here's an argument against gay marriage that i've not yet heard

Somewhere in the United States there is a man who is married to a horse. To get married you need to be able to exclaim "I do" and thats about it, I think.

 

the beastiality thing is stupid. What is not stupid is to say that it opens up pandoras box for such things as polygamy.

If 2 consenting adults can agree to marry(of whatever sex) why cant 3? or 500?

 

I don't have a problem with polygomy, in fact i t'ink it's a better solution and allows a more nurturing enviornment for the children to be raised in.
And, i t'ink i should point out that in the biblical view, polygomy is the form of marrage practiced.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Moses, all polygomists.

 

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39942


That thread starts out as this one has, but really picks up half way through. Some great arguments for and against.

 

This is a well known logical flaw called the "slippery slope" fallacy.

Please review the logical fallacies at the Atheist Web.

 

I am not sure of all that has been said here on this subject, but I would like to make a few points.

First, the issue here is whether two rights-bearing citizens of the U.S. have the right to marry. Introducing issues such as bestiality, polygamy, incest, and coercion of minors introduces irrelevant elements into this debate and should be inmmediately dismissed by anyone wanting to deal with this issue on a serious level. Bestiality is irrelevant because animals are not right-bearing, consenting humans. Children are also not viewed by our courts as full adults and are outside the bounds of this debate as well.

The question becomes whether there is a compelling state interest in preventing certain people (in this case, homosexuals) from marrying. Are homosexuals equal, rights-bearing citizens deserving of protection under the 14th Amendment or not? Apart from a moral disagreement (which is a tenuous reason at best under our system of government), what other compelling reason can there be for our government to prohibit homosexuals from marrying? There is no credible evidence that heterosexuals are inherently better parents than homosexuals. Apart from whatever moral objections that some have, what other compelling interest does our society have for prohibiting two consenting adults to marry one another?

 

why is polygamy irrelevant?

if the issue at hand is whether 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry i dont see how it is irrelevant to talk about whether 3 or more should be allowed to marry.

answer? You can't counter it so you will call it irrelevant.

want the solution to your problem? Say "polygamy" is fine. What do you care what 3 or 500 consenting adults do? Who are you to deny their love?

I find it ironic how so many homosexuals are 'morally' against polygamy yet take so much offense when people are 'morally' against homosexuality.

 

I've never heard of Christians targeting bigamists, or those who follow the tenets of their religion by marrying more than 1 person for violence.

Have you?

-Religious weddings between more than 2 people are common in many countries.

 

hahaha!

Anyway, it's a stupid argument overall, because, do you think that when gay marriage is allowed, people are going to shout 'hey! My name is Q. Werty, I live there and there, and I want to finally marry both my preteen daughters, god dammit!' ? They'd be found dead that same day.

It's a very big step from homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality or incest. Besides, if people like that do start to stand up for their 'rights' we can always say 'go fuck youself, sicko'. Kids and animals can't consent, we have no reason to give in to people who want to marry them.

 

no fuckin shit

 

I'm also curious as to way it doesn't benefit the public's best interest.

Does a country with a 50% divorce rate "benefit the public's best interest"?

 

well i guess you could argue that encouraging homosexuality will decrease birth rate and negatively affect our economy.

 

Here's the "for" argument.

I made this in a powerlifting gym in which I was in the presence of a former NAVY SEAL (and psychotic fundamentalist) and an ex-NFL player who was also famous for being accused of slapping around his then girlfriend Miss Hawai'i. Another big, quick to anger, I hate gays and love Christ type.

They were doing the usual "this is just a sacrilege against the family" tirade, and I stopped them with this.

People get so hung up on "marraige". They seem to think it means "we want the right to the Christian covenant."

They don't seem to realise that marraige has two components in this world - a religious context and a civil one.

Atheists often go to city hall, and get themselves married by a civil ceremony. No religion in that. All they're basically doing is signing a binding legal contract to resolve a morass of property and living will issues. I don't see Christians protesting this.

People who are Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist etc. get married in these ceremonies all the time and the State honors them too. So please don't get me started that the litmus test of marraige acceptability is how pleasing they are to God. From a Christian perspective Hindus are idol worshippers joined by Satan --- dig? However, NO protest against the marraiges performed there.

And realistically speaking, when you talk of gay marraige, you talk simply of allowing two men or two women the right to the same civil rights and civil protections in a civil context. These are matters of the state, not matters of religion.

Get it?

And this is why I think people need their heads examined.

In previous years marraige was often used to secure property or in "Survivor" - like alliances between families. Noone said "but wait a second, this is a Christian sacrament" or whatever.

I don't see Christians out there at the "Elvis Chapel O' Love" in Las Vegas (ya git hitched in 20 minutes or less or it's free!) protesting the "demeaning" of the "sacred ceremony" or whatever.

Britney Spears got married in Vegas on the spur of a moment and was married what, eighteen hours? The second time, she married a married guy (the impromptu ceremony had them dressed in tracksuits!) she was shacked up with. Where the howls of protest? Oh right, she supports the President. She gets a pass.

Letting gays get "married" isn't forcing the Church, or God, to do anything. But it does mean that ALL human beings are entitled to enter in the same kind of CIVIL contracts heterosexuals are.

Realistically speaking, from a religious standpoint there are more than enough clerics in any faith who will perform said ceremony, so it's a moot point there. Legalising the civil aspect won't change that one bit.

And why would one argue against having stable relationships? Like it's somehow worse for a gay man to be in a stable pair bond than to be tripping from bathhouse to bathhouse.

None of this adds up. I told em, guys, I'm FOR gay marraige.

They couldn't argue back. They went back to their weights in silence.

 

well said.

 

If you van get an animal or inanimate object to say "I do", then you deserve to be able to marry it.

 

So you don't mind if I consummate a marriage with a parrot? Or a tape recorder? Or an mp3?

 

If they say "I do", without you feeding them the line then yes.

 

Does anyone else here hate the chain argument? The idea that this leads to this and this leads to that and that leads to...heroine addiction etc. you know what I mean, the argument this thread is based on. It can have some merit at times, but I think it really simplifies a complex argument and hardly should be considered with the gay marriage debate.

As far as I see, Gay marriage is only a slight variation on the traditional marriage because it is between two human beings. People have enough common sense not to head into the direction of bestiality. Sorry I didn't read the other posts.

 

i agree that bringing things like beastiality into the talk is wrong..however, polygamy? perfectly logical and fair game as far as i'm concerned.

 

sorry tired, please explain further what you mean by that megara?