Marriage Between One Man, Another Man, and a Woman?

[Decker]

Homosexuality is a mental illness. The mentally ill cannot legally enter into contracts in most states, INCLUDING California. Marriage is a contract. Connect the dots.   

That's not true.  Many states do recognize contracts made by the insane.

And your precept is wrong.  Homos have been around since the beginning of time.  In Classical Antiquity the bravest of the warriors had their dalliances with their young apprentices and it was viewed as normal.

[Hereford]

That's not true.  Many states do recognize contracts made by the insane.

And your precept is wrong.  Homos have been around since the beginning of time.  In Classical Antiquity the bravest of the warriors had their dalliances with their young apprentices and it was viewed as normal.

Well shit then.... The pedo part is ok then too.....

Ya can't pick out what suits you man.......

[Deicide]

Homosexuality is a mental illness. The mentally ill cannot legally enter into contracts in most states, INCLUDING California. Marriage is a contract. Connect the dots.   

I am surprised you would make a statement like this; you are kidding, right?

[Decker]

Well shit then.... The pedo part is ok then too.....

Ya can't pick out what suits you man.......

Nah, there are laws against that.

[Deicide]

Well shit then.... The pedo part is ok then too.....

Ya can't pick out what suits you man.......

What is your personal issue with homosexuality?

[Dos Equis]

You and Beach Bum will say anything to make your point.  

Forget the fact that homosexual marriages are between two consenting adults.

What about pervert child molesters wanting to have sex with kids and then marry them?  What about 'em.  What do they have to do with the topic at hand?

Slippery slope arguments are fairly weak b/c of the necessity of factual and logical leaps and bounds.

This is no different.

There aren't a whole lot of factual and logical leaps required.  Here are some facts:

1.  The homosexual rights movement includes "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered" people, and transvestites too.  

2.  There are laws on the books changing the definition of gender to mean whatever a person wants it to mean on any given day:  "Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

3.  There is a movement in Hawaii and other places to make "gender identity" a protected class.  It has been partly successful here already.  

4.  We have a few state court decisions saying there can be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to marriage.  

Given all of this, where is the enormous logical leap to people advocating equal rights for bisexuals and on the basis of "gender identity" seeking to marry two people of different genders?  Isn’t precluding marriage on that basis discrimination against bisexuals?    

[Dan-O]

Nah, there are laws against that.

So for years and years there were laws against homosexuality too!  You're ignoring the fact that you're being totally arbitrary here, basing your judgments on current law.  Just like Hereford said--you're picking and choosing based on some arbitrary set of values.  Yet you're the one saying that "slippery slope" arguments are weak because "of the necessity of factual and logical leaps and bounds."

Pot, meet kettle.

[Deicide]

There aren't a whole lot of factual and logical leaps required.  Here are some facts:

1.  The homosexual rights movement includes "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered" people, and transvestites too.  

2.  There are laws on the books changing the definition of gender to mean whatever a person wants it to mean on any given day:  "Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

3.  There is a movement in Hawaii and other places to make "gender identity" a protected class.  It has been partly successful here already.  

4.  We have a few state court decisions saying there can be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to marriage.  

Given all of this, where is the enormous logical leap to people advocating equal rights for bisexuals and on the basis of "gender identity" seeking to marry two people of different genders?  Isn’t precluding marriage on that basis discrimination against bisexuals?    

The fags and dikes are coming for you and your children, watch out!

[Dos Equis]

The fags and dikes are coming for you and your children, watch out!

You'll never hear me use that kind of language.  You must be a homophobe. 

[Hereford]

Yes, if your are going to apply a specific logic to something, apply it universally. Don't magically apply it to whatever suits your cause.

"My view is natural, but those other guys, they are all behavioral deviants".   

[Deicide]

You'll never hear me use that kind of language.  You must be a homophobe. 

The irony is lost to you.

[Dos Equis]

The irony is lost to you.

The sarcasm is lost on you. 

[Deicide]

The sarcasm is lost on you. 

Hardly.

[timfogarty]

The question is, why don't you?  What's the difference in your mind?

right now, in the US, how many siblings are in loving committed (sexual) relationships?  how many people are in bisexual polygamous relationships?  how many people are in loving committed same-sex relationships?   My guess is that the first two is a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, while there are millions of people in same-sex relationships.    what this indicates is that same sex relationships are a natural and not uncommon expression of human sexuality.

[Dan-O]

right now, in the US, how many siblings are in loving committed (sexual) relationships?  how many people are in bisexual polygamous relationships?  how many people are in loving committed same-sex relationships?   My guess is that the first two is a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, while there are millions of people in same-sex relationships.    what this indicates is that same sex relationships are a natural and not uncommon expression of human sexuality.

So it's a question of degrees?  Where exactly is the cutoff line to what's natural and not uncommon?  If something is practiced by 1000 people?  By 10,000?  100,000?  1 million?

Again...  this all seems pretty nebulous and arbitrary when applying your own criteria.

[drkaje]

So if NAMBLA had 20 million members they would be legit?

This doesn't seem to be an issue numbers matter much.

[Deicide]

Why do you care so much about what two consentual adults do in the privacy of their own home?

[drkaje]

Why do you care so much about what two consentual adults do in the privacy of their own home?

I don't care at all.

I'm more interested in the argument process itself. It's just dishonest and stupid to compare them to blacks or believe blacks would be pro-gay marriage because we know how gays feel. The black community is far more conservative than people are willing to accept on matters like gay marriage and abortion.

[Dan-O]

Why do you care so much about what two consentual adults do in the privacy of their own home?

This question has already been asked and answered multiple times, just in case you weren't paying attention:

Personally, I couldn't give less of a shit

Why do you care what other people do or want to do?

It has no effect on you so why not just mind your own business

Personally I couldn't give less of a shit either, I can't see it from my backyard.

BUT that's a classic lame old argument.  The fact is that no man is an island.  Society is obviously made up of individuals.  Individual actions affect society as a whole.  And individual disorder and chaos spreads into societal chaos.  That's just how it works.  A "state of confusion" as Beach Bum put it.  A deterioration of order and civilization in society in general.  This is how it starts.

Absolutely correct. 

Also, this isn't about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, which I don't care about (if it involves consenting adults), it's about using the government to legitimize certain behaviors, conduct, etc. 

[Straw Man]

Personally I couldn't give less of a shit either, I can't see it from my backyard.

BUT that's a classic lame old argument.  The fact is that no man is an island.  Society is obviously made up of individuals.  Individual actions affect society as a whole.  And individual disorder and chaos spreads into societal chaos.  That's just how it works.  A "state of confusion" as Beach Bum put it.  A deterioration of order and civilization in society in general.  This is how it starts.

paranoid much?

wtf are you talking about?

[MCWAY]

There aren't a whole lot of factual and logical leaps required.  Here are some facts:

1.  The homosexual rights movement includes "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered" people, and transvestites too.  

2.  There are laws on the books changing the definition of gender to mean whatever a person wants it to mean on any given day:  "Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

3.  There is a movement in Hawaii and other places to make "gender identity" a protected class.  It has been partly successful here already.  

4.  We have a few state court decisions saying there can be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to marriage.  

Given all of this, where is the enormous logical leap to people advocating equal rights for bisexuals and on the basis of "gender identity" seeking to marry two people of different genders?  Isn’t precluding marriage on that basis discrimination against bisexuals?    

Isn't that "pregnant man" from Hawaii?

[Dos Equis]

Isn't that "pregnant man" from Hawaii?

Not sure.  He doesn't live here.  That whole situation is just bizarre.   

[stormshadow]

I don't care who gets married but I think all married people should be stripped of all tax benefits and associated privileges. Why are married people more special than people who are not married? The same people who enjoy all the marriage entitlements complain about entitlements for other people and other things; I say get rid of all the entitlements. If marriage is that special there should be no bonuses for being married; all married people should be thrilled just to be married.

Exactly.  No group should ever have rights or privileges that an individual does not.

Government giving benefits to married couples is social engineering.

[Deedee]

Isn't this the next step?  Not just polygamy, but a "bisexual" man marrying a woman and a man?   

It'll never happen as it's a divergence from an egalitarian society. Polygamous basically means polygyny, and these kinds of societies create an imbalance, which promotes competitiveness and violence among males who will not be privy to a relationship. Women and children pay the price in poverty. It isn't even a question of equal rights. It's a question of freedom of religion.

We can already see within rogue fundie mormon groups what this kind of society brings, and it's unacceptable.

This is just fearmongering.

[Tre]

How are you defining 'man' and 'woman'?