A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[spantol]

Until recently (and perhaps still), there were anti-sodomy laws on the books in a number of states.

For me, the dividing line has always been consent. Anything two consenting adults (or three or four, so long as you're not hurting anybody or claiming that you should all be able to marry each other) want to do in the privacy of their own home is fine by me. Animals and children cannot consent, physically in the former case, legally in both.

Originally posted by impostal22


animals cannot say "i do" so legalized animal marriage can't work. not to mention, animals don't want to get married...again, having multiple partners period is illegal. having sex with an animal is illegal. having a homosexual partner isn't illegal. there's a big difference between equalizing rights to those conducting legal actions and those who are illegal in their actions.

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22


animals cannot say "i do" so legalized animal marriage can't work. not to mention, animals don't want to get married...again, having multiple partners period is illegal. having sex with an animal is illegal. having a homosexual partner isn't illegal. there's a big difference between equalizing rights to those conducting legal actions and those who are illegal in their actions.

Originally posted by spantol
Until recently (and perhaps still), there were anti-sodomy laws on the books in a number of states.

For me, the dividing line has always been consent. Anything two consenting adults (or three or four, so long as you're not hurting anybody or claiming that you should all be able to marry each other) want to do in the privacy of their own home is fine by me. Animals and children cannot consent, physically in the former case, legally in both.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


so we have to look to lower species to justify what the superior species does? then murder should be legal.

Goof!

You are killing your argument. Please show me a species that kills for fun. You can't! Only man kills for reasons other then survival and food!

[chizle97]

just to let ya guys know im in favor of same-sex marreges. thats all im gonna say no, more no less. Just a statement of opinion. that is all resume fighting.

[spantol]

I was speaking in the most literal of terms when I implied that animals can't physically consent. I mean, your cat might purr in a manner that seems to indicate approval, but it can't say, "Go ahead, big boy." Either way, we can just stick to the legal definition of consent and sidestep this minor point (that of an animal's ability to physically consent) entirely.

You're spot on when you say that the stigma associated with sex acts involving children and animals is a sociocultural one. Cultures, however, evolve. Homosexuality has become socially tolerated, if not accepted. It remains to be seen whether beastiality and pedophilia will ever become as tolerated. To assume a casual link exists, that extending rights to gays paves the way to extending rights to pedophiles and animal-molesters, is to make a post hoc argument.

Originally posted by shartley
I have already proven in another post that both children AND animals can consent to sex. Animals can not consent to legal unions though. And as for children, only current laws prohibit children from doing so, but they can think, they can understand, and thus depending on how you look at things, they can consent to a legal union.

The only thing that prevents many things from happening legally concerning children is CULTURE. The same things some of us are saying are important on the homosexual marriage issue. And if you go against current culture and definitions for this one thing, why not others later? Simply put, you can?t stop the snowball. At some point folks have to take a stand?. And for me, it is here.

[Kai]

Originally posted by impostal22


animals cannot say "i do" so legalized animal marriage can't work. not to mention, animals don't want to get married...again, having multiple partners period is illegal. having sex with an animal is illegal. having a homosexual partner isn't illegal. there's a big difference between equalizing rights to those conducting legal actions and those who are illegal in their actions.

Oh, I see Sam. Debate in THIS thread, but not the other?

I'd say this is a pretty darn good argument. They CANNOT legally consent. They CAN'T do it. As much as Sam would like to think that the definition of consenting will change when gays are given the right to marry, it won't. Besides, consenting to sex, and consenting to marry are 2 different things all together.

Pedophilia and bestiallity will NEVER be accepted. Ever. To say it will is rediculous. It's grasping for any reason you can to support a ban on this issue.

Also, Sam, why is it an "insult to blacks and suffragettes" to compare the issues? Just because YOU don't agree with their cause? Because YOU don't see it as important? Quit being close-minded.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Kai

Oh, I see Sam. Debate in THIS thread, but not the other?

I'd say this is a pretty darn good argument. They CANNOT legally consent. They CAN'T do it. As much as Sam would like to think that the definition of consenting will change when gays are given the right to marry, it won't. Besides, consenting to sex, and consenting to marry are 2 different things all together.

Pedophilia and bestiallity will NEVER be accepted. Ever. To say it will is rediculous. It's grasping for any reason you can to support a ban on this issue.

Also, Sam, why is it an "insult to blacks and suffragettes" to compare the issues? Just because YOU don't agree with their cause? Because YOU don't see it as important? Quit being close-minded.

[jdev]

Originally posted by grw4w34
All the gay people are just looking for a tax break that a man and woman get when they get married. A man and woman can produce a child biologically, gay couples cant. Most people have kids when they get married. Dont get me wrong I dont have a thing against gay people, i just dont think they should get the benifit of a couple who has the opportunity to produce a new member to society.

by this statement, unfertile men and women cannot wed and recieve the benefits that a married couple would recieve. after all, they are not supporting pro-creation. no benefits for them.

[Kai]

Originally posted by shartley

Sorry if I seem that way, but I honestly cannot find reason as to why it is an insult, other than that in this case, you are not sympathetic to the minority's cause.

I will admit, they have NOT been exactly the same... Espescially in the case of the Civil Rights movement, where the oppression being endured was far worse than in the issue at hand. BUT, in all three cases, a minority was fighting against widespread prejudice... Which, in my eyes, is reason enough to make said comparision.

No, they aren't exactly the same, but YES they are similar.

*Edit*- And damn, there are about a bazillion threads on this topic. Mods should consolidate.

[Rooster]

"However, I think that individual freedoms have to trump social norms. While we may see any and all of these as unnatural and unhealthy, neither I nor the government is in NO position to be able to tell you what to do with your life, so long as it hurts no one else."

So should any man and any woman living together recieve the benifits of being married? I could care less if Adam and Steve want a little peice of paper that says they are eternally bound to each other. Whatever, more power to them. However, they should in no way recieve the benifits of being married. Why? Because it opens the door to everything else. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with controling who recieves government benifits. It makes perfect sense, only I could do without the civil union nonsense.

[jdev]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
It wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a choice. A mental disorder actually. Shrinks used to treat for it. Activists got money, money did its magic, and now it's all accepted and I have all of you telling me it's natural

Once again, I don't feel the need to prove this slippery slope here and now. We can all wait and see. I'm confident.

basically, you are saying that it is a choice to be a homosexual person, rather than it being just a part of you that is (not genetic, just something that you figure out early in life)

take time to think about your response to this, because I have a second part to this.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by joey d


basically, you are saying that it is a choice to be a homosexual person, rather than it being just a part of you that is (not genetic, just something that you figure out early in life)

take time to think about your response to this, because I have a second part to this.

i think i know what your second part is going to be...we'll see!

[jdev]

Originally posted by hitech
The reasons against "gay marriage" are basically the same as those used against black/white marriages so few years ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

i said the same thing in the "ahnold for president" thread.

[jdev]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Goof!

You are killing your argument. Please show me a species that kills for fun. You can't! Only man kills for reasons other then survival and food!

my mothers old cat would kill moles/mice and leave them on her doorstep. wouldn't eat them, just leave them there to show her that it had done it. that, sounds like for fun, if for no other reason than survival and food.

[hitech]

Originally posted by shartley

When it comes to man/animal marriage, no, the same arguments are unlikely to be used. They are not being used here.

When it comes to multiple partner marriages, they may or may not be used. Up till now, the debate has been about marriage between two consenting adults. Should more than two be allowed, I don't know. I suspect that the arguments against it will differ from those used against "gay" marriages. Mine would, anyway.