"Polygamy would have to be permitted"

[fix]

I’m much more opposed to gay marriage than polygamy. There’s an historic precedent and current financial need that justifies polygamy - neither can be said for gay marriage.

Right, same sex so called marriage is objectively much more grave.

 

[markeverett49]

Right, same sex so called marriage is objectively much more grave.

In his book “50 Questions on Natural Law,” Charles Rice includes a passage in which Aquinas argues that homosexual acts are worse than incest. (That was not the purpose of the passage, which was to make clear the worst act in this “genus” (-venereal actions), which is what call homosexual acts.

I think one reason the Bible speaks of this as a sin that cries out to heaven is that it perverts the understanding of all other acts in the genus.

 

[BillP]

So you’d totally be ok with polygamy and incest?

Yes, providing all parties are capable of giving consent, yes.

And, because “consent” isn’t in the nature of non-sentient beings at all, you’d be ok with someone, say, marrying their dog?

Dog can’t give consent, so no, there’s no marrying one’s dog.

 

[fix]

Yes, providing all parties are capable of giving consent, yes.

Dog can’t give consent, so no, there’s no marrying one’s dog.

Dogs do not give consent to be owned either. So what?

 

[SamH]

Dogs do not give consent to be owned either. So what?

Nor do they give consent to being bred.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

What is consent anyway?

Nothing a lil moral relativism cant amend.

 

[markeverett49]

Nor do they give consent to being bred.

Or going to the vet!

 

[seeker5133]

Marriage legally is a contractual state and dogs, horses, cats, nor any nonhuman animal have the legal ability to give consent. Minors it is recognized by the state do not yet have the reason to fully give consent.

Incest is illegal for reasons of genetics and the abnormalities it causes. Polygamy is a horse of a different color however and whether or not it is legalized it dosen’t matter. it all comes down to this point.

1. This entire thread is arguing a logical fallacy,namely, the slippery slope.
2. SSM doesn’t harm your marriage unless of course your spouse isn’t telling you something.
3. No one is forcing you to marry anyone.
4. No church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or group will be require to preform SSM if it is violation of their consciounce. This is guarenteed by the establishment clause of the first amendment.

it comes down to this little bit of advice i will give.
If you don’t like SSM don’t marry some one of the same sex, but your disapproval doesn’t give you the right to infringe upon my rights to do so if i choose.

I would be the same as if i were to say i don’t like alcohol and try to get prohibition reintroduced without an exception for churches.

 

[SamH]

If you don’t like SSM don’t marry some one of the same sex, but your disapproval doesn’t give you the right to infringe upon my rights to do so if i choose.

I would be the same as if i were to say i don’t like alcohol and try to get prohibition reintroduced without an exception for churches.

That’s the attitude I like to hear, kind of like:

If you don’t like slavery don’t own one.

 

[fix]

Marriage legally is a contractual state and dogs, horses, cats, nor any nonhuman animal have the legal ability to give consent. Minors it is recognized by the state do not yet have the reason to fully give consent.

That can be redefined on a dime just like homosexual “marriage”. Not etched in stone. You can buy an animal and you can give consent for an animal. No problem there.

Incest is illegal for reasons of genetics and the abnormalities it causes.

Not all are fertile or want children. No reason incest must be illegal.

Polygamy is a horse of a different color however and whether or not it is legalized it dosen’t matter. it all comes down to this point.

Polygamy is more reasonable then homosexual marriage.

1. This entire thread is arguing a logical fallacy,namely, the slippery slope.
2. SSM doesn’t harm your marriage unless of course your spouse isn’t telling you something.
3. No one is forcing you to marry anyone.
4. No church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or group will be require to preform SSM if it is violation of their consciounce. This is guarenteed by the establishment clause of the first amendment.

it comes down to this little bit of advice i will give.
If you don’t like SSM don’t marry some one of the same sex, but your disapproval doesn’t give you the right to infringe upon my rights to do so if i choose.

I would be the same as if i were to say i don’t like alcohol and try to get prohibition reintroduced without an exception for churches.

If you do not like arson do not commit one.

 

[seeker5133]

I am going to reply to two post here so bear with me please,

If you don’t like slavery don’t own one… slavery is not a consentual state while a SSM would be.

Arson is damaging the proporty of another while same sex marriage is doing noone harm.

 

[fix]

I am going to reply to two post here so bear with me please,

If you don’t like slavery don’t own one… slavery is not a consentual state while a SSM would be.

Arson is damaging the proporty of another while same sex marriage is doing noone harm.

People may agree to be slaves. That is consent.

Homosexual marriage hurts everyone in particular children.

 

[seeker5133]

I fail to see how SSM hurts children in any way, shape, or form. And by the way that same argument has been used before specifically in the debates about interracial marriage.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Who says arson hurts anyone? If one sets an abandoned building on fire I fail to see how that harms anyone in any way shape or form.

 

[fix]

I fail to see how SSM hurts children in any way, shape, or form. And by the way that same argument has been used before specifically in the debates about interracial marriage.

How is skin color equal to behavior?

Children have rights!

They ought not be denied a mother and father so two men or women can pretend to be mother and father. This is common decency and common sense.

 

[fix]

Who says arson hurts anyone? If one sets an abandoned building on fire I fail to see how that harms anyone in any way shape or form.

True and if a father and son wish to marry and have children how are the children harmed? They can adopt. No medical problems. I see no reason they ought to be denied marriage equality by the haters.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

I fail to see how SSM hurts children in any way, shape, or form. And by the way that same argument has been used before specifically in the debates about interracial marriage.

Why cant i use the womens locker rooms and restrooms?

They used to segregate blacks from whites, you know.

 

[fix]

Why cant i use the womens locker rooms and restrooms?

They used to segregate blacks from whites, you know.

Equal rights now!

 

[signit]

This is key right here, and it’s really what I was trying to say in the other thread:

Marriage legally is a contractual state and dogs, horses, cats, nor any nonhuman animal have the legal ability to give consent. Minors it is recognized by the state do not yet have the reason to fully give consent.

Marriage, by law, involves consent.

A same-sex adult couple can provide consent (even thiough I personally disagree with SSM). An adult-child couple cannot (the child cannot give full consent) and a human-animal couple certainly can’t.

For that reason, there is still a big gap between what’s before the Supreme Court (adult SSM) and some of the things that people are posting about in this thread and elsewhere. It would take a big step beyond simple adult SSM to change our laws to eliminate the consent requirement. It would take another big step to extend the marriage status to non-humans.

The thing I’m concerned about, as a Catholic, is how ridiculous these arguments must sound to others. The same-sex couple in my town may not share my religious beliefs, but I’ll bet they’re not interested in marrying minors or animals, and they’d be highly offended and insulted if they heard such an argument.

There’s a SSM debate coming up on local radio, and I am really worried that Catholics are going to call in and start in about adult-child marriage or human-animal marriage, and make us look like crazy people to the rest of the world.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

This is key right here, and it’s really what I was trying to say in the other thread:

Marriage, by law, involves consent.

A same-sex adult couple can provide consent (even thiough I personally disagree with SSM). An adult-child couple cannot (the child cannot give full consent) and a human-animal couple certainly can’t.

For that reason, there is still a big gap between what’s before the Supreme Court (adult SSM) and some of the things that people are posting about in this thread and elsewhere. It would take a big step beyond simple adult SSM to change our laws to eliminate the consent requirement. It would take another big step to extend the marriage status to non-humans.

The thing I’m concerned about, as a Catholic, is how ridiculous these arguments must sound to others. The same-sex couple in my town may not share my religious beliefs, but I’ll bet they’re not interested in marrying minors or animals, and they’d be highly offended and insulted if they heard such an argument.

There’s a SSM debate coming up on local radio, and I am really worried that Catholics are going to call in and start in about adult-child marriage or human-animal marriage, and make us look like crazy people to the rest of the world.

It took a big step to legalize SSM.
And heterosexuals should be highly offended to see gay marriage trying to be claimed as equal to traditional marriage the same way gays feel offended when their marriages are.compared to a bestialist’s marriage.