Political Crossfire Forums

[SavannahMan]

Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

[Anjire2]

SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

What do you percieve the logical comparison between any of these scenerios A, B, or C and homosexual marriage would be? Is it your thinking that by claiming to support homosexual marriage one must also logically support or not support A, B or C?

I don't see the connectivity in your query.

[SavannahMan]

I would propose that whatever arguments are being used to promote homosexual marriage could be used in any of these cases to promote their "right" to marry.

[Anjire2]

SavannahMan wrote: I would propose that whatever arguments are being used to promote homosexual marriage could be used in any of these cases to promote their "right" to marry.

Meaning the same arguments for say supporting interracial marriage?

[SavannahMan]

Anjire2 wrote: SavannahMan wrote: I would propose that whatever arguments are being used to promote homosexual marriage could be used in any of these cases to promote their "right" to marry.

Meaning the same arguments for say supporting interracial marriage?

Don't be silly - if the same arguments for supporting interracial marriage applied to any of those situations they I think 90% of America would support them.

Awfully reluctant to answer the original questions huh?

[SavannahMan]

The silence is defeaning....wonder why?

[Anjire2]

SavannahMan wrote: Anjire2 wrote: SavannahMan wrote: I would propose that whatever arguments are being used to promote homosexual marriage could be used in any of these cases to promote their "right" to marry.

Meaning the same arguments for say supporting interracial marriage?

Don't be silly - if the same arguments for supporting interracial marriage applied to any of those situations they I think 90% of America would support them.

Awfully reluctant to answer the original questions huh?

My support for "Gay Marriage" stems from my desire to see Government untangle itself from the marriage business entirely. Until Government extricates itself, then I see no reason not to give a homosexual couple the same rights/privelages as a heterosexual couple is entitled to. For example, being able to visit one's "spouse" in the hospital and help make medical descisions if needed. The ability to pass on work benefits, pensions to one's spouse. Both spouses ability to become legal guardians to an adopted child or their spouse's child from a prior failed marriage.

For A, How does it affect me if two brothers wish to live out their lives as a couple? How does it affect you personally? Are they consenting adults of legal age? I see no reason for such a couple to not be allowed the right/privelage to establish a legal contract that mirrors "marriage" exactly.

For B, In this case, there are many scientifically founded consequences for this type of union, correct?

For C One last time, how does it affect you personally? How does it affect me, personally? Legally, as "one of them" has pointed out, there would be a definite possible affect in handling any legal disputes between three participants. Instead of just a one to one relationship overall a Judge/Jury would have to take into account the following permutations: 1) overall relationship 2) three - one to one relationships 3) three - one to two relationships.

Do you feel a "marriage" has to be sexually consummated to be a deemed legitimate?

[Melchior]

SavannahMan wrote: The silence is defeaning....wonder why?

It's because your questions are retarded and have been repeated on this forum as well as others for years, we are doing our best to ignore them. This is the silly "marriage to a toaster" argument that PJ pointed out. It's getting old...

Quote: Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

- Scott Bidstrup

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

A. No - incestual

B. No - incestual

C. No - polygamous

ok i'll bite

A & B should not be allowed to marry because incest is unhealthy psychologically and can be physically (any offspring produced from an incestual relationship would likely have physical problems and is almost guranteed to have psychological ones). i know where you are going with this, that homosexuality is also an unhealthy lifestyle (in your eyes), but i disagree. numerous studies on gay parenting have shown that children raised in gay households are no different than ones raised in straight households. show me a study that says the same thing about a child raised in an incestual environment. incest involves sexual activity from within the family environment, and that in itself is psychologically damaging. homosexual families do not involve sexual activity within the family environment, therefore that psychological damage is not there.

and as for the incestual couple themselves, they should still not be allowed to marry because in order to do so the goverment would have to allow incestual marriages, basically saying that incestual relationships are a healthy form of relationship, when they are clearly not.

and AIDS or STDs would not qualify as an arguement for why gay relationships are "unhealthy" because it only applies to those who have contracted the disease, just like in the heterosexual community (straight people with AIDS can still get married ya know). the arguement only works if you generalize and assume all gays either have STDs or will get them in the future, neither of which you can apply to the entire gay community. there are many gay couples who do not have STDs, have never had one, and will likely never have one just the same as a normal heterosexual couples. like you said in another post, this is simply an issue of personal responsibility, just as it is in the heterosexual community.

as for polygamy, i see no reason why the goverment should extend benefits to multiple spouses. there is simply no incentive for them to do so. if everyone in this country can marry one person they choose, regardless of gender or race, then there is no denial of equal opportunity and therefore no incentive for the government to hand out endless benefits to whoever jumps on the polygamous bandwagon. it would become a far too easy way to "milk" the system and provide benefits to roomates, immigrants, or whoever you wanted. when you take away the fact that marriage is a bond between two people, you are cheapening the purpose of a marriage to begin with. the bond means nothing if it can be extended to an unlimited amount of spouses.

all of this is JMO of course but there you have it

[SavannahMan]

No I am not talking about marrying a toaster.

The scenarios were pretty straightforward and not all that far fetched.

It's okay - if I shared your views I wouldnt want them exposed either.

[Protostar]

How about we just stop government recognition of all marriages? Afterall supporting gov't recognition would be supporting bigger gov't so you can't support gov't sanctioned marriages without first agreeing to a bigger gov't.

[SavannahMan]

No I am not talking about marrying a toaster.

The scenarios were pretty straightforward and not all that far fetched.

It's okay - if I shared your views I wouldnt want them exposed either.

[SavannahMan]

Protostar wrote: How about we just stop government recognition of all marriages? Afterall supporting gov't recognition would be supporting bigger gov't so you can't support gov't sanctioned marriages without first agreeing to a bigger gov't.

Wrong forum.

[Melchior]

You... just repeated yourself verbatim. :-|

SavannahMan wrote: Protostar wrote: How about we just stop government recognition of all marriages? Afterall supporting gov't recognition would be supporting bigger gov't so you can't support gov't sanctioned marriages without first agreeing to a bigger gov't.

Wrong forum.

No, not the wrong forum, marriage is the issue.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Protostar wrote: How about we just stop government recognition of all marriages? Afterall supporting gov't recognition would be supporting bigger gov't so you can't support gov't sanctioned marriages without first agreeing to a bigger gov't.

i actually agree with this. but as long as heterosexuals have preferential treatment regarding marriage rights, homosexuals should have the same opportunity IMO.

[eXploiTeD]

SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

:roll:

As if we haven't been through this before...

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: The silence is defeaning....wonder why?
Probably because we've all debated these irrational assertions ad nauseum already.

Or maybe it's because we've decided your just a troll with nothing better to do than stir up trouble in this forum and have taken to ignoring you.

(turns ignore button back on)

[SavannahMan]

eXploiTeD wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

:roll:

As if we haven't been through this before...

And still no answers...as I have already said - I don't wonder why some people don't want to answer such simple questions.....

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

:roll:

As if we haven't been through this before...

And still no answers...as I have already said - I don't wonder why some people don't want to answer such simple questions.....

uhh... i did. so did a few others. am i invisible?

[Demonic Spoon]

A: Governemnt shouldn't even be in the marriage business

B: If they are going to be anyway, then yes, any of those 3 should be able to get married