Tomorrow 10:00 am (Gay Marriage legal everywhere)

[Cearbhall]

Who says consent needs to be involved? According to the ideas of equality, you can pretty much just make things up as you go along. Again, you seem to be wanting to impose YOUR definition of marriage on other people.

Your introduction of a straw man just makes you even more incorrect.

Your argument is ridiculous, regardless. You're saying that if a legal document requires consent, then something is being forced on the parties whose consent is required. How can anything be forced on people when nothing will happen if they don't consent?

 

[SolomonVII]

All relationships can contain problems and it often does. Sounds like you're trying to shove your definition of marriage down other people's throats.

When it comes to marriage, my libertarianism is an all or nothing prospect. When marriage is no longer defined legally as between a man and a woman and as a relationship of the type that supports the procreation of the next generation of citizens essential to the life of any country, then it makes very little difference to me whether the marriage relationship is between two men, two women, a man and his sheep, or two brothers.

When marriage becomes defined as personal fulfillment, then it should be defined completely on the grounds of personal fulfillment. As long as no animals are harmed in the production of the marriage, then I personally would not want to shove my own sense of right or wrong down someone's throat.

When you are given enough rope to hang yourself, choose life. Choose children.

But it is your choice either way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When it comes to marriage, my libertarianism is an all or nothing prospect. When marriage is no longer defined legally as between a man and a woman and as a relationship of the type that supports the procreation of the next generation of citizens essential to the life of any country, then it makes very little difference to me whether the marriage relationship is between two men, two women, a man and his sheep, or two brothers.

Marriage isn't defined legally as a relationship of the type that supports procreation.

 

[Creech]

Your introduction of a straw man just makes you even more incorrect.

Your argument is ridiculous, regardless. You're saying that if a legal document requires consent, then something is being forced on the parties whose consent is required.

So if you only support marriage for homosexuals and are against marriage for people in relationships involving incest and animals, how is it equal? Laws requiring consent are just bigoted and ignorant laws meant to stand in the way of equality and progress. (sarcasm)

 

[Nilloc]

If one accepts the idea of equality, then they can turn the idea of marriage into anything they want. Marriage between two siblings and man and beast will surely come next and be accepted in society.

As I asked you before, why not? Though the idea of equality that I hold to (Locke's equality of authority) doesn't really apply to non-human animals.

 

[Cearbhall]

When marriage is no longer defined legally as between a man and a woman and as a relationship of the type that supports the procreation of the next generation of citizens essential to the life of any country, then it makes very little difference to me whether the marriage relationship is between two men, two women, a man and his sheep, or two brothers.

Some examples of opposite-sex married couples who can receive full federal benefits in the US right now:

• A couple that includes an infertile person
• A woman and her husband who had a legal sex change
• A man and his wife who intends to never carry a pregnancy to term

We've reached that point.

 

[Creech]

As I asked you before, why not? Though the idea of equality that I hold to (Locke's equality of authority) doesn't really apply to non-human animals.

But according to many progressives, this would be denying that human the ability to marry whatever they want to. This would be denying that person equality.

 

[abdAlSalam]

So if you only support marriage for homosexuals and are against marriage for people in relationships involving incest and animals, how is it equal? Laws requiring consent are just bigoted and ignorant laws meant to stand in the way of equality and progress. (sarcasm)

You should try making an argument that doesnt involve a strawman or other fallacy.

 

[Creech]

You should try making an argument that doesnt involve a strawman or other fallacy.

Claiming it to be a fallacy does not make it so and it also does not matter.

 

[mpok1519]

Different topic, but those are reasons to hold off on children, not for a couple on their late 20s to hold off on marriage.

There are plenty of reasons. It can vary from person to person.

 

[Nilloc]

I base my morality on the idea that other people's children will be the ones providing for your care in your old age.

No worries about that in my regard. I'll be sure and take care of myself.

I am also basing my reasoning on the idea that was is real in existence is more relevant than what is real in imagination only.

How very Anselmian.

Reason does really exist and reason says that there's nothing wrong with not having children.

Any more elucidation on what morality is based would be going off on a tangent.

It's not going off on a tangent when you use it's implications in this thread.

Placing great value on having children and grandchildren has everything to do what I have been talking about in this thread right from my opening post until this one.

But many people, such as myself, don't place any emphasis on having (grand)children. And I've seen no reason as to why I should.

It is no big disappointment to me what you do with your sex life. I am not your mother.

That isn't what I asked. I asked a moral question (one that isn't a hypothetical).

If you understand yourself as having nothing to offer in building up the greatest resource any nation could possibly have,

That would be reason, not children.

 

[elephunky]

I seriously do not understand how discussions about same sex marriage end up turning into "*PANIC* MARRYING ANIMALS WILL HAPPEN*PANIC* MARRYING CHILDREN WILL HAPPEN"

A little logic goes a long way....

 

[abdAlSalam]

Claiming it to be a fallacy does not make it so and it also does not matter.

You are claiming extreme views and labeling them as progressive values. This is completly untrue. Progressives care a great deal about consent, especially when dealing with interpersonal relationships. Your continued use of equality is indeed a strawman.

Saying that SSM necessarily leads to inappropriate behavior with animals and incest is a slippery slope argument. It does not logically follow that saying two adults can marry each other regardless of their gender means that we now must make it legal for a man to marry an animal.

And Ive already shown you why progressives are against marrying animals. It creates a precedent for forcing non-consenting individuals into legally binding contracts.

 

[Cearbhall]

Claiming it to be a fallacy does not make it so and it also does not matter.

It's a fallacy because the statement that two human men or women should be allowed to consent to a single marriage does not comment on whether or not an animal has the ability to do so.

You think a man and a woman can sign a legal document to rent a house? Zomg you must think that zebras can do that, too! Next thing you know, I'll see a kangaroo moving in next door...

 

[Nilloc]

But according to many progressives, this would be denying that human the ability to marry whatever they want to. This would be denying that person equality.

Why shouldn't they be able to? As Jimmy McMillian so poetically said:

Jimmy McMillan on Shoe Marriage - YouTube

 

[Creech]

You are claiming extreme views and labeling them as progressive values. This is completly untrue. Progressives care a great deal about consent, especially when dealing with interpersonal relationships. Your continued use of equality is indeed a strawman.

Saying that SSM necessarily leads to inappropriate behavior with animals and incest is a slippery slope argument. It does not logically follow that saying two adults can marry each other regardless of their gender means that we now must make it legal for a man to marry an animal.

And Ive already shown you why progressives are against marrying animals. It creates a precedent for forcing non-consenting individuals into legally binding contracts.

I am not claiming all progressives believe this, but if you accept the idea of equality and put fourth certain arguments progressives use to defend homosexual marriage, then it is only logical that this equality will be expanded. The March of "Progress".

I'm sure many people who defended interracial marriage during the Civil Rights Era would say that they would never support homosexual marriage even though they too argued for equality and many said that it would never happen. But here we are today.

 

[Creech]

Why shouldn't they be able to? As Jimmy McMillian so poetically said:

Jimmy McMillan on Shoe Marriage - YouTube

That actually changed my opinion of this entire matter. That video was so beautiful it made me rethink everything I ever said on human-shoe relationships. That video should be seen by every American.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Too bad the same can't be said for religious bigots.

Bigotry isn't just limited to religious people, there are plenty of secular bigots on the other side of this issue.

I'd rather have someone project in raising a good child than someone who has children raising them to be bigots just like their parents. And when they call God in on their side it makes the fracture for the future even more apparent for the idolatry that is manufactured in the name of the God that created Gays in his image and likeness, just like everyone else!

God created humans in his likeness, however humans committed the original sin if you read the book of genesis...

Animals by definition cannot sin because they didn't commit the original sin and have no knowledge of the concepts of good and evil, if we look at this from a biblical standpoint... So just because an animal will practice a particular behavior doesn't mean we should, because we know better (having eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

When sin is said to be the excuse children should be implanted to believe as righteous cause to hate gays, in the name of Christ, the world would be better off if it were those parents who elected not to spread their genes.

Being against "gay marriage" being legal, doesn't mean we're raising children to hate homosexuals, you can disapprove of a person's behavior and choices in life without hating them...

 

[abdAlSalam]

I am not claiming all progressives believe this, but if you accept the idea of equality and put fourth certain arguments progressives use to defend homosexual marriage, then it is only logical that this equality will be expanded. The March of "Progress".

And what, pray tell, are those arguments you claim progressives make?
The only one Ive ever heard or seen is that two consenting adults should be able to marry each other regardless of their gender.

 

[GarfieldJL]

And what, pray tell, are those arguments you claim progressives make?
The only one Ive ever heard or seen is that two consenting adults should be able to marry each other regardless of their gender.

You do realize the age requirement that defines someone to be an adult can be argued to be completely arbitrary.