If a believer prays for a non-believer...what happens?

[HitchSlap]

I very honestly do not see how legalizing a perversion is a good idea, and I'm pretty sure I'd still think the same way if I were not a Christian.
It seems to me that we are on a pretty slippery slope here.

From the scientific pov, same gender sex is a dead end. There is no evolutionary benefit.
The best theory I've ever heard is that perhaps it is nature's way of dealing with overpopulation in the absence of predators...
However, it is a perversion of the natural sex drive, just like any other perversion.
So, why can't old Auntie Agatha marry her german shepherd? What is she hurting?

Slippery slope indeed. What's next, blue eyed people won't be allowed to marry brown eyed people?

 

[TheBarrd]

Whoa how'd this slippery slope get here?

WHOA! *Crash*

Exactly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly.

Since this whole same-sex marriage debate only got started because straight people were allowed to marry, the clear solution is to abolish opposite-sex marriage. After-all, it's just a slippery slope to same-sex marriage.

 

[TheBarrd]

Slippery slope indeed. What's next, blue eyed people won't be allowed to marry brown eyed people?

Or NAMBLA pride parades, featuring 16 year olds? Why not?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Or NAMBLA pride parades, featuring 16 year olds? Why not?

 

[TheBarrd]

Not everyone in a population has to reproduce. It may be beneficial for some members of the population to contribute to its growth and stability in other ways. This may include child-rearing without reproduction, or it may include other activities that support the population. There's more to our survival as a species than just reproduction.



So you keep claiming.



Is the german shepherd able to consent to such a marriage? Does it have a concept of 'marriage'?

It knows it is happy. It knows that when it is separated from Auntie Agatha it is not happy.
And yet we call it "animal abuse". Why? The dog is not being hurt, is well cared for and healthy.
How does what happens between this woman and her dog in the privacy of their own home hurt anyone else? If she chooses to call that pup her "husband", how is society hurt? Will it change the way you feel about your...uh...spouse?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It knows it is happy. It knows that when it is separated from Auntie Agatha it is not happy.
And yet we call it "animal abuse". Why? The dog is not being hurt, is well cared for and healthy.
How does what happens between this woman and her dog in the privacy of their own home hurt anyone else? If she chooses to call that pup her "husband", how is society hurt? Will it change the way you feel about your...uh...spouse?

She can call her dog "husband," if she so chooses. She cannot marry her dog, however, because (1) the dog has no concept of 'marriage' and what it entails (legally, socially, etc), and (2) the dog is unable to consent to marriage. Obviously neither (1) or (2) are applicable to same-sex couples.

 

[HitchSlap]

Or NAMBLA pride parades, featuring 16 year olds? Why not?

Because sixteen year olds are under the legal age of consent.

Do you have an issue with consenting adults making autonomous decisions without undue influence from religious baggage?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

She can call her dog "husband," if she so chooses. She cannot marry her dog, however, because (1) the dog has no concept of 'marriage' and what it entails (legally, socially, etc), and (2) the dog is unable to consent to marriage. Obviously neither (1) or (2) are applicable to same-sex couples.

To add on to this so she stops with the horrid NAMBLA analogies

An underaged child is not legally able to consent to marriage let alone sexual activity with an adult. We have eliminated all possibility of that happening.

Same Sex marriage is between two consenting ADULTS who want to be married. It is the exact same as non-same sex marriage.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For someone who claims to have many gay friends your comparison of gay individuals to animals is somewhat concerning, to put it mildly. You are comparing your own friends, and their relationships, to the relationship between one woman and her affectionate dog. You are essentially saying that the love they feel for their companion is less human, less important, and fundamentally on the same level as the affection some people feel toward their pets. You may have found some friends who happen to be gay, but you are not worthy of their friendship. They can do better.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Most religious people have it so confused about things.

They don't recognize that same sex relationship (or any relationship) is not about the sexual activity. I assure you me and my girlfriends don't spend alot of time in the sheets, that's why it's called "getting lucky"

They don't recognize that marriage about bonding families and legal recognizing as such. This strange idea that marriage is as archaic as the religion they cling to and that it hasn't evolved like every other social construct around it.

They don't seem to recognize alot of why their slippery slope arguments fail is mainly because of consent. A dog cannot consent. A child cannot legally consent.

They're glaringly obvious holes in arguments that I've personally had to point out... alot. My own mother actually said "soon they'll be allowing people to marry horses."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Most religious people have it so confused about things.

They don't recognize that same sex relationship (or any relationship) is not about the sexual activity. I assure you me and my girlfriends don't spend alot of time in the sheets, that's why it's called "getting lucky"

I find this especially aggravating. The Nickelodeon TV show Legend of Korra depicted what many perceived to be a lesbian relationship between two main characters. Some people were up in arms over this. "It's a kids show!," they argued. Yes, it's a kids show, and that kids show has had numerous examples of heterosexual relationships. Yet no one kicked up a fuss and bleated "It's a kids show!" when Aang kissed Katara in the previous series, Avatar. The very fact that some people think this is a sound objection to the depiction of gay romance shows just how far we still have to progress.

 

[TillICollapse]

Exactly.

I'm thinking you may have missed what "slippery slope" means in this context ... in case you did, they are not saying it's a slippery slope that leads to the very things you are describing ... they are saying you are committing a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[zippy2006]

In the US, homosexuals were not permitted to marry largely due to a religious tenet that marriage is between one man and one woman, so even in the US, religion has overstepped its boundaries at times.

Whoa! That comment threw this thread into a tizzy, didn't it!? I just want to make a quick comment about this given the magnitude of posts it has generated. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this topic on April 28th, 2015. It was generally recognized that this is not primarily a religious issue. Here are three relevant quotes from the transcript:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: "One -- one of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases, and -- and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is -- is millennia, plus time. First of all, there has not been really time, so the Respondents say, for the Federal system to engage in this debate, the separate States. But on a larger scale, it's been -- it was about -- about the same time between Brown and Loving as between Lawrence and this case. It's about 10 years. And so there's time for the scholars and the commentators and -- and the bar and the public to -- to engage in it. But still, 10 years is -- I don't even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition has been with us for millennia. And it -- it's very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we -- we know better."

JUSTICE BREYER: "And to me, it takes the form, the opposite view has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require States that don't want to do it to change what you've heard is change what marriage is to include gay people."

JUSTICE SCALIA: "Well, it was -- not all societies banned mixed-race marriages. In fact, not even all States in this country banned. But I don't know of any -- do you know of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?"

The justices recognize the fact that the traditional definition of marriage transcends religion, culture, and even millenia, so it's not quite right to call it a "U.S. religious problem." ...but I don't want to get bogged down on this, since it's off-topic.

Thank you for your comments, you've been thoughtful...I will reply tomorrow after some sleep. lol

I'll come back to your main point in this post when you reply.

 

[TheBarrd]

Leave it in your church then.

I'm afraid my faith is as much a part of me as my nose or my toenails. It goes where I go.

 

[TheBarrd]

Because sixteen year olds are under the legal age of consent.

Do you have an issue with consenting adults making autonomous decisions without undue influence from religious baggage?

There have been cases where 16 year olds and even younger have married. So the precedent is there.
And the "natural" desire is there, on both sides.

 

[TheBarrd]

For someone who claims to have many gay friends your comparison of gay individuals to animals is somewhat concerning, to put it mildly. You are comparing your own friends, and their relationships, to the relationship between one woman and her affectionate dog. You are essentially saying that the love they feel for their companion is less human, less important, and fundamentally on the same level as the affection some people feel toward their pets. You may have found some friends who happen to be gay, but you are not worthy of their friendship. They can do better.

I guess you've never heard anyone saying that their dog is a member of the family?
Yes, you can love a dog as much as you can love a person...or did you think that folks have sex with every person that they love?
Love is love...it doesn't always make sense, but then, does it have to?

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm thinking you may have missed what "slippery slope" means in this context ... in case you did, they are not saying it's a slippery slope that leads to the very things you are describing ... they are saying you are committing a slippery slope fallacy.

I knew he was being sarcastic.
That's why I gave it back to him.

 

[TheBarrd]

Yes, Grim, you're quite the jolly old soul...

 

[quatona]

There have been cases where 16 year olds and even younger have married. So the precedent is there.
And the "natural" desire is there, on both sides.

You mean back in biblical times?