Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage

[The Rabbi]

Holy cow! People being allowed to the freedom to marry as they choose! What next - women being allowed to be in charge of their own bodies when it comes to pregnancy?

WILL IT NEVER END????

Not if the busybodies of this world have their way. "If I don't like it, you can't have it."

Apologies to the thread hijackers who appear to be at work here - I don't know much about Iran.

Dont know much about sociology either, I see. If marriage can mean anything then it means nothing.

What a clever way to put lipstick on the pig of intolerance.

Translation: I cannot refute this obvious truth,

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If homosexual marriages are legal so is polygamy a Federal Judge rules. Read decision @ http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

Who didn't see this coming?

Followed by this:

Polygamy advocates hail judge's ruling in Utah
December 14, 2013 - 7:04 PM
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
- See more at: Sister Wives: Judge Rules Key Parts of Utah Anti-Polygamy Law Unconstitutional | CNS News

Isn't a slippery slope so much as law is finally catching up with common sense. Any two legal adults can enter into a financial contract with each other. Be it marriage, or some business contract. Allowing polygamy is trickier but only because of how 2nd, 3rd, etc. spouses are handled as to the tax and economic issues.

But the bottom line is what difference does it make? I could give a crap who gets married even upstairs or down the hall. Nevermind in other states. If it makes people happier being "married" I'm all for it because that'll make society in general better if fewer people are 'grumpy.' If a person's religious faith is so tenuous what people who aren't even memebrs of it can threaten it, that's their problem.

Good points that are ignored by the racists and bigots.

Marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony. The religious ceremony means nothing until its ratified by the state.

And, yes, marriage does make for a more stable society in general and its better for children.

 

[The Rabbi]

If homosexual marriages are legal so is polygamy a Federal Judge rules. Read decision @ http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

Who didn't see this coming?

Followed by this:

Polygamy advocates hail judge's ruling in Utah
December 14, 2013 - 7:04 PM
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
- See more at: Sister Wives: Judge Rules Key Parts of Utah Anti-Polygamy Law Unconstitutional | CNS News

Isn't a slippery slope so much as law is finally catching up with common sense. Any two legal adults can enter into a financial contract with each other. Be it marriage, or some business contract. Allowing polygamy is trickier but only because of how 2nd, 3rd, etc. spouses are handled as to the tax and economic issues.

But the bottom line is what difference does it make? I could give a crap who gets married even upstairs or down the hall. Nevermind in other states. If it makes people happier being "married" I'm all for it because that'll make society in general better if fewer people are 'grumpy.' If a person's religious faith is so tenuous what people who aren't even memebrs of it can threaten it, that's their problem.

Good points that are ignored by the racists and bigots.

Marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony. The religious ceremony means nothing until its ratified by the state.

And, yes, marriage does make for a more stable society in general and its better for children.

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state? Wow, skip the flowers next time, 'kay?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Isn't a slippery slope so much as law is finally catching up with common sense. Any two legal adults can enter into a financial contract with each other. Be it marriage, or some business contract. Allowing polygamy is trickier but only because of how 2nd, 3rd, etc. spouses are handled as to the tax and economic issues.

But the bottom line is what difference does it make? I could give a crap who gets married even upstairs or down the hall. Nevermind in other states. If it makes people happier being "married" I'm all for it because that'll make society in general better if fewer people are 'grumpy.' If a person's religious faith is so tenuous what people who aren't even memebrs of it can threaten it, that's their problem.

Good points that are ignored by the racists and bigots.

Marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony. The religious ceremony means nothing until its ratified by the state.

And, yes, marriage does make for a more stable society in general and its better for children.

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state? Wow, skip the flowers next time, 'kay?

Where did I write anything like that? Quote it, link it or admit you're a spineless liar.

Every time you rw's get proven that you're wrong (thousands of times every day), you tell a lie.

Just like you did with this post.

 

[Katzndogz]

As long as an adult male and adult female can marry, marriage isn't in danger. If a man wants two, three or six wives, it's his headache. The same goes for a woman. If she wants more than one husband and they are agreeable to it, more power to them. The line is drawn at bestiality and pedophilia. Those must remain a crime.

Why? In every other country that has legalized same sex marriage it has also legalized bestiality. Some countries have legal animal brothels.

Demark, Sweden and Norway all have legalized sex with animals.

Animal brothels legal in Denmark | IceNews - Daily News

Sweden is now trying to find a way to protect animals since bestiality has been legal since gay rights in 1944.
Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality


“Should a human be allowed to affectionately stroke the teats of a female dog?" asked Eskil Erlandsson, the Agriculture minister, explaining the complexities of an anti-bestiality law, "or does that count as the sexual abuse of an animal?" The minister, famed for his outspoken manner, left many Swedes aghast when he gave an even more explicit example. “What is, what would be, the legal position of someone who spreads an attractive-smelling substance on his sexual parts to encourage a dog to lick it off?"

The Minister's concern was stirred by figures and projections from animal welfare groups. One, the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, registered 115 cases of bestiality between 2000 and 2005. This is regarded however as the tip of the iceberg and some published projections suggest that between 200 and 300 dogs and cats a year are being sexually assaulted.

The Expressen story has stoked up the debate even more. It infiltrated a reporters into a group run by the organiser of a flourishing internet animal sex forum. He owns a farm with dogs and horses and told the newspaper that he had regular sex with his female dog but only when she was on heat: "She was the one who backed into me and provoked it." This is a sufficient defence under current Swedish laws to prevent prosecution under charges of animal cruelty.

Once we have acceptance that homosexuality is normal, anything is possible and will be.

 

[editec]

Personally I think polygamy ought to be legal.

Why is it my business or yours?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once we have acceptance that homosexuality is normal, anything is possible and will be.

Only in the perverted's mind.

 

[Moonglow]

If homosexual marriages are legal so is polygamy a Federal Judge rules. Read decision @ http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

Who didn't see this coming?

Followed by this:

Polygamy advocates hail judge's ruling in Utah
December 14, 2013 - 7:04 PM
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
- See more at: Sister Wives: Judge Rules Key Parts of Utah Anti-Polygamy Law Unconstitutional | CNS News

Being liberal is a mental disorder, they opened a pandoras box with this. I'm sure incest and pedofiles will be next. Turning a once great country into a cesspool.

Damn those Log Cabin republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Good points that are ignored by the racists and bigots.

Marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony. The religious ceremony means nothing until its ratified by the state.

And, yes, marriage does make for a more stable society in general and its better for children.

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state? Wow, skip the flowers next time, 'kay?

Where did I write anything like that? Quote it, link it or admit you're a spineless liar.

Every time you rw's get proven that you're wrong (thousands of times every day), you tell a lie.

Just like you did with this post.

I wonder whether you actually don't understand what you write or are so embarrassed you need to dissemble and lie. I've bolded the sentence that says exactly what I say you wrote. It takes the state to legitimate relationships. That is your statement, not mine.

 

[Moonglow]

Personally I think polygamy ought to be legal.

Why is it my business or yours?

I'd go for it, as long as I had a different house for each wife, that living together all of us trip would be hell.Plus I would need a place of my very own to get away with my snake wife. Hey, they do it in India....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state? Wow, skip the flowers next time, 'kay?

Where did I write anything like that? Quote it, link it or admit you're a spineless liar.

Every time you rw's get proven that you're wrong (thousands of times every day), you tell a lie.

Just like you did with this post.

I wonder whether you actually don't understand what you write or are so embarrassed you need to dissemble and lie. I've bolded the sentence that says exactly what I say you wrote. It takes the state to legitimate relationships. That is your statement, not mine.

And I've bolded your lie.

I wrote:

The religious ceremony means nothing until its ratified by the state.

You wrote:

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state?

See the huge difference in those two statements?

No, you probably don't.

The state does not legitimize relationships EXCEPT legally.

The state does legitimize a religious ceremony.

It is not the relationship that is meaningless. It is the religious ceremony that is meaningless -

Because, as I stated above, marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony.

 

[DGS49]

The main points of discussion, at least in my mind, are:

(A) If anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional BECAUSE the Government could not interfere with the private behavior of two competent, consenting adults, then laws prohibiting sex with competent, consenting adults who happen to be related to one another (father-daughter, brother-sister, etc) are also unconstitutional. With the advent of fool-proof contraception, any medical justifications are history. It is only a matter of someone bringing an appropriate case before the USSC before this principle is formally declared. It cannot be otherwise.

(B) If two people of the same gender have a Constitutional right to marry (under whatever Constitutional principle is chosen - it doesn't matter), then how could the USSC possibly find that three or more competent, desirous people cannot marry one another? Again, it's just a matter of the right case coming before the court. To rule otherwise would be untenable, if such a right to marry is found in the Constitution.

(C) There is no reason on God's green earth why the legislature (people) of any state cannot sanction any imaginable living arrangement among adults, and call it a "marriage." And under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution, the Federal government and every other state MUST recognize that relationship as such. So there.

(D) If any religious body or official does not want to recognize a particular relationship, or officiate at a ceremony creating a LEGAL "marriage," then that official cannot be compelled to recognize or officiate. No sweat off his or his organization's balls.

(E) OBVIOUSLY, no state can prevent any consenting adults, regardless of gender or number, from "living together," and all that that entails.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As long as an adult male and adult female can marry, marriage isn't in danger. If a man wants two, three or six wives, it's his headache. The same goes for a woman. If she wants more than one husband and they are agreeable to it, more power to them. The line is drawn at bestiality and pedophilia. Those must remain a crime.

Why? In every other country that has legalized same sex marriage it has also legalized bestiality. Some countries have legal animal brothels.

Demark, Sweden and Norway all have legalized sex with animals.

Animal brothels legal in Denmark | IceNews - Daily News

Sweden is now trying to find a way to protect animals since bestiality has been legal since gay rights in 1944.
Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality


“Should a human be allowed to affectionately stroke the teats of a female dog?" asked Eskil Erlandsson, the Agriculture minister, explaining the complexities of an anti-bestiality law, "or does that count as the sexual abuse of an animal?" The minister, famed for his outspoken manner, left many Swedes aghast when he gave an even more explicit example. “What is, what would be, the legal position of someone who spreads an attractive-smelling substance on his sexual parts to encourage a dog to lick it off?"

The Minister's concern was stirred by figures and projections from animal welfare groups. One, the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, registered 115 cases of bestiality between 2000 and 2005. This is regarded however as the tip of the iceberg and some published projections suggest that between 200 and 300 dogs and cats a year are being sexually assaulted.

The Expressen story has stoked up the debate even more. It infiltrated a reporters into a group run by the organiser of a flourishing internet animal sex forum. He owns a farm with dogs and horses and told the newspaper that he had regular sex with his female dog but only when she was on heat: "She was the one who backed into me and provoked it." This is a sufficient defence under current Swedish laws to prevent prosecution under charges of animal cruelty.

Once we have acceptance that homosexuality is normal, anything is possible and will be.

This is news to me but ultimately another 'who cares if not into it yourself?' sorta thing. I'm not Swedish, I've never been to Sweden...They could be fascist anarchists it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car.

I'd defend the legal decision pointing out if we can buy an animal, kill the animal and eat it, who gives a hoot if ya schtoop it too? Some animals are more than capable of killing a human if they're against the notion so I don't know how anyone'd object. Animals don't suffer from the same emotional faults human animals do. They have no shame, embarassment, philisophy or objections to interspecies sex we do.

It's even more interesting than this though. It's legal interpretations might someday be used to define whether a human being and visiting alien can get married. How would that be viewed? Beastiality? Homosexuality/Heterosexuality? May as well get it answered now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where did I write anything like that? Quote it, link it or admit you're a spineless liar.

Every time you rw's get proven that you're wrong (thousands of times every day), you tell a lie.

Just like you did with this post.

I wonder whether you actually don't understand what you write or are so embarrassed you need to dissemble and lie. I've bolded the sentence that says exactly what I say you wrote. It takes the state to legitimate relationships. That is your statement, not mine.

And I've bolded your lie.

I wrote:

The religious ceremony means nothing until its ratified by the state.

You wrote:

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state?

See the huge difference in those two statements?

No, you probably don't.

The state does not legitimize relationships EXCEPT legally.

The state does legitimize a religious ceremony.

It is not the relationship that is meaningless. It is the religious ceremony that is meaningless -

Because, as I stated above, marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony.

Well that was a particularly tedious backpedaling. But the truth is you think relationships like marriage get their legitimacy from the state. Because the religious ceremony is really independent of the state. And people can get married with one or without one. The state's recognition doesnt make a marriage legitimate or not.

 

[Iceman]

Once we have acceptance that homosexuality is normal, anything is possible and will be.

Only in the perverted's mind.

What does perverted mean to you?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The biggest threat to marriage today in the United States is heterosexuals marrying then divorcing 60% of the time.

 

[Iceman]

The biggest threat to marriage today in the United States is heterosexuals marrying then divorcing 60% of the time.

This is why no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated and alimony/child support payments need to be more tightly regulated and curbed. This will remove incentives for easy divorce.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I wonder whether you actually don't understand what you write or are so embarrassed you need to dissemble and lie. I've bolded the sentence that says exactly what I say you wrote. It takes the state to legitimate relationships. That is your statement, not mine.

And I've bolded your lie.

I wrote:

You wrote:

So your relationships are meaningless until they are ratified by the state?

See the huge difference in those two statements?

No, you probably don't.

The state does not legitimize relationships EXCEPT legally.

The state does legitimize a religious ceremony.

It is not the relationship that is meaningless. It is the religious ceremony that is meaningless -

Because, as I stated above, marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony.

Well that was a particularly tedious backpedaling. But the truth is you think relationships like marriage get their legitimacy from the state. Because the religious ceremony is really independent of the state. And people can get married with one or without one. The state's recognition doesnt make a marriage legitimate or not.

Just because you don't understand facts, does not mean its "tedious". You could not be more wrong.

The religious part of the ceremony means nothing legally.

Do you understand that the preacher says the words, '... by the power vested in me ...' and that after the religious ceremony, the couple must register their marriage with the state.

Do you understand that a couple can marry in a judge's chambers with absolutely not religious aspect to the "civil" ceremony?

Again, just because you are ignorant of facts, does not mean you're right.

Look up the law in your own state.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The biggest threat to marriage today in the United States is heterosexuals marrying then divorcing 60% of the time.

This is why no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated and alimony/child support payments need to be more tightly regulated and curbed. This will remove incentives for easy divorce.

Marriage should be hard and children should be protected.

Thankfully, so-called "no-fault" divorce is here to stay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The biggest threat to marriage today in the United States is heterosexuals marrying then divorcing 60% of the time.

This is why no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated and alimony/child support payments need to be more tightly regulated and curbed. This will remove incentives for easy divorce.

Marriage should be hard and children should be protected.

Thankfully, so-called "no-fault" divorce is here to stay.

That may change in certain states in the next five years.