12 Reasons Same Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Pedophilia comes first. Also, this argument has a lot more merit then you might realize. Just look at whats going on with the homosexual and NAMBLA lobbyists in Canada as well as the attacks on organizations like the Boy Scouts. With this kind of stuff it's all about baby steps.

The second the Boy Scouts is forced against it's will to change its ways to be politically correct, or we have to rewrite the meaning of a word that has a tradition thousands of years old, is the second we have taken this PC crap way too far IMO.

[Phoenix1010]

I link this here too, just in case anyone wants to read the rest: Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

Perhaps this will speed up the discussion.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
it's all about baby steps.

[/ QUOTE ]And it started with interracial marriage.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]


No when it comes to global warming/energy. Then again the respectable neo-cons do tend to shut up and I'm left dealing with the trolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

The global warming threads are always a joke. When people argue without providing cerdible sources it is just becomes stupid. Every globla warming thread ends in a Wacki pwns neo-cons fest.

[ QUOTE ]
As for same sex marriage, I'm all for unions but gay people can not partake in the ceremony of marriage IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused by this. If a pastor or priest or rabbi or whatever agrees to do the ceremony, it shouldn't be allowed? Also, when gay marriage becomes legal, it will still be impossible for same-sex couples to force a religious institution to marry them. I'm confused and need some clarification on your thoughts before I continue much further.

Quick thoughts:
1) Marriage is only a word and I find it absurd that people are so defensive over it. It leads one to believe...

2) Most people do not understand the complex workings of language. Language is an evolving aspect of a society that exists only as a signifier. While probably boring and complex for most, I suggest anyone with real interest (and problems) about this topic research Derrida's writings on the signified and signifiers.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
And it started with interracial marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and it continues with gay unions which I also agree with. The problem is that people will take it too far. It's inevitable. Marriage loses its meaning, 12 year olds get abortions like their nothing to worry about, private organizations like the Boy Scouts lose their rights, the line of adult and child gets more and more blured every day.

It's a very gray area. I got into an argument with Blarg about the difference between pictures of naked children and molesting and actual child. He said there should be no difference in sentencing. I said there should. Even among reasonable people this stuff becomes very difficult to define. Lines become blurred and right and wrong become difficult to distinguish.

It's not an easy situation but baby steps are being taken and the will walk over the line. It is inevitable. It's been done in ancient history when politcians/emperors called their adolescent sex slaves "little minows" and it will happen again. Such is the cycle of life.

Hell in Mexico the age of consent is 12.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
As for same sex marriage, I'm all for unions but gay people can not partake in the ceremony of marriage IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that the government should forcefully stop gay people from partaking in the ceremony of marriage? Or are you just saying that you think that it is wrong when they do?

[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is a religious tradition that has been around for thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which religion? Or, more to the point, which religion should be recognized when discussing the issue? There are many different kinds of marriage ceremonies, which ones should gays be allowed to emulate? Read the article I linked; many religions do not oppose gay marriage. Marriage is not strictly a Christian insitution.


[ QUOTE ]
You might as well call a penis a vagina and claim sexual discrimination when anyone tries to correct you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone cares whether some stranger on the street tries to correct them. When the government tries to correct you, it becomes a different issue.

I'm not sure whether you're just saying you're uncomfortable with gays marrying, or whether you're saying that if homosexual unions are allowed by the government, they should not be called marriages. If the former, well you're entitled to your opinion, though I fail to see any rational defense for it. If the latter, separation of Church and State should ensure that people engaging in practices overseen by the government not be given a different title just because they are not abiding by religious precepts.

-Phoenix

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else find it amusing that when their is a liberal thread that makes pefect sense, the neo-cons ignore it until it goes away?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're mixing your terms up. I think you meant to say social cons. Lots of neocons have no problem with gay marriage. I have heard that Paul Wolfowitz supports gay marriage and govt funding of health care, for example.

Neocons are conservative on defense and foreign policy issues. A lot of them are former Democrats.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
You're mixing your terms up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very well maybe. I generally use neo-con as a blanket term for the crazies on this board that ignore cited evidence, make inane arguments, blindly support conservativ ideology, etc.

Accorindg to dictionary.com: An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s

I dunno
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
social cons

[/ QUOTE ]I prefer to call them theo-cons. Or the American Taliban works too.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick thoughts:
1) Marriage is only a word and I find it absurd that people are so defensive over it. It leads one to believe...

[/ QUOTE ]

Marriage is more then a word it is a symbol. Such symbols are very important to religious people. Unless you have a lot of exposure to religious environments it will be difficult for you to understand this just as it is difficult for someone who spent their life in a library to understand why some people get in fights or carry guns to protect themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
If a pastor or priest or rabbi or whatever agrees to do the ceremony, it shouldn't be allowed? Also, when gay marriage becomes legal, it will still be impossible for same-sex couples to force a religious institution to marry them. I'm confused and need some clarification on your thoughts before I continue much further.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a shity situation. For as long as I live I doubt I will ever refer to gay unions as marriage even though I fully support gay unions. It's simply not the same thing. If you have ever read the Bible or the Koran you will understand why such high importance is put on this symbolism.

Also, as a logical thinker it's obvious to me that this a war and marriage is the ultimate trophy. Just like many homosexual organizations are trying to rage a symbolic war on the Boy Scouts. It has little to do with rights IMO. If they respected the rights of others they wouldn't fight so hard and so ruthlessly to change a private organization like the Boy Scouts.

If some rabbi or priest wants to perform the ceremony then I have no problem with that. They should also have no problem when the church kicks the priest out. They should also respect my right to refuse to abandon the traditional meaning of the term and my right to refuse to acknowledge their claim of marriage. Otherwise I might as well force them to acknowledge my leg is really an arm and my penis is really a vagina.

As for the government, well that is a sticky situation. I'm starting to wonder if it's best for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.