Mary started it all

[Tigermike 3,717]

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahh, if gay marriages occur today, then tomorrow we'll be marrying animals. Is that REALLY its' logical conclusion?

[Tigermike 3,717]

tomorrow we'll be marrying animals.

I won't but what you do is your business.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Ahh, if gay marriages occur today, then tomorrow we'll be marrying animals. Is that REALLY its' logical conclusion?

You tell me. If marriage can be redefined on whim, subject not to eternal standards, but standards of culture and taste...how can you rule it out? I realize it's an extreme example, but it's called hyperbole. Here are some examples that may not cause you to have to stretch so much to understand the logical path we're on:

Marriage redefined to include:

--Brothers and sisters

--Moms and sons

--Fathers and daughters

--Fathers and sons

--Mothers and daughters

--Grandmothers and grandsons

--Grandfathers and granddaughters

--Grandfathers and grandsons

--Grandmothers and granddaughters

--one man and multiple women

--one woman and multiple men

--multiple women all with each other

--multiple men all with each other

--"group marriage" with multiple members of each sex

I mean, you explain to me how taking an institution, a concept, a word (marriage) and just giving it new meaning wouldn't or couldn't lead to any or all of these things. The exact same argument that is being made for homosexual couples now could be made for any of the above. I mean, if there's no absolute standard for these kinds of things to appeal to, then I guess it will just be defined however we decide and by who can give the particular case a pretty face.

[War Eagle 96 10]

A-men

[tiger88 934]

It is so funny to me how everytime something like this happens religious fanatics always FEAR the worst. When sodomy(which I am not a proponent of) was legalized there were threads fearing the legalization of pedophelia and other stuff. I have heard no mention of it since although I'm sure someone will want to jump in hear and say "you just wait".

It's pretty funny how the most religious people you meet are the most judgemental people that you know. I am guilty of being judgemental all the time, but I am working on it. Being judgemental shows that you are identified with your mind and not with your spirit/soul imo. Mind identification is the greatest plague on this planet imo. It is responsible for all fear, judgement, anger, hatred, etc. that exists. I am not a big beatles fan but one of my favorite songs is becoming "let it be".

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahh, if gay marriages occur today, then tomorrow we'll be marrying animals. Is that REALLY its' logical conclusion?

You tell me. If marriage can be redefined on whim, subject not to eternal standards, but standards of culture and taste...how can you rule it out? I realize it's an extreme example, but it's called hyperbole. Here are some examples that may not cause you to have to stretch so much to understand the logical path we're on:

Marriage redefined to include:

--Brothers and sisters

--Moms and sons

--Fathers and daughters

--Fathers and sons

--Mothers and daughters

--Grandmothers and grandsons

--Grandfathers and granddaughters

--Grandfathers and grandsons

--Grandmothers and granddaughters

--one man and multiple women

--one woman and multiple men

--multiple women all with each other

--multiple men all with each other

--"group marriage" with multiple members of each sex

I mean, you explain to me how taking an institution, a concept, a word (marriage) and just giving it new meaning wouldn't or couldn't lead to any or all of these things. The exact same argument that is being made for homosexual couples now could be made for any of the above. I mean, if there's no absolute standard for these kinds of things to appeal to, then I guess it will just be defined however we decide and by who can give the particular case a pretty face.

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

for some of us, it's not a fallacy.

[Tiger Al 0]

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

for some of us, it's not a fallacy.

Well, then, to quell your little fears, we have laws prohibiting incest and we have laws prohibiting polygamy. Is everything better now?

[MDM4AU 338]

I hate to break this to you big al, but CA has a law prohibiting same sex marriage. It is being contested. There used to be a law against abortion in the US, it was contested (I'm sure you are well aware of Roe v. Wade.). Your last statement is the dumbest thing I have ever heard!

That's what the whole arguemnt right now in CA is about. A law that some feel is unconstitutional.

Did you fall and bump your head recently?

[Tiger Al 0]

I hate to break this to you big al, but CA has a law prohibiting same sex marriage. It is being contested. There used to be a law against abortion in the US, it was contested (I'm sure you are well aware of Roe v. Wade.). Your last statement is the dumbest thing I have ever heard!

That's what the whole arguemnt right now in CA is about. A law that some feel is unconstitutional.

Did you fall and bump your head recently?

Do you really foresee a big groundswell of support for incest and polygamy? Is there some grassroots effort going on there in Helena to allow you to marry your mother if you choose? Are incest and polygamy really growing movements?

[tiger88 934]

I think the end has already begun. Today I saw a cat come out of a dog house smoking a cigarette. It was quite obvious that they just had sex. Later i saw the cat reenter the dog house with suitcases in hand. Cats and dogs living together! The owner seemed ok with it, even happy! Maybe he's thinking about a threesome followed by a group marriage!

[Tiger Al 0]

I think the end has already begun. Today I saw a cat come out of a dog house smoking a cigarette. It was quite obvious that they just had sex. Later i saw the cat reenter the dog house with suitcases in hand. Cats and dogs living together! The owner seemed ok with it, even happy! Maybe he's thinking about a threesome followed by a group marriage!

Of Mice and Men...!

[MDM4AU 338]

OK, big al. There wasn't a big movement years ago about gay marriage. There wasn't a big movement 10 years before R v. W. Eventually, some people felt both to be unconstitutional. As time went on things changed. A "groundswell" if you will. Little things here and there. When those that felt strongly about it got the courage they stood up for what they believed... And here we are in 2004! Eventually someone will use the VERY SAME ARGUMENT for polygamy, or incest, etc. If you don't see this you really are about as bright as a 10 watt bulb. Or just plain stubborn. Take your pick!

(And someone from Elmore County shouldn't cast stones. )

[Tiger Al 0]

OK, big al. There wasn't a big movement years ago about gay marriage. There wasn't a big movement 10 years before R v. W. Eventually, some people felt both to be unconstitutional. As time went on things changed. A "groundswell" if you will. Little things here and there. When those that felt strongly about it got the courage they stood up for what they believed... And here we are in 2004! Eventually someone will use the VERY SAME ARGUMENT for polygamy, or incest, etc. If you don't see this you really are about as bright as a 10 watt bulb. Or just plain stubborn. Take your pick!

(And someone from Elmore County shouldn't cast stones. )

Well, thanks for the warning. I'll just have to take my chances, though.

[rexbo 104]

Well, thanks for the warning. I'll just have to take my chances, though.

But the chance you are taking is the very basis of our civilized society. With the route that technology and our cultural values are taking, the family as we know it will be gone. Adults will simply chose at whim who or what they want to live with and have sex with; and when then they decide they would like to try raising a child for a little while they will just go to the baby store where they will pick out the gender, race, intelligence and athletic ability child of their choice. I guess this was Hillary's vision, we adults will all just fool around and let the village (aka the State) raise the child...

[japantiger 4,116]

MDM4U is dead on.

Pedophiles will soon be a protected class; it will be discriminatory to lock them up and prohimibit them from living near their intended victims. The NCLU (national child love union) will file suit in the Ninth Circuit to have the current laws overturned. You can get the 9th Circuit to rule on allowing anything; no matter how absurd, abhorant or just plain wrong.

There can no longer be standards of right or wrong; that might exclude someone or be viewed as bigoted, judgemental, hypocritical. We can't judge anyone, any action or any thing.

Common sense and standards are a thing of the past.

MDM4AU nailed it; all you have to do is look at history to understand the logical conclusion of all this.

[tiger88 934]

jt,

I just don't see it happening. If it does I will join those here who are outraged about the same sex marriage thing.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, thanks for the warning. I'll just have to take my chances, though.

But the chance you are taking is the very basis of our civilized society. With the route that technology and our cultural values are taking, the family as we know it will be gone. Adults will simply chose at whim who or what they want to live with and have sex with; and when then they decide they would like to try raising a child for a little while they will just go to the baby store where they will pick out the gender, race, intelligence and athletic ability child of their choice. I guess this was Hillary's vision, we adults will all just fool around and let the village (aka the State) raise the child...

Do you honestly think that all that's stopped this 'depravity' from happening is the law??? Do you really think that there will be an outbreak of parents marrying their children, EVEN IF THE LAW SAID THEY COULD???

Take a deep breath, stop wringing your hands...the sky is not falling.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Ahh, if gay marriages occur today, then tomorrow we'll be marrying animals. Is that REALLY its' logical conclusion?

You tell me. If marriage can be redefined on whim, subject not to eternal standards, but standards of culture and taste...how can you rule it out? I realize it's an extreme example, but it's called hyperbole. Here are some examples that may not cause you to have to stretch so much to understand the logical path we're on:

Marriage redefined to include:

--Brothers and sisters

--Moms and sons

--Fathers and daughters

--Fathers and sons

--Mothers and daughters

--Grandmothers and grandsons

--Grandfathers and granddaughters

--Grandfathers and grandsons

--Grandmothers and granddaughters

--one man and multiple women

--one woman and multiple men

--multiple women all with each other

--multiple men all with each other

--"group marriage" with multiple members of each sex

I mean, you explain to me how taking an institution, a concept, a word (marriage) and just giving it new meaning wouldn't or couldn't lead to any or all of these things. The exact same argument that is being made for homosexual couples now could be made for any of the above. I mean, if there's no absolute standard for these kinds of things to appeal to, then I guess it will just be defined however we decide and by who can give the particular case a pretty face.

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

I guess we'll call yours the head-in-the-sand-that-will-never-happen fallacy.

It's not a fallacy Al. We're talking logic here. These are logical ends to the arguments being made in the homosexual marriage debate. Whether you think they are likely is irrelevant. I'm asking you to please explain to me why the same argument being used in support of homosexual marriage could not be used to justify each and every one of the cases I mentioned. I specifically left out pedophilia and pedastry as those cases do not involve consenting adults...although NAMBLA and their sympathizers are feverishly working to have age of consent laws lowered or abolished.

No, each of the situations I mentioned would be two consenting adults just wanting others to "let them be" (tiger88). What argument against these types of "marriages" would you use that isn't currently being dismissed with regard to homosexual "marriage"?

[tiger88 934]

No, each of the situations I mentioned would be two consenting adults just wanting others to "let them be" (tiger88). What argument against these types of "marriages" would you use that isn't currently being dismissed with regard to homosexual "marriage"?

Since you quoted me I will put in my .02.

1. First of all I want to say that i am not for any of the types of marriages that you listed. Someone might read your quote and get that idea. I'm not saying you meant to infer that, just wanted to clarify.

2. English Royalty and those from other countries used to intermarry until they realized the very dangerous consequences of doing so. Medical reasons are the one big reason I don't think that incestual marriages will ever be legalized. I think that will at least keep male-female incest relationships from being legalized and I don't think they would ever make a special exception law for male-male incest marriages.

3. Nothing is gonna stop those groups from using the same arguments, I'm sure some already do. The true question is would they really have a good chance to succeed? You say personal opinion is irrelevant but personal opinion is what you seem to be using in assuming that all these groups will succeed in their argument. By doing so you are equating all these types of relationships and I don't think many people do. I mean how many people equate two unrelated men marrying to a father and son or father and daughter marrying? Nobody that I am aware of other than those on this thread that have.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahh, if gay marriages occur today, then tomorrow we'll be marrying animals. Is that REALLY its' logical conclusion?

You tell me. If marriage can be redefined on whim, subject not to eternal standards, but standards of culture and taste...how can you rule it out? I realize it's an extreme example, but it's called hyperbole. Here are some examples that may not cause you to have to stretch so much to understand the logical path we're on:

Marriage redefined to include:

--Brothers and sisters

--Moms and sons

--Fathers and daughters

--Fathers and sons

--Mothers and daughters

--Grandmothers and grandsons

--Grandfathers and granddaughters

--Grandfathers and grandsons

--Grandmothers and granddaughters

--one man and multiple women

--one woman and multiple men

--multiple women all with each other

--multiple men all with each other

--"group marriage" with multiple members of each sex

I mean, you explain to me how taking an institution, a concept, a word (marriage) and just giving it new meaning wouldn't or couldn't lead to any or all of these things. The exact same argument that is being made for homosexual couples now could be made for any of the above. I mean, if there's no absolute standard for these kinds of things to appeal to, then I guess it will just be defined however we decide and by who can give the particular case a pretty face.

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

I guess we'll call yours the head-in-the-sand-that-will-never-happen fallacy.

It's not a fallacy Al. We're talking logic here. These are logical ends to the arguments being made in the homosexual marriage debate. Whether you think they are likely is irrelevant. I'm asking you to please explain to me why the same argument being used in support of homosexual marriage could not be used to justify each and every one of the cases I mentioned. I specifically left out pedophilia and pedastry as those cases do not involve consenting adults...although NAMBLA and their sympathizers are feverishly working to have age of consent laws lowered or abolished.

No, each of the situations I mentioned would be two consenting adults just wanting others to "let them be" (tiger88). What argument against these types of "marriages" would you use that isn't currently being dismissed with regard to homosexual "marriage"?

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

You're saying that if homosexuals are allowed to marry that it will necessarily cause the desire for marriage between family members and/or three or more people. That's a leap down a slippery slope because one circumstance doesn't have anything to do with the other.

It's a very strange thought and, as such, I really don't think the idea is going to sweep across the country any time in the forseeable future.

[Tigermike 3,717]

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

You are correct Al there is an slippery slope fallacy and your side of the political spectrum is greasing the slope!

"GAY MARRIAGE" IS NOT ABOUT "RIGHTS"

Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?

The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex -- that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism," and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=dli

[Tiger Al 0]

I still haven't figured out how my marriage will be affected if Jim and John are allowed to marry.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

TA: my "little fears" happened to be based on my "little belief system", and i am a "little disappointed" that you chose to dismiss them so quickly as being unfounded...especially with so little of a response.

i guess i should just sit here and be quiet as things i believe in are disregarded as being wrong.

it seems like i'm always the one that's being told 'you're wrong'. when is 'enough' enough? when no standards remain?