Thread: Gay Marriage

Really. I suppose you'll tell me that gay marriage is some sort of slippery slope to men marrying donkeys.

Homosexuality is not a health issue. Homosexuality is not a child abuse issue. You are telling me you can't tell the difference between two grown men together and a man and an 8-year-old boy? By your illogic, your definition of marriage does not preclude a woman from marrying an 8-year-old boy, either. Either concept requires us to turn off our brains.

Your comments suggest that if there were a different word for gay marriage, you would still be against it. You compared it to child abuse and inbreeding. Obviously you are not fine with it, no matter what it is called.

*******

While I realize it is a generalization, I'm sticking with it. It is not based on sexual orientation or skin color or any other arbitrary nonsense. The theater is attractive to people who are demonstrative, often flamboyant, sometimes desperately in need of attention and validation, by its very nature. It is not a criticism, it is just a fact. Theater people are not quiet, unassuming folks who mildly go about their business. In fact, I cannot think of a single theater person I've ever known that I would use the word "mild" to describe. Their belief that drama is of value and is central to life is what fuels their interest in the theater in the first place. Again, I understand it's a generalization. But typically that deep philosophical appreciation for drama as the stuff of life bleeds over into their personal lives, and they love hard and hate hard and they keep it all on their sleeve.

If the word "marriage" simply means a union between a man and a woman, can't they just call it a "civil union" or something other than "marriage"? Gaaahhhh, words. Maybe it's the term "marriage" that most object to or is it really the lifestyle?
That seems to come up quite a bit when people talk about this.
Purrs,
Pookie

Dictionaries lie. for example:

tea bag
n.

A small porous sack holding enough tea leaves to make an individual serving of tea.

but THAT doesn't stop some people!

You and I could re-write the dictionary.

Quote:
mar·riage n.

1 - The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2 - The state of being married; wedlock.
3 - A common-law marriage.
4 - A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

(Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry. See marry1.)

Actually, not all definitions of "marriage" in the dictionary define it as only between a man and a woman.

The dictionary is not a lawbook. Changes, additions, and revisions are done all the time. Easy fix! No bill signing, etc. ~Inky

Really. I suppose you'll tell me that gay marriage is some sort of slippery slope to men marrying donkeys.

Homosexuality is not a health issue. Homosexuality is not a child abuse issue. You are telling me you can't tell the difference between two grown men together and a man and an 8-year-old boy? By your illogic, your definition of marriage does not preclude a woman from marrying an 8-year-old boy, either. Either concept requires us to turn off our brains.

Your comments suggest that if there were a different word for gay marriage, you would still be against it. You compared it to child abuse and inbreeding. Obviously you are not fine with it, no matter what it is called.

Excellent point Splansing.

Davideyoung, If we were to call it a "civil union" instead of marriage, that would not eliminate the slippery slope argument. What would stop an 8 year-old from getting a civil union with a 46 year-old??? It would open the door to sibling civil unions, mother and son civil unions, etc....where would it end?

Really. I suppose you'll tell me that gay marriage is some sort of slippery slope to men marrying donkeys.

Homosexuality is not a health issue. Homosexuality is not a child abuse issue. You are telling me you can't tell the difference between two grown men together and a man and an 8-year-old boy? By your illogic, your definition of marriage does not preclude a woman from marrying an 8-year-old boy, either. Either concept requires us to turn off our brains

Nope. I did not bring up any moral arguments. You did though. The bases of not allowing marraiges between children and adults is a moral one. Same with cousins. As for siblings, that would be a health issue.

I was not saying that same-sex marraige is the same as those. I was saying that redefining "marraige" to be any two people in love would open the door to those. Remember, until recent times, marraige did not always have anything to do with love, and falling in love has never been what gives people the right to marry.

Many states already have "domestic partnership" and "civil-union" laws that allow for the same benifits as marraige, and I am fine with those, to answer your question. As for the second question, a child (person under the state's "age of concent")can not legally leave their parents/guardians unless getting married, so civil union laws would not need to change anything to keep children out of it.

Many states already have "domestic partnership" and "civil-union" laws that allow for the same benifits as marraige, and I am fine with those, to answer your question.

You didn't address how the "slippery slope" disappears just because you call it something other than marriage. Wouldn't the "door be open to any two people in love" being allowed a domestic partnership?

Many states already have "domestic partnership" and "civil-union" laws that allow for the same benifits as marraige, and I am fine with those, to answer your question.

I think maybe David meant between consenting adults over 18. That's what I understood his post as saying, or implying anyway, which eliminates the slippery slope thing.

Purrs,
Pookie