U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

^ fear mongers, narrow-minded blue-rinse biddies and tabloid journalists used to say that kind of thing about homosexual relationships too.

Dean wrote: ^ fear mongers, narrow-minded blue-rinse biddies and tabloid journalists used to say that kind of thing about homosexual relationships too.

Some still do!
Actually saw floating around FB "It's obvious gay marriage will just be an easy way for kids to be bait for hungry pedophiles"

stonebeard wrote: AlexDOM wrote: If all states pass gay marriage which will happen, then polygamy, bestiality, and everything else is for grabs. Not really. It is striking that homosexual relationships are so easily equated with bestiality.

I don't think he's equating homosexuality with bestiality; I think he's arguing more for a foot-in-the-door type of theory, where permitting one thing would open the floodgates for more and more permissiveness.  I think there's something to that theory, although I disagree with the idea that more permissiveness is a bad thing.

stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: AlexDOM wrote: If all states pass gay marriage which will happen, then polygamy, bestiality, and everything else is for grabs. Not really. It is striking that homosexual relationships are so easily equated with bestiality. I don't think he's equating homosexuality with bestiality; I think he's arguing more for a foot-in-the-door type of theory, where permitting one thing would open the floodgates for more and more permissiveness.  I think there's something to that theory, although I disagree with the idea that more permissiveness is a bad thing. As far as slippery slopes go, it's pretty poor. I would reckon gay relationships/marriages have far more approval then polygamous ones, and so incredibly vastly overwhelmingly more approval than bestial...whatever you call those. Let's not pretend like this is a foot in the door to those things. It's a last-ditch effort to instill a fear for something most Americans want to have happen.  And in case it comes up, I don't really see why polygamous marriage should necessarily be out of the question. I just don't think it would come up in debate because almost no one at all pursues it.

In the middle of last century, most people would have scoffed at the notion of gay marriage eventually being allowed.  I don't think that polygamy is going to be allowed any time soon; I think, however, that we will probably see a gradual progression in the US of more and more sexual permissiveness in our laws and in our culture.  The thing about it is, however, that trying to stop the government from recognizing gay marriage in this country is somewhat pointless.  Gay marriage is already recognized in our culture; the government following suit is merely a formality as far as actually having an effect on the culture goes.  Of course, it means more when it comes to benefits and legal status and other things like that.

I think the whole polygamy thing is a little weird because, from a Christian perspective, it's much less of an issue than homosexual marriage.  Scripture never explicitly condemns it (although it does restrict pastors to monogamy).  The taboo on polygamy is much more of a cultural than a biblical thing; you can make a convincing argument from Scripture that polygamy is sin, but the Old and New Testament authors were much more concerned about homosexuality. 

I accept "civil unions" but oppose gay marriage.

It's kind of funny that this debate is so hot in a country which prides itself as the country of freedom 

Edited by Gerinski - April 04 2013 at 07:03

^let's confuse the particular with the Estates General:
Blame the French, the seating arrangements were their fault dammit

Gerinski wrote: rushfan4 wrote: There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry.  Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin.   And then there are all points in between.  I'm digressing here, but it's always amusing that in the US you call 'liberals' the center-left (democrats) and 'conservatives' the center-right (republicans) while in Europe we use the term 'liberals' for the center-right (conservatives, pro-capitalist system, christian-democrats). (and the term 'socialists' for the center-left, which nowadays are not much different from liberals but just with a bit more social-oriented agenda). These terminologies (even the simple 'right' and 'left' words) were based on social environments which are no longer valid and I think that by now in the 21st century it's time that society should make a profound reflection and revision, because many not-so-well-educated people still forge their ideologies based on such cliches and terminologies without understanding what they are actually supporting, and heavily distorting the current political landscapes.

Many well-educated people also do. Sometimes because they know it's convenient for them. And most are called "politicians". Specially here in the US, painting every political debate as a two-road-only alternative it's quite good for both parties.

^And that is your business why?  Even if we take some 2000 year old poorly written novel as the word of god (the equivalent of me taking Action Comics #1 as the word of superman), why is it your business?  If you are "right" with your god, isn't other people's relationship with their god, their own business and none of yours?

Freedom to conservatives in the US means freedom for the haves to take advantage of the have nots and freedom for the religious to control the lives of everyone else.