Gay/Lesbian religious unions (Marriage)

Gonz said:
Pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, polygamy, incest...they are all disgusting. 50 years ago, homosexuality was considered a disorder. Today, they want to get married. The slope is very slippery. As I tend to preach, look at history, once the gates are opened, the flood always come thru.
Click to expand...

50 years ago bigotry was much more accepted. Slippery slope? You're saying that if we let homosexuals marry then that will encourage more beastiality? Amazing.

Maybe we should never have started letting women vote because once you get started down that slippery slope next thing you know we'll be letting our pets vote, then of course livestock, and before you know it the fish will be in control of the senate.
 
:rofl4:

Oh dear, you've done it now! I won't be able to read the rest of this thread with a straight face! :disgust2:
 
MrBishop said:
Look...let's not get off the point. The point is...the moral majority rules.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. What rules is what the law states. The law doesn't give a shit about morals or what the majority thinks - letters and words are independant of human beliefs. Of course they can be changed if the moral majority puts the pressure on the right place, but until that happens, I contend that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex marriages. Because the LAW is what's important, and it's irrelevant if the majority are against it, they have no LEGAL power to prevent it.

Gonz said:
The only difference between "them" & "us" is who they choose to bed.
Click to expand...

As ris said, you obviously don't believe that's true, since you're also trying to strip them of certain civil rights because of it.
 
How does this not pertain to same sex couples when Heterosexuals become married simply by living together.
COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE - In some states, a couple is considered married if they meet certain requirements, such as living together as husband and wife for a specific length of time. Such a couple has all the rights and obligations of a traditionally married couple.
Click to expand...
 
as far as i am aware, in many coutnries commonlaw marriage is a limited extension of contract, and no where near as powerful as a civil one, not extending to pension rights, insurances [etc].
 
ris said:
as far as i am aware, in many coutnries commonlaw marriage is a limited extension of contract, and no where near as powerful as a civil one, not extending to pension rights, insurances [etc].
Click to expand...


My point is people are saying the term "marriage" should be reserved ,stricly because of its past interpretation. I'm saying if the term Marriage is already legally being used to describe "common law " relationships ,then how can same sex couples be excluded .A problem does arise if a single child wants to have their ailing parent considered a spouse so they can be put on the child's Insurance . The argument seems to be more rooted in availability to medical and other benefits its not that the "powers that be" are reserving the the word "marriage" its they are trying to limit liability.
 
i take the point, i think that for a very long time now marriage as a religious speciality has been superceded by the civic form, especially with increasing divorce and re-marriage [which in the uk pretty much all have to be registry office jobs].
as a civic union i can't think of any reason not to include same-sex relationships.
 
flavio said:
50 years ago bigotry was much more accepted. Slippery slope? You're saying that if we let homosexuals marry then that will encourage more beastiality? Amazing.

Maybe we should never have started letting women vote because once you get started down that slippery slope next thing you know we'll be letting our pets vote, then of course livestock, and before you know it the fish will be in control of the senate.
Click to expand...



i think its the bullshit thought: one deviance leads to another
 
Well, if it doesn't find it's way onto one of those humourous sites on it's own I'll just have to submit it... :D
 
MrBishop said:
Almost forgot...it's latter day-- as in later, not ladder -- as in something you climb to get on the roof. :)

Sorry about that last hit...but I couldn't help myself. The image of Jesus coming off the cross using a ladder came to mind.
Click to expand...


No problem.

If you actually bothered to read threads around here youd see that I already listed my spelling and typos as an issue with me, thus your comment has already been discussed.

Now if you have anything new/intelligent to add...Id be intrested in seeing that.
 
If you'd been here long enough you'd know that American v european selling is always an issue where english is concerned... ;)
 
ris said:
i take the point, i think that for a very long time now marriage as a religious speciality has been superceded by the civic form, especially with increasing divorce and re-marriage [which in the uk pretty much all have to be registry office jobs].
as a civic union i can't think of any reason not to include same-sex relationships.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


Ris as usual comes up with some of the best comments in these threads.
 
a13antichrist said:
No, it doesn't. What rules is what the law states. The law doesn't give a shit about morals or what the majority thinks - letters and words are independant of human beliefs. Of course they can be changed if the moral majority puts the pressure on the right place, but until that happens, I contend that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex marriages. Because the LAW is what's important, and it's irrelevant if the majority are against it, they have no LEGAL power to prevent it.
.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly, the laws were written by people, and can be abridged by people, taken off the books, enforced etc...all by people who have their own morals, and may (or may not) have to be voted in for their next term. It is now unconstitutional to deny same-sex marriage...but it's not being interpretted that way right now. We're fighting the same fight A13...I'm just pointing out the hurdles that we have to clear before change can happen. The "Moral Majority" is one hell of a hurdle!
 
Aunty Em said:
If you'd been here long enough you'd know that American v european selling is always an issue where english is concerned... ;)
Click to expand...


Eh,

Even if it were not I still have a problem with typing too fast and not spell checking what I just wrote, or even making sure I have the proper spelling for words that sound the same but are spelled differently.

Word usage is one thing, but If I want a spell checking forum Id go find on some where.

Its about the content of the discussion, not English 101.
 
Aunty Em said:
You can say that again! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Everyone has their issue. Some are weak in math, others are weak in spelling etc etc.

Ill bet I know the proper spelling for thousands of medical terms that 90% of the users here dont....

And that means what....exactly nothing.

Same as what my typo/spelling errors mean...exactly nothing.


Edit: Opps... Dam time delay strikes again.

Comment still stands though.
 
AnomalousEntity said:
No problem.

If you actually bothered to read threads around here youd see that I already listed my spelling and typos as an issue with me, thus your comment has already been discussed..
Click to expand...

And retracted...probably as you were typing your reply. I may have missed your self-depreciation regarding your typing skills...I don't have the time to peruse all threads. I have work to do :)

AnomalousEntity said:
Now if you have anything new/intelligent to add...Id be intrested in seeing that.
Click to expand...

Already done. Please allow me to add to my arguement.

I mentioned polygamy, bestiality etc...as alternative forms of relationships also not currently 'socially accepteable'. Homosexuality is not accepted by all.

Homosexual marriage is not even acccepted by all people that 'overlook' homosexuality, or are even 'pro-gay'. Hell....I even know a gay guy that is against gay marraige.

I was introducing the slippery slope arguement, not because I hold it, but because it's an example of how people think. It's an example (as I mentioned to A13), on what hurdles gay-unions face.

Legally..those who wish to block gay-marriage don't have a leg to stand on. Religiously...that's a different story.
 
MrBishop said:
And retracted...probably as you were typing your reply. I may have missed your self-depreciation regarding your typing skills...I don't have the time to peruse all threads. I have work to do :)



Already done. Please allow me to add to my arguement.

I mentioned polygamy, bestiality etc...as alternative forms of relationships also not currently 'socially accepteable'. Homosexuality is not accepted by all.

Homosexual marriage is not even acccepted by all people that 'overlook' homosexuality, or are even 'pro-gay'. Hell....I even know a gay guy that is against gay marraige.

I was introducing the slippery slope arguement, not because I hold it, but because it's an example of how people think. It's an example (as I mentioned to A13), on what hurdles gay-unions face.

Legally..those who wish to block gay-marriage don't have a leg to stand on. Religiously...that's a different story.
Click to expand...

I agree with that 100%.

And slippery slope isnt always just a tool for making a case without proof or evidence, neither is it always somthing just taught in formal logic courses....

Occassionally it does happen.

Lots of times you cant view it over a 10 or 50 year period. But if you look at somthing over a 100 or 200 year period...you can DEFINATELY demonstrate slippery slope actually occurring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top