Political Crossfire Forums

[mwm1331]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: If you're going to be honest in discussing the slippery slope, you must lay the blame squarely at the door of the government for starting down this road by giving civil recognition to marriage & granting benefits based upon that recognition.

The government's recognition of marriage in the first place is to blame, not the desire of families headed by same-gendered couples to be treated by that government with equality, on a par with the heterosexual couple living next door.

bulls**t.
Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored. As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society. It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc. Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/horn200508090806.asp
Quote: Wedded to Marriage
Invest now or pay later?

By Wade F. Horn

The recently released report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University — "The State of Our Unions, 2005" — is the latest in a series of such reports to document our cultural retreat from marriage. Although divorce rates have declined from all-time highs in the early 1980s, more men and women are cohabiting — many of them with children — rather than marrying.

This is not good news; at least not for children. That's because research consistently finds that cohabiting relationships are far more unstable than marriage. Wherever one finds family instability, an increased risk of problems for children follows with all the associated impacts on social institutions and the demand for more (and more expensive) governmental interventions.

In contrast, healthy and stable marriages support children and limit the need for government programs. Whether the problem is abuse, neglect, or poverty, research clearly shows the best chance a child has of avoiding these problems is to grow up with their mom and dad in a stable, healthy marriage.

In the face of these trends, some counsel resignation. High divorce rates and increasing cohabitation rates are simply a reflection of modernity, they say, and besides, there is not much anyone can do about it.

We disagree. Armed with compelling research that shows that children do best when reared in healthy, stable, two-parent households, three years ago President Bush launched his Healthy Marriage Initiative. The initiative's goal is to help couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative is based on solid research indicating that what separates stable and healthy marriages from unstable and unhealthy ones is not the frequency of conflict, but how couples manage conflict. The good news is that through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught.

The president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is a centerpiece of welfare-reform reauthorization bills currently before both houses of Congress. The reason why the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative mainly targets low-income couples is not because we believe marriage is particularly problematic in low-income communities, but because unlike more affluent couples, low-income couples either do not have the resources to purchase marriage-education services or those services are not currently available in their community. The aim, then, of the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is to give low-income couples greater access to marriage-education services and thereby improve their chances of forming healthy, stable marriages.

But, some libertarians and fiscal conservatives worry, is this initiative really consistent with a conservative's view of limited government? Good question. Here's our answer: First, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative does not add a penny to the federal budget. Rather, our plan simply redirects money from two existing incentive funds under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, incentive funds which most impartial observers agree have not been particularly effective.

Second, rather than an expansion of government, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is an exercise in limited government. Here's how: I run the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs — from child welfare, to child-support enforcement, to anti-poverty assistance to runaway-youth initiatives — the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand that controlling the growth of these programs depends on preventing problems from happening in the first place. One way to accomplish that — not the only way, of course, but one way — is to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages.

Indeed, government is most intrusive into family life when marriages fail. If you don't believe it, try getting married, having kids and then getting a divorce. If you are a non-custodial parent, government will tell you when you can see your children; whether you can pick them up after school or not, and if so, on what days; whether you can authorize medical care for your children; and how much money you must spend on your kids. By preventing marital breakup in the first place — not by making divorce harder to get, but by increasing the odds of a stable marriage by increasing marital health and happiness — one obviates the need for such intrusive government.

The good news is that welfare reform has been a tremendous success. A pernicious culture of dependency was transformed into one that is now focused on helping those on welfare obtain and maintain employment. As a result, welfare rolls have decreased by 60 percent since 1960; earnings by single-parent-headed households are at all-time high; and child poverty has declined significantly, particularly for African-American and Hispanic children.

The job, however, is not done. One of the main goals of welfare reform is to increase the proportion of children growing up in two-parent married households. The president's Healthy Marriage Initiative, by offering voluntary marriage-education services to those who can't afford them, will strengthen marriage and prevent expensive, painful and oftentimes intractable social problems for children. It's a common-sense ounce of prevention that will help temper the demand for a pound of costly social interventions later.

— Wade F. Horn is the assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

mwm1331 wrote: Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored. As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society. It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc. Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

Does the constitution say that the government should subsidize people who have sex and end up having a kid? :?

[mwm1331]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored. As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society. It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc. Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

Does the constitution say that the government should subsidize people who have sex and end up having a kid? :?

Just as much as it says we should pay out of work people to support thier lives.
Or provide a free public education to all children.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored.
Rhetoric, no proof.

Quote: As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society.
No constitutional basis for such an argument.

Quote: It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc.
The government has no such responsibility. If it were that important, it would be in the Constitution.

Quote: Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
People can create families without marriage - happens all the time. Does government recognition of marriage & the benefits that come with it strengthen families? I'm inclined to say 'yes'. Does the government have an obligation to do so? Debatable.

Why should the government favor some types of families over others? I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't unless it can show a rational and legitimate interest in protecting other basic rights as a part of those restrictions. There is no such basis for denying recognition to families headed by same-sex couples.

A more sensible approach (if you believe the government needs to be in the business of supporting families) would be a two-tiered system, recognizing childless couples for the purpose of estate planning & handling medical issues. When a couple actually produces children, then you could kick in whatever additional support is needed for those families. But this business of recognizing childless heterosexual couples on a par with those raising children while completely shunning families where the partners are of the same gender - especially when they are raising children - is irrational, discriminatory and just plain mean-spirited.

Quote: Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
Does the government have an obligation to support everything we view as beneficial to society? That sounds like a recipe for big government to me.

Quote:
The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.
Rhetoric again. The nation will not cease to exist if the government stops recognizing marriage - there simply is no proof for such a claim.

[Jay2014]

mwm1331 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored. As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society. It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc. Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

Does the constitution say that the government should subsidize people who have sex and end up having a kid? :?

Just as much as it says we should pay out of work people to support thier lives.
Or provide a free public education to all children.

so, in other words, we shouldnt be doing any of the three. point?

[Protostar]

Jay2014 wrote: Rob wrote: Protostar,

The polygamist societies here in America generally located on the Northern Arizona, Southern Utah border area are in general pedophelia oriented. Their second wives are younger than their first and so on. In fact, there is a story I saw on the news recently about how the leader of this one sect is kicking out the teenage boys and excommunicating them from the sect for trivial reasons like cussing... once, going to the movies. Crap like that. The bottom line is, he is kicking out his competition for the girls of that age. I don't know and don't care about other countries cultures with this but in America, poligamy is code for rampid pedophelia.

perhaps in practice, but poligamy could be legalized with the same age of consent restrictions that we have on heterosexual marrige. this also holds true for incestuous couples. i think the bestiality formation of this slippery slope argument is irrational, as marrige requires consent. a sheep can not consent under the law. neither can a toster.

personally, as sick as i think it is, i find it equally sick (if not more so) that two american adults are serving prison time for consensual sexual activity.

Agreed.

[Charlie Man]

9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Free marriage is not in the constitution (yet) therefore it is a right that may be retained by the people, thus allowing all marriages and obliging the government to shove off.

The only problem is that this argument, though valid, is a slippery slope towards the right to walk around naked and the right to, i dunno, do anything you want that doesn't infringe unconsentingly on others' life, liberty or property.

[poweRob]

mwm1331 wrote: The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

:!?:

Could you be more of a drama queen?

Commerce will come to a grinding halt as the dollar deflates into oblivion weakening our defenses as China rolls over us by purchasing the Continental United States after the UN provides us with famine relief?

How will the nation CEASE to exist because of implimenting equality in the law?

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored. As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society. It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc. Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

Does the constitution say that the government should subsidize people who have sex and end up having a kid? :?

No, but it doesn't list that as a power denied to the states either. States can subsidize marriage, IMO, even though they shouldn't, but the Federal government cannot. Of course, the Federal government shouldn't be taxing in the first place the way they do, but that's another thread...

[Protostar]

mwm1331 wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: If you're going to be honest in discussing the slippery slope, you must lay the blame squarely at the door of the government for starting down this road by giving civil recognition to marriage & granting benefits based upon that recognition.

The government's recognition of marriage in the first place is to blame, not the desire of families headed by same-gendered couples to be treated by that government with equality, on a par with the heterosexual couple living next door.

bulls**t.
Like it or not, modern societies foundation is marriage. The basic family unit (mother, father, children) is the bedrock upon which American society is anchored. As such it is the governments responsibillity to support and defend the institution just as strenouly as it does any other facet of American society. It is also the government responsibillity to preserve the institution of marriage and defend it from threats such as polgymy, Same sex marriage, incest, etc. Witout marriage, without families, America collapses and dies.
Furthermore the benfits to sociaety as a whole from healthy two prent families that are married as opposed to just cohabitatinmg are immense.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/horn200508090806.asp
Quote: Wedded to Marriage
Invest now or pay later?

By Wade F. Horn

The recently released report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University — "The State of Our Unions, 2005" — is the latest in a series of such reports to document our cultural retreat from marriage. Although divorce rates have declined from all-time highs in the early 1980s, more men and women are cohabiting — many of them with children — rather than marrying.

This is not good news; at least not for children. That's because research consistently finds that cohabiting relationships are far more unstable than marriage. Wherever one finds family instability, an increased risk of problems for children follows with all the associated impacts on social institutions and the demand for more (and more expensive) governmental interventions.

In contrast, healthy and stable marriages support children and limit the need for government programs. Whether the problem is abuse, neglect, or poverty, research clearly shows the best chance a child has of avoiding these problems is to grow up with their mom and dad in a stable, healthy marriage.

In the face of these trends, some counsel resignation. High divorce rates and increasing cohabitation rates are simply a reflection of modernity, they say, and besides, there is not much anyone can do about it.

We disagree. Armed with compelling research that shows that children do best when reared in healthy, stable, two-parent households, three years ago President Bush launched his Healthy Marriage Initiative. The initiative's goal is to help couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative is based on solid research indicating that what separates stable and healthy marriages from unstable and unhealthy ones is not the frequency of conflict, but how couples manage conflict. The good news is that through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught.

The president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is a centerpiece of welfare-reform reauthorization bills currently before both houses of Congress. The reason why the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative mainly targets low-income couples is not because we believe marriage is particularly problematic in low-income communities, but because unlike more affluent couples, low-income couples either do not have the resources to purchase marriage-education services or those services are not currently available in their community. The aim, then, of the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is to give low-income couples greater access to marriage-education services and thereby improve their chances of forming healthy, stable marriages.

But, some libertarians and fiscal conservatives worry, is this initiative really consistent with a conservative's view of limited government? Good question. Here's our answer: First, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative does not add a penny to the federal budget. Rather, our plan simply redirects money from two existing incentive funds under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, incentive funds which most impartial observers agree have not been particularly effective.

Second, rather than an expansion of government, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is an exercise in limited government. Here's how: I run the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs — from child welfare, to child-support enforcement, to anti-poverty assistance to runaway-youth initiatives — the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand that controlling the growth of these programs depends on preventing problems from happening in the first place. One way to accomplish that — not the only way, of course, but one way — is to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages.

Indeed, government is most intrusive into family life when marriages fail. If you don't believe it, try getting married, having kids and then getting a divorce. If you are a non-custodial parent, government will tell you when you can see your children; whether you can pick them up after school or not, and if so, on what days; whether you can authorize medical care for your children; and how much money you must spend on your kids. By preventing marital breakup in the first place — not by making divorce harder to get, but by increasing the odds of a stable marriage by increasing marital health and happiness — one obviates the need for such intrusive government.

The good news is that welfare reform has been a tremendous success. A pernicious culture of dependency was transformed into one that is now focused on helping those on welfare obtain and maintain employment. As a result, welfare rolls have decreased by 60 percent since 1960; earnings by single-parent-headed households are at all-time high; and child poverty has declined significantly, particularly for African-American and Hispanic children.

The job, however, is not done. One of the main goals of welfare reform is to increase the proportion of children growing up in two-parent married households. The president's Healthy Marriage Initiative, by offering voluntary marriage-education services to those who can't afford them, will strengthen marriage and prevent expensive, painful and oftentimes intractable social problems for children. It's a common-sense ounce of prevention that will help temper the demand for a pound of costly social interventions later.

— Wade F. Horn is the assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


The government must recognise, endorse, protect, and defend marriage becuase without marriage our nation ceases to exist.

I don't understand the problem with a man and a woman living together unwed. It's their choice. It makes it easier to go their separate ways if the relationship falls apart. Also children don't address their parents as "Mr and Mrs Whatever", they address them as mom and dad. There have been many children who have been raised by cohabitating couples and single parents, to be successful adults.

[Enoch]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia. I couldn't agree more. It all comes about because people find the idea of homosexuality to be "gross" or "immoral." Therefore, they use the slippery slope argument, which is a fallacious argument to begin with, as a means of scaring others in to accepting what they have deemed to be truth without a single piece of quantifiable evidence to support their theory.

[mwm1331]

UrielsFyre wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia. I couldn't agree more. It all comes about because people find the idea of homosexuality to be "gross" or "immoral." Therefore, they use the slippery slope argument, which is a fallacious argument to begin with, as a means of scaring others in to accepting what they have deemed to be truth without a single piece of quantifiable evidence to support their theory.
Oh really.
Then please explain why Lawrence Vs Texas applies to homosexuals and not incestuous relationships.
Afterall If we can't keep two consenting adult males from marrying how can we justify keeping two consenting related adults from marrying?

[mwm1331]

Quote: I don't understand the problem with a man and a woman living together unwed. It's their choice. It makes it easier to go their separate ways if the relationship falls apart.
That is the problem.
A realtionship, especially one that has resulted in children, shouldn't be easy to abandon.
Relationships take work.
And children from single parent and/or cohabitating families have been proven to be more at risk.

[Jay2014]

mwm1331 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia. I couldn't agree more. It all comes about because people find the idea of homosexuality to be "gross" or "immoral." Therefore, they use the slippery slope argument, which is a fallacious argument to begin with, as a means of scaring others in to accepting what they have deemed to be truth without a single piece of quantifiable evidence to support their theory.
Oh really.
Then please explain why Lawrence Vs Texas applies to homosexuals and not incestuous relationships.
Afterall If we can't keep two consenting adult males from marrying how can we justify keeping two consenting related adults from marrying?

we shouldnt.

[mwm1331]

Jay2014 wrote: mwm1331 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia. I couldn't agree more. It all comes about because people find the idea of homosexuality to be "gross" or "immoral." Therefore, they use the slippery slope argument, which is a fallacious argument to begin with, as a means of scaring others in to accepting what they have deemed to be truth without a single piece of quantifiable evidence to support their theory.
Oh really.
Then please explain why Lawrence Vs Texas applies to homosexuals and not incestuous relationships.
Afterall If we can't keep two consenting adult males from marrying how can we justify keeping two consenting related adults from marrying?

we shouldnt.
I take it your appalachian?

[Enoch]

mwm1331 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia. I couldn't agree more. It all comes about because people find the idea of homosexuality to be "gross" or "immoral." Therefore, they use the slippery slope argument, which is a fallacious argument to begin with, as a means of scaring others in to accepting what they have deemed to be truth without a single piece of quantifiable evidence to support their theory.
Oh really.
Then please explain why Lawrence Vs Texas applies to homosexuals and not incestuous relationships.
Afterall If we can't keep two consenting adult males from marrying how can we justify keeping two consenting related adults from marrying? The reason for the ban on incestous marriage was to protect the children that may result from the relationship. Now, this is NOT the same as the radical right's contention that we, as a society, must "protect" children from homosexual parents. Incestous coupling provides a higher risk for genetic birth defects in the children.

Now, before anyone tries to argue that allowing incestous marriage should be okay if the couple decides not to have children, remember that you can not put a restriction on whether a couple is allowed to have a child or not. The purpose of marriage is not to dole out, or restrict, reproductive rights. The right of reproduction is one of the basic rights that we, as members of the animal kingdom, can not have removed from us.

Besides that, is there even a clamoring in society for the legalization of incestous relationships? I have yet to hear of a "Brother/Sister Marriage Lobby" that is making it's way through Washington.

Just because one feels that, however illogically, allowing gay marriage will somehow slide our society in to incestous marriage, polygamy, or people screwing a penguin in front of Sears does not mean that there is a interest in the public for protection of such activities.

There is, however, a strong voice in society for protection of gay rights.

So, please, enlighten me as to what there is about gay rights that offends you so? Are you upset that two men want to be able to leave each other property in a will without having one another's family contend, and overthrow, the will since the two have no legal protection? Are you offended that two women want to be able to visit each other in the hospital if one is seriously ill or injured? Are you livid over the concept that those two women may want the right to make a medical decision on behalf of their injured, sick, or dying loved one?

Or, perhaps, is it that you have such a narrow definition of marriage, as being only a religious institution, that you can not see that there are a litany of legal protections that gay men and women are after? We are not an afront to your marriage. We do not want to destroy your marriage. All we want is the same legal protections.

[mwm1331]

UrielsFyre wrote: mwm1331 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia. I couldn't agree more. It all comes about because people find the idea of homosexuality to be "gross" or "immoral." Therefore, they use the slippery slope argument, which is a fallacious argument to begin with, as a means of scaring others in to accepting what they have deemed to be truth without a single piece of quantifiable evidence to support their theory.
Oh really.
Then please explain why Lawrence Vs Texas applies to homosexuals and not incestuous relationships.
Afterall If we can't keep two consenting adult males from marrying how can we justify keeping two consenting related adults from marrying? The reason for the ban on incestous marriage was to protect the children that may result from the relationship. Now, this is NOT the same as the radical right's contention that we, as a society, must "protect" children from homosexual parents. Incestous coupling provides a higher risk for genetic birth defects in the children.

Now, before anyone tries to argue that allowing incestous marriage should be okay if the couple decides not to have children, remember that you can not put a restriction on whether a couple is allowed to have a child or not. The purpose of marriage is not to dole out, or restrict, reproductive rights. The right of reproduction is one of the basic rights that we, as members of the animal kingdom, can not have removed from us.

Besides that, is there even a clamoring in society for the legalization of incestous relationships? I have yet to hear of a "Brother/Sister Marriage Lobby" that is making it's way through Washington.

Just because one feels that, however illogically, allowing gay marriage will somehow slide our society in to incestous marriage, polygamy, or people screwing a penguin in front of Sears does not mean that there is a interest in the public for protection of such activities.

There is, however, a strong voice in society for protection of gay rights.

So, please, enlighten me as to what there is about gay rights that offends you so? Are you upset that two men want to be able to leave each other property in a will without having one another's family contend, and overthrow, the will since the two have no legal protection? Are you offended that two women want to be able to visit each other in the hospital if one is seriously ill or injured? Are you livid over the concept that those two women may want the right to make a medical decision on behalf of their injured, sick, or dying loved one?

Or, perhaps, is it that you have such a narrow definition of marriage, as being only a religious institution, that you can not see that there are a litany of legal protections that gay men and women are after? We are not an afront to your marriage. We do not want to destroy your marriage. All we want is the same legal protections.
What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter what there is or is not a "strong clamoring for"
Laws are based on precedents and objective standards.
Lawrence V Texas made the stadard, that two consenting adults. can not be denied marriage rights.
That was it.
That loose defintion also applies to incestous couples.
I dont care what the hell gays do or don't do.
I am however against fundamentally changing an institution that is older than the practice of living in cities to please a fringe group.
The simple fact is the institution of marriage is about procreation, an activity same sex couples can not take part in.
The fact is the privaleges associated with marriages are in place to protect the family unit.
If you want similar protections lobby for them.
If you feel that hospital visiting rules are unfair lobby to get them changed.
Marriage is and always has been a heterosexual institution because its purpose is procreation.
Even cultures which lauded homosexuality did not consider marriage as anything other than the union between a man and a woman.


At the end of the day I am against same sex marriages because a marriage is what it is.
It is the union of a man and a woman. It is not a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Bitching about what simply is, is
like me (a man) bitching that nature is discriminating against me becasue I can't get pregnant.

[Enoch]

mwm1331 wrote: What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter what there is or is not a "strong clamoring for"
Laws are based on precedents and objective standards.
Lawrence V Texas made the stadard, that two consenting adults. can not be denied marriage rights.
That was it.
That loose defintion also applies to incestous couples.
I dont care what the hell gays do or don't do.
I am however against fundamentally changing an institution that is older than the practice of living in cities to please a fringe group.
The simple fact is the institution of marriage is about procreation, an activity same sex couples can not take part in.
The fact is the privaleges associated with marriages are in place to protect the family unit.
If you want similar protections lobby for them.
If you feel that hospital visiting rules are unfair lobby to get them changed.
Marriage is and always has been a heterosexual institution because its purpose is procreation.
Even cultures which lauded homosexuality did not consider marriage as anything other than the union between a man and a woman.


At the end of the day I am against same sex marriages because a marriage is what it is.
It is the union of a man and a woman. It is not a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Bitching about what simply is, is
like me (a man) bitching that nature is discriminating against me becasue I can't get pregnant.
I think you have drastically misunderstood the precedent set in Lawrence v Texas. The decision was actually about state sodomy laws.

In Houston, Texas two men were arrested in 1998 for having consentual sex. The arrest was made possible by the state's "anti-sodomy" statutes. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that any such laws were unconstitutional because it violated the privacy rights of the individuals and denied them equal protection under the law.

The decision was not about anti-gay marriage laws, nor was it intended to be.

[mwm1331]

UrielsFyre wrote: mwm1331 wrote: What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter what there is or is not a "strong clamoring for"
Laws are based on precedents and objective standards.
Lawrence V Texas made the stadard, that two consenting adults. can not be denied marriage rights.
That was it.
That loose defintion also applies to incestous couples.
I dont care what the hell gays do or don't do.
I am however against fundamentally changing an institution that is older than the practice of living in cities to please a fringe group.
The simple fact is the institution of marriage is about procreation, an activity same sex couples can not take part in.
The fact is the privaleges associated with marriages are in place to protect the family unit.
If you want similar protections lobby for them.
If you feel that hospital visiting rules are unfair lobby to get them changed.
Marriage is and always has been a heterosexual institution because its purpose is procreation.
Even cultures which lauded homosexuality did not consider marriage as anything other than the union between a man and a woman.


At the end of the day I am against same sex marriages because a marriage is what it is.
It is the union of a man and a woman. It is not a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Bitching about what simply is, is
like me (a man) bitching that nature is discriminating against me becasue I can't get pregnant.
First of all, I think you have drastically misunderstood the precedent set in Lawrence v Texas. The decision was actually about state sodomy laws.

In Houston, Texas two men were arrested in 1998 for having consentual sex. The arrest was made possible by the state's "anti-sodomy" statutes. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that any such laws were unconstitutional because it violated the privacy rights of the individuals and denied them equal protection under the law.

The decision was not about anti-gay marriage laws, nor was it intended to be.
My bad.
The point remains.
The same standard which struck down sodomy laws, also makes anti-incest laws unconstitutional.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: The same standard which struck down sodomy laws, also makes anti-incest laws unconstitutional.
Only if someone is successful in bringing such a suit before the court and they agree to apply that same standard to this issue. No small feat.

Just because the court ruled one way in Lawrence v. Texas, that doesn't mean they're automatically required to apply that ruling to other cases - someone will have to do a good job of persuading them that the precedent is a good fit for other situations.

The problem with your argument is that you're using Lawrence as a source of blame to strike at gay people. We aren't at fault for the actions that some other group might take, nor are we responsible for creating your 'slippery slope' - it's a construction of your own making with paranoia as its foundation.

It is not reasonable to assume that acknowledging the privacy rights of gay people will lead to something catastrophic. Other groups that would use the precedents set in Lawrence have their own unique hurdles to clear and it is not unreasonable to question whether they'll have any success. The key here is what is or isn't reasonable, and a slippery slope is considered fallacious if the end results cannot be shown to reasonably & likely follow from the premises. The slippery slope you're attempting to present qualifies as such a fallacious argument and as such we must reject it.