...and here's the slippery slope

[Eastoff]

Now I wish I was middle eastern. My cousin is HOT.

you don't have to go that far! You could go to Cuba.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Now I wish I was middle eastern. My cousin is HOT.

Cohabitation and "biblical contact" is legal in Oregon; you just can't get married.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

you don't have to go that far! You could go to Cuba.

Or Florida. Seriously, did no one read the wikis I linked to?

 

[Further]

Now I wish I was middle eastern. My cousin is HOT.

but she wouldn't be if she were middle eastern























its a joke

 

[Eastoff]

Or Florida. Seriously, did no one read the wikis I linked to?

nope, I'm sorry. After reviewing it, I see he only has to go to California!

 

[maxiep]

I didn't see a slippery slope. I saw the same old bigot argument that "marriage equality will inevitabley lead to polygamy because I say so" even though it has not anywhere in the world (and the countries that allow polygamy do not allow same sex marriage) and some academic saying discuss polyamory. Discuss anydamnthing you want. It's free speech. But it also has nothing to do with marriage equality.

When straight folks are ready to renounce their right to legal marraige, then you can ask gay folks to do the same.

I hereby renounce my right to government sponsored marriage, and endorse my government sponsored civil union. I do NOT renounce my Catholic marriage, however.

Satisfied?

 

[blazerboy30]

Honestly, if both parties are consensual and of age, it shouldn't be against the law. Don't get me wrong, incest is disgusting and should be roundly mocked in society, but it's not the govt's job to make moral determination. We don't have laws against pregnant mothers drinking, and that causes far more birth defects than incest (mainly because of how prevalent it is). The social norms should make people feel horrible for drinking a lot while pregnant and for incest. But I don't think the govt should care.

The Left in this country have pushed more and more towards socialism and spreading the wealth and risk. So, those people have created a society where we all have to pay for supporting other peoples' stupid decisions and mistakes.

The Left has voted for and created a government that cares about being in peoples' lives and having others pay for it, so shouldn't the Left want the government to care about many children being born with defects since the rest of us will have to pay to support it?

 

[Further]

The Left in this country have pushed more and more towards socialism and spreading the wealth and risk. So, those people have created a society where we all have to pay for supporting other peoples' stupid decisions and mistakes.

The Left has voted for and created a government that cares about being in peoples' lives and having others pay for it, so shouldn't the Left want the government to care about many children being born with defects since the rest of us will have to pay to support it?

I'm not claiming my position to that of the left. My positions are usually more left than right, but I don't follow any party line. I think it's impossible for every topic to only have two sides, and for one of the sides to always be correct and the other always incorrect.

I do believe in freedom to make bad decisions, but I also want a compassionate society that catches those that make bad decisions from falling too far. in other words, I don't want it to be illegal for a pregnant woman to have a drink, but if she has a mentally deficient kid because of her bad choices, I still want to make sure there is help available for both the woman and the child.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm not claiming my position to that of the left. My positions are usually more left than right, but I don't follow any party line. I think it's impossible for every topic to only have two sides, and for one of the sides to always be correct and the other always incorrect.

I do believe in freedom to make bad decisions, but I also want a compassionate society that catches those that make bad decisions from falling too far. in other words, I don't want it to be illegal for a pregnant woman to have a drink, but if she has a mentally deficient kid because of her bad choices, I still want to make sure there is help available for both the woman and the child.

I feel exactly the same way. I don't understand why so many people on the right have a problem with this philosophy.

People on the right always want to make it right vs. left, black vs. white, etc.

 

[jlprk]

The Left in this country have pushed more and more towards socialism and spreading the wealth and risk. So, those people have created a society where we all have to pay for supporting other peoples' stupid decisions and mistakes.

The Left has voted for and created a government that cares about being in peoples' lives and having others pay for it, so shouldn't the Left want the government to care about many children being born with defects since the rest of us will have to pay to support it?

The Right have created a system in which we all labor to provide the rich with recreation so they can rest from their heavy work of telling us what to do. We all have to subsidize their mistakes. As ABM's signature might say, the only problem with the rich is that eventually you run out of other people's labor.

 

[Further]

I feel exactly the same way. I don't understand why so many people on the right have a problem with this philosophy.

People on the right always want to make it right vs. left, black vs. white, etc.

well in many cases it is BLACK vs WHITE

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[crandc]

Actually I think if all parties are consenting adults that polygamy should not be illegal. The cults who marry off 15 year old girls to 40 year old men are a different story. I am in general opposed to any legislating of personal morality when no one is actively harmed. However, this is a different matter than marriage equality. No slippery slope. If there were, we'd see polygamy in Canada and gay marriage in Saudi Arabia.

BTW, the legal definition of incest is all over the map. As has been pointed out, in some U.S. states first cousins can marry; in others it's incest. I don't know if it is still true but at least in the recent past Britain did not consider marriages between adoptive siblings as incest; in the U.S. it is. In some Middle Eastern countries marriage between uncle and niece is not only legal, it's desirable; in Western Europe and North America that is incest. There is also the thorny question of whether it is incest if the parties don't know they are related and find out later. (I remember from that font of wisdom, Dear Abby, a young woman writing to say she wanted to marry the "boy next door" and her mother had to confess to her that the young woman and the "boy next door" had the same father. What if the mother had never confessed her affair, or had died and the secret died with her? Interesting thought experiment.)

 

[Denny Crane]

The only argument against polygamy that stands up to Reason is that young girls are forced to marry against heir will. I think that should be illegal.

But for consenting adults? Where's the beef?

 

[santeesioux]

Next thing you know they'll be legalizing bestiality! :MARIS61: At least Corvallis will be happy.

 

[MARIS61]

Can someone give me a compelling argument why any level of Government should be involved in marriage instead of civil unions?

Due to the myriad of ways it affects how people are treated/controlled/rewarded/penalized/prosecuted/imprisoned...by the government and also by the corporations that now run our government.

The day our government actually becomes a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it could back out of the issue without harm. Under our current oppressive and corrupt government, it's regulatory involvement in marriage is ironically our only defense against it's inequality in serving married versus single Americans.

 

[maxiep]

Every time I see a photo like this, all I can think about is the massive amount of B.O. that must exist in that scene.

 

[blazerboy30]

I feel exactly the same way. I don't understand why so many people on the right have a problem with this philosophy.

People on the right always want to make it right vs. left, black vs. white, etc.

I really hope the irony here didn't fly over your head.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm not claiming my position to that of the left. My positions are usually more left than right, but I don't follow any party line. I think it's impossible for every topic to only have two sides, and for one of the sides to always be correct and the other always incorrect.

I do believe in freedom to make bad decisions, but I also want a compassionate society that catches those that make bad decisions from falling too far. in other words, I don't want it to be illegal for a pregnant woman to have a drink, but if she has a mentally deficient kid because of her bad choices, I still want to make sure there is help available for both the woman and the child.

There is nothing wrong with a compassionate society, and I want that too. But voting for a government that forces this compassion causes a fundamental opposition to maintaining responsibility for oneself, freedom and rights.

 

[blazerboy30]

The Right have created a system in which we all labor to provide the rich with recreation so they can rest from their heavy work of telling us what to do. We all have to subsidize their mistakes. As ABM's signature might say, the only problem with the rich is that eventually you run out of other people's labor.

I know there is the "tl;dr" for "too long; didn't read".

Is there an abbreviation for "too much gibberish, didn't read"?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I know there is the "tl;dr" for "too long; didn't read".

Is there an abbreviation for "too much gibberish, didn't read"?

yes, it's :MARIS61:

 

[Denny Crane]

Careful or you'll slip down that slope into the abyss of ... what? Someone nowhere near you being happy?

 

[blazerboy30]

Careful or you'll slip down that slope into the abyss of ... what? Someone nowhere near you being happy?

I think you meant to put this in ABM's "strawman" thread.

 

[maxiep]

I know there is the "tl;dr" for "too long; didn't read".

Is there an abbreviation for "too much gibberish, didn't read"?

This link:

[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]

 

[Denny Crane]

Not quite.

I swear, people would learn a lot by reading the wikipedia page about what a strawman actually is.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I have never had a problem with gay marriage. However, I often read in response to my warning that one would then have to allow polyamory (polygamy and polyandry) as well as incest. After all, the argument was framed in terms of equal rights. I was told I was being sensationalist and ridiculous in my warnings.

Well, here they are within 30 days of the Supreme Court decision.

http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/marriage-polyamory.html

Rather than saying "I told you so" (as I don't care about being right or wrong), I am starting this thread to re-propose my original position: Get government out of the marriage business. Government can create "civil unions" and cannot discriminate in any way shape or form as long as the parties are of the age of consent. However, marriage should be a religious connotation only, and those religious institutions should be allowed to marry or not marry anyone they please.

I don't think the left hid the fact they support incest or poly "unions". It's part & parcel of anyone can marry whomever they please and for whatever reason they choose. It's the natural evolution of their position.

But, I will give you credit for being the first to say so here.

 

[MarAzul]

I have never had a problem with gay marriage. However, I often read in response to my warning that one would then have to allow polyamory (polygamy and polyandry) as well as incest. After all, the argument was framed in terms of equal rights. I was told I was being sensationalist and ridiculous in my warnings.

Well, here they are within 30 days of the Supreme Court decision.

http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/marriage-polyamory.html

Rather than saying "I told you so" (as I don't care about being right or wrong), I am starting this thread to re-propose my original position: Get government out of the marriage business. Government can create "civil unions" and cannot discriminate in any way shape or form as long as the parties are of the age of consent. However, marriage should be a religious connotation only, and those religious institutions should be allowed to marry or not marry anyone they please.

You are exactly correct. Marriage has been defined for several thousand years as a the joining of a man and a woman. There never was an equally protection argument (14th amendment)
until now. This slope started with the sixteenth amendment and Congress and the States giving deference or preference to the married couples in tax law. Now that the marriage penalty has been eliminated in tax law, we now have the push to redefine the word marriage. If you accept the word as redefined, (to what ever joining you want) then you violate equal protection clause by not allowing any union any person can conjure up.

This is a ridiculous progression as Marriage and the sanctifying of the family unit became basic institution of human society for the betterment and the good of that society. There is no benefit to society for marriage between other than the man and woman. There are benefits though to these individuals due to tax law but only because they will be no longer excluded from the benefits by the original design of the tax law. The intent of tax laws maybe the equal protection violation, not the traditional long standing definition of marriage.

 

[Eastoff]

I don't think the left hid the fact they support incest or poly "unions". It's part & parcel of anyone can marry whomever they please and for whatever reason they choose. It's the natural evolution of their position.

But, I will give you credit for being the first to say so here.

and it's only within the last hundred or so years, the right decided polygamy is bad.

 

[Further]

There is no benefit to society for marriage between other than the man and woman.

If there are benefits to society for heterosexual marriages, the exact same benefits would come from homosexual marriages.

They both show the importance of commitment.
They both provide a loving atmosphere for a child.
They both provide for merging of accounts to free up capital or time to make the community better.

 

[magnifier661]

and it's only within the last hundred or so years, the right decided polygamy is bad.

A hundred years ago, the democrats were really conservative. Way to pass judgment when you don't know the entire details.

Ps, when racism was at its highest peak in America, we had democratic leadership. Go figure?!