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

reply to post by Stephanos


Well.... allowing interracial marriage didn't lead to unimaginable horrors. I don't see why gay marriage is prone to being that catalyst any more than that was. Unless of course you believe gay marriage to BE that unimaginable horror that was a result of allowing interracial marriage. Doesn't sound like you do. So, I just don't see why gay marriage is being made a target for this fear.

I do have enough faith in humanity that our sense of morality won't drastically alter in a decades time andso we pay no mind to consent and age and species. We as a society would have to find no moral qualm with there being a victim in marriage. I see no evidence we are leaning in that direction. Gay marriage as a catalyst to this is a non sequitur in my strong opinion.

Originally posted by Stephanos


This is a typical response that I've seen over and over again throughout this thread. Rather than thoughtfully grappling with the questions being raised, many opt to try and frame the argument as "well if you don't agree with me, you are either a homophobe or a cave-man who's afraid to use the newly invented wheel." This sort of ad hominem behavior only hurts your case. Let's have a real discussion and parse through this like thinking adults. Change is more likely to be "for the better" if well-informed.

Everyone here HAS thoughtfully responded to the OP's questions; he just refuses to be thoughtful in response. Victims will always be victims. Allowing gays to marry will never, ever, ever change the meaning of being a victim. That is because it hurts to be a victim. Everyone has been a victim at some point in their life, so we all know how it feels. Children are the most innocent victims. Nothing the OP has said has convinced me that allowing two grown consenting adult males who WANT to be married will lead us down the path to allowing dirty old men to marry 6-year-old boys against their will, just so they can have legal sex with them. Does the OP have any proof of this slippery slope happening due to gay marriage in the past? Nope. Nothing. Only conjecture, supposition and speculation. What is my proof that gay marriage WON'T lead us down that path? We've already had gay marriage for many years in certain parts of the world. OP's fears have never materialized. It's more than any proof the OP has. Show me where I'm wrong here. Prove to me that this could really ever happen. If you can't prove it, then I'm not buying it. That's logical, isn't it?

reply to post by Darth_Prime

In terms of marriage, not be able to marry the partner of are choice,

now with the ruling on DOMA, and the steady increase in states legalizing same sex marriage, i understand we are slowly receiving those rights,

but we still had to sit around and wait whilst others voted on our 'right' to marry, we are taking steps forward, but there are many more to take, especially without the backlash of a gateway to 'Bestiality and pedophilia'

I understand where you're coming from in your desire for the option of a government sanctioned union. I also feel that it may be unfair to cast the bestiality/pedophilia card into this discussion as I believe the vast majority of the public aren't even close to accepting such things as moral. However, I can't shake the feeling that that the DOMA ruling is not the victory you may believe it to be. While I recognize that I may be repeating the OP's sentiments, the essence of the term marriage implies a man and woman. In that sense you have been afforded the same rights as everybody else and I don't see it as a logical possibility for you to "marry" a member of the same sex. I do see the potential for this ruling to set the precedent for other perhaps not so savory groups to make headway in their plight for equality. As we all know society is extremely good at adapting, but some adaptions are bent toward destruction. We must be prudent how we proceed and look at all the potential dangers involved.

Originally posted by Stephanos

I do see the potential for this ruling to set the precedent for other perhaps not so savory groups to make headway in their plight for equality. As we all know society is extremely good at adapting, but some adaptions are bent toward destruction. We must be prudent how we proceed and look at all the potential dangers involved.

What about civil unions for gays with all the same benefits as marriage? OP doesn't seem to have a problem with civil unions, as long as we don't use the word "marriage". Then what is to stop pedophiles from fighting for civil unions with 6-year-old boys? OP doesn't seem to be afraid of that slippery slope. Are you?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

It wasn't 'on a whim'. You keep insinuating it is.

After years of deliberation (as you might put it) and a healthy amount of propaganda on the subject of homosexuality, apparently the consensus is now in favor of changing the essence of marriage. So, is it a whim? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it strikes me that there is hardly any forethought given to the implications this might hold for the future...for this reason alone it seems to be at least slightly arbitrary.

Sure if that were the case I would relate to your OP. However that's not grounded in reality. Movements have to be made, they have to be convincing enough to sway Public opinion. You see this happening with bestiality? Okay you do it seems. I don't. I see no trend towards that cultural perception. I see no evidence it's congruent with our morals as they are.

When the UN grants consultative status to groups associated with the likes of NAMBLA, yes, I think there is reason for concern. I know it's a very quiet hum for the moment, but trust me, if you keep your ear to the ground you're bound to hear it coming.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Your opinion is that it will lead to all kinds of unimaginable horrors. Let's give it a hundred years and see who's right, shall we?

I doubt you'll need that many.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Either way, it strikes me that there is hardly any forethought given to the implications this might hold for the future...for this reason alone it seems to be at least slightly arbitrary.

Fair enough if that's how you feel. For me I think the proof is in the pudding as they say since gay marriages/gay equality has been established in other places for a while now. Maybe something sinister is brewing and is about to rear its head in those places.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Time will tell my friend.

BTW, thanks for sticking it out in here. Thought we lost you a few pages back.

Although with such a sensitive subject, inevitably feathers will be ruffled, I hope my intent here is clear. Progress and empathy are important to me, but not to the point of relinquishing the future.

reply to post by kaylaluv

what is to stop pedophiles from fighting for civil unions with 6-year-old boys?

We can only hope that society's ever-changing moral fortitude in which you seem to hold so much faith would.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Well.... allowing interracial marriage didn't lead to unimaginable horrors. I don't see why gay marriage is prone to being that catalyst any more than that was. Unless of course you believe gay marriage to BE that unimaginable horror that was a result of allowing interracial marriage. Doesn't sound like you do. So, I just don't see why gay marriage is being made a target for this fear.

Of course interracial marriage was a step in the right direction but I don't think it's totally fair to equate interracial marriage to same sex marriage. In fact I don't believe the two have much in common at all. Firstly, interracial marriage fits perfectly into the confines of the essence of the term "marriage." Actually it only simplifies the definition rather than broadening to it, or better yet completely changing it (which is the goal of the LGBT community). This is a profound difference in my opinion.

I do have enough faith in humanity that our sense of morality won't drastically alter in a decades time andso we pay no mind to consent and age and species. We as a society would have to find no moral qualm with there being a victim in marriage. I see no evidence we are leaning in that direction. Gay marriage as a catalyst to this is a non sequitur in my strong opinion.

This is where we drastically differ. I believe we as humans are very fickle and tend to blow with the winds of cultural trends, more-so than following our innate moral compass (though I concede that we all have a type of inbuilt morality). Whatever your view on the morality of homosexuality, you must acknowledge the rapidity of our current cultures acclamation to said lifestyle. In 2002 sodomy was still a crime in some states. Stepping back it's easy to see the extremely fast shift in cultural climate whether good or bad. Just a surface look at history will tell you that societies have a trend toward decadence and decay. Case in point, Rome. This said, I think it would be extremely arrogant to believe that we are impervious to a similar fate as a society, based on a belief that our collective sense of morality will save us.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

what is to stop pedophiles from fighting for civil unions with 6-year-old boys?

We can only hope that society's ever-changing moral fortitude in which you seem to hold so much faith would.

edit on 4-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

I really struggle to see the sanity is such assumptions.

You might as well be saying.

"Pick apples today, tomorrow we're all eating cedar bark. Obvious slippery slope."

There is absolutely no lineage between gay marriage and paedohpilia. Get a hold of yourselves.

But if you kept the fact that marriage = man and woman, what is to stop pedophiles from marrying now? not all pedophiles are gay, so a male pedophile would marry a female

how is it that same sex marriage can open the gate?

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
But if you kept the fact that marriage = man and woman, what is to stop pedophiles from marrying now? not all pedophiles are gay, so a male pedophile would marry a female

how is it that same sex marriage can open the gate?

Or what about a brother marrying his sister? Or a father marrying his daughter? They fit right into the definition of marriage (male and female). So in all the hundreds of years that we have been allowing heterosexual marriage, and we still don't allow brothers and sisters to marry. Imagine that.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Logically it only makes sense that in allowing same sex marriage it will open the door to other 'Deviant' practices



i will defend anyone's personal belief, but it's where is the logic?

reply to post by LightOrange

I really struggle to see the sanity is such assumptions.

You might as well be saying.

"Pick apples today, tomorrow we're all eating cedar bark. Obvious slippery slope."

There is absolutely no lineage between gay marriage and paedohpilia. Get a hold of yourselves.

I think you may want to go back and more carefully read what is/has been said in the context of the conversation rather than jumping to rather rash conclusions.

Nobody is equating homosexuality to pedophilia.

I agree, the only "lineage" between homosexuality and pedophilia is that neither should be recognized as marriage.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Does the OP have any proof of this slippery slope happening due to gay marriage in the past? Nope. Nothing. Only conjecture, supposition and speculation. What is my proof that gay marriage WON'T lead us down that path? We've already had gay marriage for many years in certain parts of the world. OP's fears have never materialized. It's more than any proof the OP has. Show me where I'm wrong here. Prove to me that this could really ever happen. If you can't prove it, then I'm not buying it. That's logical, isn't it?

Although you've given an impossible task as it's clearly not feasible to provide proof of a future event, you can certainly look at potential indicators. I have already sited NAMBLA's plight. Here's a small tidbit of info that might make you at least blink (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't completely desensitized to the evil that still exits in this progressive world of ours).

"Boy allegedly purchased from a Russian woman at 5 days old in 2005 by an Australian gay couple (Mark J. Newton and Peter Truong) was sexually abused by them, by other men, and used in pornography before he was 2 years old until he was removed from their care in 2011 at age 6. He was abused in numerous countries including Australia, the US, Germany and France. When originally arrested in California by the FBI, the men claimed they were being targeted because they were gay.
It is not clear how long the men were in the US before the child was removed from their care. The boy was originally claimed to be the biological son of Newton conceived by surrogacy in Russia. He may have been adopted by one of the men while they were in California using fake paperwork.

Mark J. Newton (Australian-USA dual citizen), 42, was sentenced to 40 years in prison and $400,000 in restitution to the child. His boyfriend, Peter Truong (Australian), 36, pleaded guilty but has not yet been sentenced."

P.S. I realize that evil exists everywhere, and I am in no way attempting to implicate an entire group by the actions of a few.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Everyone here HAS thoughtfully responded to the OP's questions; he just refuses to be thoughtful in response. Victims will always be victims. Allowing gays to marry will never, ever, ever change the meaning of being a victim. That is because it hurts to be a victim. Everyone has been a victim at some point in their life, so we all know how it feels. Children are the most innocent victims. Nothing the OP has said has convinced me that allowing two grown consenting adult males who WANT to be married will lead us down the path to allowing dirty old men to marry 6-year-old boys against their will, just so they can have legal sex with them. Does the OP have any proof of this slippery slope happening due to gay marriage in the past? Nope. Nothing. Only conjecture, supposition and speculation. What is my proof that gay marriage WON'T lead us down that path? We've already had gay marriage for many years in certain parts of the world. OP's fears have never materialized. It's more than any proof the OP has. Show me where I'm wrong here. Prove to me that this could really ever happen. If you can't prove it, then I'm not buying it. That's logical, isn't it?

I'm not here to defend the OP's positions. I just think we can have a thoughtful civil debate on the issue. I do understand how it can be tempting to get personal when somebody is challenging your core beliefs, but I'm sure you'd agree it's more constructive to set egos aside and disagree in a more agreeable manner.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


This made me blink too. Maybe we should ban all marriage, and ban everyone from having children too, because it's a slippery slope to child abuse.

www.abc4.com...

Originally posted by Stephanos
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Everyone here HAS thoughtfully responded to the OP's questions; he just refuses to be thoughtful in response. Victims will always be victims. Allowing gays to marry will never, ever, ever change the meaning of being a victim. That is because it hurts to be a victim. Everyone has been a victim at some point in their life, so we all know how it feels. Children are the most innocent victims. Nothing the OP has said has convinced me that allowing two grown consenting adult males who WANT to be married will lead us down the path to allowing dirty old men to marry 6-year-old boys against their will, just so they can have legal sex with them. Does the OP have any proof of this slippery slope happening due to gay marriage in the past? Nope. Nothing. Only conjecture, supposition and speculation. What is my proof that gay marriage WON'T lead us down that path? We've already had gay marriage for many years in certain parts of the world. OP's fears have never materialized. It's more than any proof the OP has. Show me where I'm wrong here. Prove to me that this could really ever happen. If you can't prove it, then I'm not buying it. That's logical, isn't it?

I'm not here to defend the OP's positions. I just think we can have a thoughtful civil debate on the issue. I do understand how it can be tempting to get personal when somebody is challenging your core beliefs, but I'm sure you'd agree it's more constructive to set egos aside and disagree in a more agreeable manner.

Just give me proof that allowing gay marriage will lead to unsavory groups receiving certain rights they didn't have before. Give me undeniable proof and I will eagerly agree with you and the OP.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by LightOrange

 

What an incredibly asinine thing to say. The definition of marriage has changed thousands of times. These changes are even in the Bible... which I'm assuming is the piece of literature that you're claiming to have knowledge of. Come on, now.

I have already acknowledged and addressed this point. Marriage certainly has been rethought, reworked, and redefined throughout history. Only within its own perimeter, however, which of course was and is between people of the opposite sex. I have yet to see evidence otherwise, and until I do, I don't see how your point does much for the rebuttal of my argument.

Your voluntary ignorance is really beginning to blow my mind. Maybe if you were a big boy you could do a quick Google search all by yourself. But alas, here it is for you:

The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple who enjoyed a celebrated gay marriage. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their gay marriage.

The very idea of a Christian gay marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian gay marriage did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

John Boswell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

earned the Ph.D. in History from Harvard University in 1975. He became a full professor at Yale University
in 1982.


The ceremonies Boswell describes
had all the contemporary symbols
of a marriage.


1. A community gathered in a church
2. A blessing of the couple before the altar
3. Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages
4. The participation of a priest
5. The taking of the Eucharist
6. A wedding banquet afterwards

Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th to early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union," uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Tere are records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

Source