"Polygamy would have to be permitted"

[RobbyS]

It hurts them in two ways. First, children are increasingly taught that having “two dads” or “two mommies” is equivalent to having a mother and a father. This is false, yet it is still taught. Further, anyone who questions this is judged to be judgmental (-ironic, that, but the irony is lost on those doing it.) Second, children raised by same-sex couples are raised away from at least one parent (-which is sub-optimal) and confused about the link between the love of a man and a woman and the birth of a child.

The laws against inter-racial marriage are a good argument AGAINST same-sex “marriages.” Those laws were “fiddling with something that wasn’t broke,” they were seeking to enforce through law a misguided view of what society should be like. Those laws were aberrations, not the norm of marriage law. They show how such laws can go terribly wrong. (Yet for all that error, the minds behind this were right about one thing: if a mixed-race couple wed, they WOULD be married, whereas a same-sex couple cannot make a marriage, regardless of what they call it. It is rarely mentioned that an ASSUMPTION of the argument of same-sex “marriage” is that ‘marriage is whatever people call it’ but they also say ‘anyone who doesn’t call same-sex couplings a marriage is really really really wrong because they really really really are.’ If things are only what people call them, them those who call same-sex couplings a marriage are, by their own lights, not right (-there is no right or wrong here) but simply more or less conventional.)

Indeed, the laws forbidding interracial marriages were necessary because a black man who has sex with a white woman is as likely to have a child as a white man is. It was part of the “apartheid” or racial caste system, which still exists although not by law.

 

[signit]

The consent card does not work. Consent can be redefined just like marriage. In fact, it is insulting to pretend that such a barrier cannot be overcome given that at no time in history has marriage ever include same sex persons. The argument works well. The problem is not the argument at all. The problem is that those that want to distort reality take offense at the truth.

Back to your post, why do you think consent can be redefined? How could it be redefined? Would the American people actually support redefining it? And extending it to animals? While your post leaves me thinking, I can’t see this ever happening, and instead of bringing up animal marriage, we should be putting our best foot forward.

I just got a link from Facebook called “How to Explain Gay Rights to an Idiot” (not the word I would use) in which the author explains that marriage to children, animals, or inanimate objects is impossible beause of the consent issue and also says that someone else tried to make the argument that people could give their possessions consent to marry. Maybe this ought to show us how ridiculous we look when we make these arguments.

 

[SamH]

Indeed, the laws forbidding interracial marriages were necessary because a black man who has sex with a white woman is as likely to have a child as a white man is. It was part of the “apartheid” or racial caste system, which still exists although not by law.

Where do you live?

 

[fix]

Back to your post, why do you think consent can be redefined? How could it be redefined? Would the American people actually support redefining it? And extending it to animals? While your post leaves me thinking, I can’t see this ever happening, and instead of bringing up animal marriage, we should be putting our best foot forward.

I just got a link from Facebook called “How to Explain Gay Rights to an Idiot” (not the word I would use) in which the author explains that marriage to children, animals, or inanimate objects is impossible beause of the consent issue and also says that someone else tried to make the argument that people could give their possessions consent to marry. Maybe this ought to show us how ridiculous we look when we make these arguments.

Consent has been redefined in the past and will be in the future. Take suicide for an example. It used to be that one could not give consent to murder themselves, now in some states it is perfectly legal to consent to kill yourself.

Marriage consent is the lowest form of legal consent as I was told.

Once you mis-define marriage anything goes and I mean anything.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Back to your post, why do you think consent can be redefined? How could it be redefined? Would the American people actually support redefining it? And extending it to animals? While your post leaves me thinking, I can’t see this ever happening, and instead of bringing up animal marriage, we should be putting our best foot forward.

I just got a link from Facebook called “How to Explain Gay Rights to an Idiot” (not the word I would use) in which the author explains that marriage to children, animals, or inanimate objects is impossible beause of the consent issue and also says that someone else tried to make the argument that people could give their possessions consent to marry. Maybe this ought to show us how ridiculous we look when we make these arguments.

Fifty years ago, people said the same thing about gay marriage. “I cant ever see this happening”

Fast forward fifty years from now, bestialty will be a non issue. Who knows what the next abomonation from THAT point will be. Scary.

If you want to.see the way our society is headed look to Holland. Ive read they allow public sex, killing of adolescents, euthanasia, gay marriage, considering pedophilia. Does that spund.like a good society? They say their crime rates are so low, thats only because they have redefined crime as well.

 

[signit]

Consent has been redefined in the past and will be in the future. Take suicide for an example. It used to be that one could not give consent to murder themselves, now in some states it is perfectly legal to consent to kill yourself.

That’s still “consent” as we know it, though. The law changed from “we won’t allow you to consent to it” to “we allow you to consent to it.”

That’s not the same as saying we can force someone to “consent” to something.

I do realize that with consent to suicide there are going to be problems of proof that the consent was really genuine, for example, that it wasn’t a relative coercing someone to give “consent” to get that pesky sick person out of the way.

 

[signit]

Fifty years ago, people said the same thing about gay marriage. “I cant ever see this happening”

Fast forward fifty years from now, bestialty will be a non issue. Who knows what the next abomonation from THAT point will be. Scary.

See, I don’t agree. I can’t honestly see bestiality being okay, ever.

The person who would support SSM for members of other faiths would most likely still oppose bestiality because of the consent issue (as I posted earlier). An animal is being dragged into the relationship that is not consenting, and that’s animal abuse. I can’t see that being legalized fifty years from now, and if it were close to legalization the vast majority of Americans would step up to oppose it.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

See, I don’t agree. I can’t honestly see bestiality being okay, ever.

The person who would support SSM for members of other faiths would most likely still oppose bestiality because of the consent issue (as I posted earlier). An animal is being dragged into the relationship that is not consenting, and that’s animal abuse. I can’t see that being legalized fifty years from now, and if it were close to legalization the vast majority of Americans would step up to oppose it.

Maybe bestiality will.not be supported by SSM supporters but.it will be supported (and is right now on a small scale) by bestiality supporters.

And pedophilia by pedophilia supporters.

And incest by incest supporters.

And.so on. I think people get confused and think that were claiming gays will support the others.

 

[fix]

That’s still “consent” as we know it, though. The law changed from “we won’t allow you to consent to it” to “we allow you to consent to it.”

Ok, so that can be the same with marriage too.

That’s not the same as saying we can force someone to “consent” to something.

I do realize that with consent to suicide there are going to be problems of proof that the consent was really genuine, for example, that it wasn’t a relative coercing someone to give “consent” to get that pesky sick person out of the way.

There is nothing cannot be changed. Approval of homosexual unions is perfect proof.

 

[signit]

Maybe bestiality will.not be supported by SSM supporters but.it will be supported (and is right now on a small scale) by bestiality supporters.

And pedophilia by pedophilia supporters.

And incest by incest supporters.

Yes, but how many supporters do those things have? Almost none.

And.so on. I think people get confused and think that were claiming gays will support the others.

Exactly, and that’s why I don’t think it’s a useful argument if you want public opinion in your favor.

There is a SSM debate tonight on the radio station out here.

Surely they’re going to have some supporters of SSM in the studio and they’ll be using the predictable buzzwords (“equality,” “fairness,” “discrimination”).

Now suppose someone calls in and says, “I oppose SSM because it’ll lead to (adult-child marriages, marriages to animals, marriages to toasters, etc.).”

What kind of an impression will that make on the listening audience?

Somebody who’s “on the fence” on that issue might say, “I met Adam and Steve at the company picnic. They don’t molest little boys, they don’t try to recruit teenagers. Maybe it’s all right if they live their lives the way that want, according to their faith. Say! That Catholic just called in and said something about animal marriage! Hey! Adam and Steve don’t seem like they’d support anything like that! That’s ridiculous!”

I posted a few posts back about someone calling someone else an “idiot” (their term) for bringing up these arguments. If other people think we’re “idiots” that’s not going to help us express our way of thinking.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Yes, but how many supporters do those things have? Almost none.

Exactly, and that’s why I don’t think it’s a useful argument if you want public opinion in your favor.

There is a SSM debate tonight on the radio station out here.

Surely they’re going to have some supporters of SSM in the studio and they’ll be using the predictable buzzwords (“equality,” “fairness,” “discrimination”).

Now suppose someone calls in and says, “I oppose SSM because it’ll lead to (adult-child marriages, marriages to animals, marriages to toasters, etc.).”

What kind of an impression will that make on the listening audience?

Somebody who’s “on the fence” on that issue might say, “I met Adam and Steve at the company picnic. They don’t molest little boys, they don’t try to recruit teenagers. Maybe it’s all right if they live their lives the way that want, according to their faith. Say! That Catholic just called in and said something about animal marriage! Hey! Adam and Steve don’t seem like they’d support anything like that! That’s ridiculous!”

I posted a few posts back about someone calling someone else an “idiot” (their term) for bringing up these arguments. If other people think we’re “idiots” that’s not going to help us express our way of thinking.

Those other groups have quite a few supporters, and a lot which are still in “the closet” about it.

The point is, those other groups will try the same tactics as SSM supporters. And if we follow logically, those who support SSM would have to support the others by their own.logic, or else be faced with being.labelled bigots, hypocrites, etc.

 

[signit]

Those other groups have quite a few supporters, and a lot which are still in “the closet” about it.

The point is, those other groups will try the same tactics as SSM supporters. And if we follow logically, those who support SSM would have to support the others by their own.logic, or else be faced with being.labelled bigots, hypocrites, etc.

They could try it (“It’s not fair! It’s discrimination!”) but they’d be way outnumbered to the point they’d be laughed at.

The fairness/discrimination/equality arguments stop at the point where the rights of others who did not consent are involved.

The same-sex couple in my town (whether or not I agree with them) are not forcing others to participate in their arrangement without consent. There are some spillover costs to others (like Catholics might have to refuse to make them a wedding cake, as mentioned a while back) but no one would be forced to participate directly in their arrangement. That’s why the middle-of-the-roader I mentioned earlier might say. “I respect the right of Adam and Steve to do what they want, but not the right of someone to force their opinions on children or animals.”

 

[fix]

Now suppose someone calls in and says, “I oppose SSM because it’ll lead to (adult-child marriages, marriages to animals, marriages to toasters, etc.).”

What kind of an impression will that make on the listening audience?

Somebody who’s “on the fence” on that issue might say, “I met Adam and Steve at the company picnic. They don’t molest little boys, they don’t try to recruit teenagers. Maybe it’s all right if they live their lives the way that want, according to their faith. Say! That Catholic just called in and said something about animal marriage! Hey! Adam and Steve don’t seem like they’d support anything like that! That’s ridiculous!”

It is shallow thinking. The argument that says hey I know “gays” and they did not burn down my house so yea completely redefining marriage is a good idea. That is not deep thinking and that is why we are in the mess we are in.

Following the logic of the argument makes perfect sense. That we do not have crowds in the street calling for legal incest is no proof it will not happen. The idea that the State can arbitrarily create a fiction and codify into law is no small injustice. It denies reality.

Perhaps too many cannot grasp the seriousness of the issue because they view reality through the lens of relativism and rugged individualism. They mistakenly place some perceived unfairness to some group as greater than truth. Such a bad emotionalism leads to true tyranny.

 

[signit]

It is shallow thinking. The argument that says hey I know “gays” and they did not burn down my house so yea completely redefining marriage is a good idea. That is not deep thinking and that is why we are in the mess we are in.

There’s still such a thing as public opinion, though.

We don’t base out morality on public opinion. Still, I’d rather have public opinion on our side than against us.

I don’t support the argument that “because they don’t do A, we have to let them do B.” But, if we say, “If we let them do B, they’ll be able to do A,” that won’t win public opinion if most people are reasonably sure they’re not going to do A.

 

[markeverett49]

The Supreme Court in the Loving Case stated that marriage is a fundamental civil right. And as for incestous relationships those can be proven to be harmful to the children engendered while the same cannot be said for SSM. As for polyamorous marriages well there is ample precedent for those namely the fact that before utah could become a state they had ban bigamous marriages. Although under today’s legal ruling that would have been overturned.

This is a common, though mistaken view of the Loving case. Hadley Arkes talks about this in his Modern Scholar lectures, “First Principles and Natural Law.” Arkes asks students to imagine a Jew and Gentile opening a delicatessen and being hauled into court for violating a law saying Jews and Gentiles could not enter into a business partnership. Should the deli owners prevail, Arkes argues, no one would argue that this case established a Constitutional right (or here, “a fundamental civil right”) to open a deli!

 

[seeker5133]

As I see it the ban on SSM amounts to the same thing.

 

[markeverett49]

Fifty years ago, people said the same thing about gay marriage. “I cant ever see this happening”.

Whoa! I was alive fifty years ago. No one was talking about this then. The mantra was “just leave us alone.” It’s only much more recently that many people realized any homosexual persons wanted to marry. (And a majority of them do not want to marry at all; if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will remain more likely that any random same-sex couple is not “married” than that it is.)

Even thirty years ago, many pro-choice advocates were honestly horrified at the thought of infanticide and sex-selective abortions; now those things are common and those people wonder why anyone makes a fuss over it (They have lost the capacity to be horrified by such things.)

 

[RobbyS]

Whoa! I was alive fifty years ago. No one was talking about this then. The mantra was “just leave us alone.” It’s only much more recently that many people realized any homosexual persons wanted to marry. (And a majority of them do not want to marry at all; if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will remain more likely that any random same-sex couple is not “married” than that it is.)

Even thirty years ago, many pro-choice advocates were honestly horrified at the thought of infanticide and sex-selective abortions; now those things are common and those people wonder why anyone makes a fuss over it (They have lost the capacity to be horrified by such things.)

The end in view is discrediting Judeo-Christian morality and the family as an institution.