Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 101

Thread: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM[W:95]

  1. #31
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    1.) The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage.
    2.) Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope.
    3.) From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.
    1.) so since gay marriage exists BC and polygamist marriages already existed in the pase and in this very country incest marriage existed so can you tell me what the meaning is? no you cant because, sorry, its made up, its totally subjective.
    2.) see #1 maybe you didnt understand the question, i asked for FACTS that link gay marriage leading to a slippery slope of other marriages. not your opinions
    3.) and that stand point is illogical and a failed one like i said. theres no logical reason for gay marriage to lead to EVERYONE in a relationship Andy more than hetero. thank you fro proving my point. You need facts and precedence, maybe you didnt understand.

    Like i said earlier your argument is just as sound as when people said guess we should let dogs vote to after women and minority rights. SOrry you have no leg to stand on. let me know when you do.
    like i said if you disagree provide the facts that lead to polygamy marriage just based on gay marriage precedence.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
    Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]
    In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]

    History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    All well and good but I'm talking about America here.

  3. #33
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,667

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    no equal rights wouldnt apply since NOBODY can have a marriage contract with multiple partners

    so unless a state banned specifically polygamous MAARRIAGE first, then they could argue discrimination and equality but that would have NOTHING to do with gay marriage or hetero marriage.

    also polygamy is polandry/polgynyy
    Not true. You seem to accept the number of partners limitation as cast in stone yet see the being of opposite gender limitation as "easily" changable. Business partnership contracts, which handle survivorship, voluntary/involuntary separation of a partner and joint asset ownership, allow any number of partners and of any gender. The only fundamental change of a business partnership to make it marriage compatable would be the limitation to be in only one such agreement at a time (no bygamy).
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #34
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    1.)Well, knowing from living with myself my entire life that I am honest and educated and not knowing you from Adam pretty much tells me you're on the wrong tack there. You have it wrong about me, what else do you have wrong? Also knowing how people have voted in the majority tells me what other people (beside yourself and the minority that thinks like you do) do indeed care what I think.



    Then you're not as bright as you advertise. You've helped to set up a condition in this country where all you have to do is manufacture a new constitutional right in order to do what you please.



    3.) As you have been this entire time.
    4.)And nope, not gonna leave, I'm here for the free stuff remember? I've joined your side of the deal.
    1.) no i got it right, your feelings dont change facts. got that 100% right
    2.) meaningless lie and failed insult, thanks but this changes nothing
    3.) 100% correct but im happy my country protects my rights and the rights of my fellow american so i dont want to leave. so thats silly to bring up
    4.) that has nothing to do with me, but please, feel free to make up more stuff and use more failed strawmen
    Last edited by AGENT J; 09-11-13 at 08:21 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) so since gay marriage exists BC and polygamist marriages already existed in the pase and in this very country incest marriage existed so can you tell me what the meaning is? no you cant because, sorry, its made up, its totally subjective.
    2.) see #1 maybe you didnt understand the question, i asked for FACTS that link gay marriage leading to a slippery slope of other marriages. not your opinions
    3.) and that stand point is illogical and a failed one like i said. theres no logical reason for gay marriage to lead to EVERYONE in a relationship Andy more than hetero. thank you fro proving my point. You need facts and precedence, maybe you didnt understand.

    Like i said earlier your argument is just as sound as when people said guess we should let dogs vote to after women and minority rights. SOrry you have no leg to stand on. let me know when you do.
    like i said if you disagree provide the facts that lead to polygamy marriage just based on gay marriage precedence.
    Just because you ask for something does not mean I have to answer. I thought I was pretty clear that gays changing the meaning of marriage was a slippery slope. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree or better yet you give me facts, facts that prove gay marriage won't lead to other relationships demanding marriage rights. See, I can play your stupid game too.

  6. #36
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,537

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope. From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.
    What I see under constant assault is life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness for ALL of our citizens along with "equal protection" under the law, and "due process" which is, to me, the more important issue over who marries who.

    So polygamy would effect you or the rest of us how?

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope. From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.
    perhaps that was a slope that needs to be gone down. They are consenting adults. Them getting married does not harm anyone but them if things go wrong. Your argument does not take into account the open prejudice of saying these adults can enter into a partnership with each other, but for some strange reason they cannot enter into the same legal contract with other adults. From a legal standpoint you can make any other contract but marriage between two consenting adults of any gender. Just because it has always been done that way is a terrible argument on two fronts. First, we have not always done things right so changing them when they are wrong is important. The other is that it has not always been marriage as we know it today. marriage used to be entirely about political and financial unions of families and it was arranged. Your traditional marriage idea of two people being in love is certainly not a traditional marriage at all.

    If there is a legal contract there is no reason that religious values like man and woman should be mixed in there at all. If the people entering into the partnership have moral reservations they should be free of forming a contract they are not consenting to, but if they have no objections and are willing they should be allowed to partner as anyone else would. It is called free and equal. Polygamy would require a new form of domestic union contract. Gay marriage does not actually require a new contract, it only needs to have gays allowed into the old contract. So your slippery actually bottoms out because it is not as simple as just letting more people into a legal contract designed for only two people. Letting gays marry is as simple as just opening the partner contract to them, and as we see in states like NM nothing actually changes when they just start issuing contracts to people of the same gender. That slippery slope BS fails on almost every level. Even things like partnerships with kids, animals, and objects would require changes in the laws because we have something called consent which none of those things can give legally. So even there you cannot just start handing out marriage contracts to a man and a dog because the dog cannot enter into the legal contract like two consenting adults of the same gender.

    Still, perhaps we should go down the next slope and offer up a domestic contract to more than a partnership. That needs to be argued on it's own issues. Stop trying to combine them.

  8. #38
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Not true. You seem to accept the number of partners limitation as cast in stone yet see the being of opposite gender limitation as "easily" changable. Business partnership contracts, which handle survivorship, voluntary/involuntary separation of a partner and joint asset ownership, allow any number of partners and of any gender. The only fundamental change of a business partnership to make it marriage compatable would be the limitation to be in only one such agreement at a time (no bygamy).
    not only true its factual. we are talking legal marriage contract , rights and precedence here. There is none that has been established with equal gay rights that magically loans itself to polygamy.

    anything polygamist would try would have nothing to do with equal gay rights, thats the point. If im missing something and you disagree point out the factual link that is solely based on equal rights for gays.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    So in your opinion will people in a threesome relationship try to get married if the gays do or not?
    I would imagine that whether or not gays get married the people who wish to get polygamous marriages will continue to fight to get them. Since neither relies or is connected to the other i see no reason for either to rely on the other's passing aside from a desire by certain people to pretend we are going to just allow everything if we allow one or the other to marry.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    perhaps that was a slope that needs to be gone down. They are consenting adults. Them getting married does not harm anyone but them if things go wrong. Your argument does not take into account the open prejudice of saying these adults can enter into a partnership with each other, but for some strange reason they cannot enter into the same legal contract with other adults. From a legal standpoint you can make any other contract but marriage between two consenting adults of any gender. Just because it has always been done that way is a terrible argument on two fronts. First, we have not always done things right so changing them when they are wrong is important. The other is that it has not always been marriage as we know it today. marriage used to be entirely about political and financial unions of families and it was arranged. Your traditional marriage idea of two people being in love is certainly not a traditional marriage at all.

    If there is a legal contract there is no reason that religious values like man and woman should be mixed in there at all. If the people entering into the partnership have moral reservations they should be free of forming a contract they are not consenting to, but if they have no objections and are willing they should be allowed to partner as anyone else would. It is called free and equal. Polygamy would require a new form of domestic union contract. Gay marriage does not actually require a new contract, it only needs to have gays allowed into the old contract. So your slippery actually bottoms out because it is not as simple as just letting more people into a legal contract designed for only two people. Letting gays marry is as simple as just opening the partner contract to them, and as we see in states like NM nothing actually changes when they just start issuing contracts to people of the same gender. That slippery slope BS fails on almost every level. Even things like partnerships with kids, animals, and objects would require changes in the laws because we have something called consent which none of those things can give legally. So even there you cannot just start handing out marriage contracts to a man and a dog because the dog cannot enter into the legal contract like two consenting adults of the same gender.

    Still, perhaps we should go down the next slope and offer up a domestic contract to more than a partnership. That needs to be argued on it's own issues. Stop trying to combine them.
    First off I agree that polygamist will be next to demand marriage rights but you took it to the absurd with kids and animals. Lets keep it to consenting adults.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •