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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Easy. The definition of "to vote" was never arbitrarily changed. Just the demographic of participating members.

And the definition of "to marry" was never arbitrarily changed. Just the demographic of participating members.

Either that OR:

If the definition of "to vote" used to be that a MAN went to the voting place and cast a ballot.
The definition was changed to be "a MAN or a WOMAN went to the voting place and cast a ballot."

I'm glad we can agree on this.

Classical understanding of the term "vote" - to enact, establish, or determine by vote. (no distinction of gender)

Classical understanding of the term "marry" - the act of creating a union between a man and a woman. (contingent on gender)

reply to post by kaylaluv

There are only two kinds of consenting adults: men and women. So by ALL, you mean TWO kinds of consenting adults. Only the demographics of each marriage has changed - not the definition.

Nope. The definition has changed from "between a man and a woman" to "between two consenting adults." If you can't see the difference there, I don't know how else to put it so that you might understand.

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

I don't see a slippery downhill slope ... I see this as a step up for civil rights.
So what's next? Perhaps less homophobic people in the world. That's be great.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

1+1 and 3-1 are by definition different equations however they are equal. So even though you say homosexual and heterosexual marriage are different why do they have to be unequal?

Clever. But irrelevant. If you would have carefully read my original post you would know that I am not making the statement that a homosexual relationship is not equal in value to a heterosexual one (which is the basis of your analogy).

reply to post by KeliOnyx

The concept of marriage predates the Bible.

Exactly. Which is why I am suggesting that to bring the Bible into this discussion is merely an obfuscation of the original point.

reply to post by scolai


We can only hope.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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

I don't see a slippery downhill slope ... I see this as a step up for civil rights.
So what's next? Perhaps less homophobic people in the world. That's be great.

Well said.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

There are only two kinds of consenting adults: men and women. So by ALL, you mean TWO kinds of consenting adults. Only the demographics of each marriage has changed - not the definition.

Nope. The definition has changed from "between a man and a woman" to "between two consenting adults." If you can't see the difference there, I don't know how else to put it so that you might understand.

But men and women are consenting adults, so why are you so afraid that two consenting adult males are allowed to marry, or two consenting adult females are allowed to marry? Why do you think that now we will have to allow non-consenting adults/children/animals to marry? You do see the difference between consenting and non-consenting, yes? You do see the difference between adults and children/animals, yes?

We have not removed consenting adults from the equation here. We have not changed things as much as you are claiming we have. There is no slippery slope from consenting adults to non-consenting or non-adult. There is no link there at all.

reply to post by FlyersFan

I don't see a slippery downhill slope ... I see this as a step up for civil rights.
So what's next? Perhaps less homophobic people in the world. That's be great.

If you say so. Perhaps we'll begin to see less aversion to pedophilia as well. Wouldn't that be great?

(And for those of you just joining the conversation, in no way am I equating pedophilia to homosexuality other than to say that neither of them fit within the classical definition of marriage).

reply to post by kaylaluv

But men and women are consenting adults, so why are you so afraid that two consenting adult males are allowed to marry, or two consenting adult females are allowed to marry? Why do you think that now we will have to allow non-consenting adults/children/animals to marry? You do see the difference between consenting and non-consenting, yes? You do see the difference between adults and children/animals, yes?

We have not removed consenting adults from the equation here. We have not changed things as much as you are claiming we have. There is no slippery slope from consenting adults to non-consenting or non-adult. There is no link there at all.

I have not made any claims that are untrue. Simply put, we are shifting the definition of marriage. Being that it is a shift, we must look forward and attempt to understand where this shift leads. The point is, if one group wants to be included in what was once exclusive, what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I don't see a slippery downhill slope ... I see this as a step up for civil rights.
So what's next? Perhaps less homophobic people in the world. That's be great.

If you say so. Perhaps we'll begin to see less aversion to pedophilia as well. Wouldn't that be great?

(And for those of you just joining the conversation, in no way am I equating pedophilia to homosexuality other than to say that neither of them fit within the classical definition of marriage).

You really don't seem to understand the concept of consenting adults.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


I find it interesting that you have yet to address the people that point out that other countries have allowed same sex marriage without falling down this slippery slope. By that same token we states that have had homosexual marriage for a while now and I have yet to see any of them entertain marriage to 8 year olds.

reply to post by kaylaluv

You really don't seem to understand the concept of consenting adults.

That's weird...cause I'm pretty sure I get it. Just because we are now redefining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, doesn't mean it won't be redefined again in the future...consenting person maybe. That's not too big of step now is it? I'm submitting that gay marriage simply won't be the end of this road. It is plausible, no likely, that in the future this will lead to legal unions that are unthinkable at present.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
if one group wants to be included in what was once exclusive, what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included.

Again, consenting adults. That's what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included. Same as it's always been in our culture. And that hasn't changed with same-sex marriage.

I believe I replied in haste, i'm sorry for the misstep

Would the classical definition not allow for pedophiles to marry?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

I find it interesting that you have yet to address the people that point out that other countries have allowed same sex marriage without falling down this slippery slope. By that same token we states that have had homosexual marriage for a while now and I have yet to see any of them entertain marriage to 8 year olds.

I don't know what exactly you would like to see me address. I can acknowledge that pedophilia hasn't been promoted in countries that have allowed same sex marriages, but that doesn't change my reason for posting this thread. We're fortunate that there haven't yet been successful efforts to legalize pedophilia (although there have been efforts). My primary intent is to point out that by adjusting the bounds of what we have known as marriage, we are setting a precedent. Simple as that.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


Heres what I think...

If two people love each other, and want to declare that in the face of their god, or via civil union, or just say it out loud in the street then it is their own perogative and not a single damn person should stand in judgement of it.

If the argument put forward is that something is against god's will, then that's for god to sort out as and when those people finally meet him/her/it and its no one else's business at all. The bible was not written by the divine, it was written by man and anyone claiming to speak for god is trying to judge the divine, and just how bloody arrogant is that?

I think a truly divine all seeing all knowing all powerful god would be perfectly capable of sorting the issue out his/her/itself should need be, and if they were dead set against homosexuality they are more than likely capable of removing every single gay person from existence. That has not happened, therefore it can be assumed that he/she/it doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, in the same manner as he/she/it seems to be perfectly ok with narrow petty minded bigotry that has no place in modern society.

People starve needlessly every day. People in some countries don't have access to clean water. Women and children are sex trafficked. Genocides occur. People get murdered. Two people of the same sex proclaiming their love for each other is the absolute least of anyone's worries, ever, and if it the worst thing that someone can think of they seriously, seriously, need to get a life.

Originally posted by Whatifitdidhappen
I believe I replied in haste, i'm sorry for the misstep

Would the classical definition not allow for pedophiles to marry?

Touché sir. Thankfully, in credit of progress there are now laws prohibiting pedophilia.

As I'm sure you already know, the crux of my argument is that in almost all societies past and present marriage is between a man and a woman. To change this one fundamental aspect sets a radical precedent...one that leaves me questioning what comes next.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You really don't seem to understand the concept of consenting adults.

That's weird...cause I'm pretty sure I get it. Just because we are now redefining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, doesn't mean it won't be redefined again in the future...consenting person maybe. That's not too big of step now is it? I'm submitting that gay marriage simply won't be the end of this road. It is plausible, no likely, that in the future this will lead to legal unions that are unthinkable at present.

I wish that people who use the "slippery slope" argument would admit that this is just a façade for something else. The real problem with these people, is that they personally find homosexuals "icky", and it really bothers them to have to share something that they have previously been able to covet as their own - that "something" being a marriage license. This "legitimizes" homosexuality in a way that really bothers these people.

Fortunately, these people are becoming a minority -- as recent polls suggest that the majority of the American population is accepting of same-sex marriage. The fact that same-sex marriage has been legal in some countries for many years now, with no ill-effects should be proof enough that the slippery slope is not a logical argument.

Seriously, OP. Don't be afraid. It's going to be alright.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


We aren't setting a precedent. The precedent has been set millennia ago, the concept and definition of marriage has constantly changed. In some cultures and religions to this day polygamy has been practiced for centuries. When Marco Polo went to China it was customary for families to offer there daughters to foreign travelers because vastly experienced women were desirable marriage material. Today in China the top cosmetic procedure is hymen replacement. In Europe there was a time when husbands and wives were within their rights to have affairs whenever they chose. In ancient Greece the most he-men of he-men were required to have sex with each other to enhance unit cohesion married or not. Marriage has changed and evolved, throughout history, it will continue to change and evolve.

Your entire argument is what will we permit as a result of gay marriage. Going so far as bringing pedophilia into the equation. An act that up until the last century was in fact a cultural norm here in these United States. The whole idea of young women marrying men their own age is actually a pretty new social construct.