. What I have pointed out throughout this thread is that there are those who are pushing to legalize pedophilia...on the argument of consent, especially considering how fickle we seem to be with definitions, I don't think there's a huge hurdle for them there.

Pedophilia aside, based on the required qualifications you just provided for marriage, should a brother and sister be allowed the same rights granted to homosexuals? Or perhaps, a father and son?

reply to post by Wertdagf

....Well for most of history there were no age requirements. Do you think that was a good or bad change to marriage?

Your picking a tiny sliver of time and saying this is when marriage was perfect, and now its all ruined. Which, in my opinion, is ignorant.

Obviously, if you've read through this thread you know that I abhor pedophilia. I don't see how this applies to my analysis of what marriage is, however.

I am not promoting the idea that laws surrounding marriage have ever been or are now ideal. I am stating that to change the fundamental definition of marriage (man/woman) will likely open up the gates for an extremely arbitrary and fickle attitude toward what should/shouldn't be allowed within its parameters.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Obviously, if you've read through this thread you know that I abhor pedophilia. I don't see how this applies to my analysis of what marriage is, however.

I am not promoting the idea that laws surrounding marriage have ever been or are now ideal. I am stating that to change the fundamental definition of marriage (man/woman) will likely open up the gates for an extremely arbitrary and fickle attitude toward what should/shouldn't be allowed within its parameters.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

Such as? I hardly think that it's going to lead to bestiality or people marrying their car or anything. What's wrong with consenting adults who love each other getting married?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I know it's a lot to ask, but if you're honestly looking for the answer to your question, it has been stated time and time again throughout this thread. I suggest you take a look.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

I know it's a lot to ask, but if you're honestly looking for the answer to your question, it has been stated time and time again throughout this thread. I suggest you take a look.

I have looked. And I'm not convinced by any of your arguments.

The original purpose of a marriage was the man making a committment to a woman to support her while she raised their children.

I don't know what it is now.