Redefining marriage

[puggymom]

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

Sure that is what you think now, but who knows how society will change. 18 to enter into a contract is an arbitrary number. people in other countries are married as young as 8..who is to say that could not be the case here? NAMBLA actively pursues lowering the age of consent...using the exact same logic that gay rights activists do...and that is my point..allowing that logic to work for gay partners...but not other types of partners is hypocritical.

The problem is that gays are not arguing that age of consent laws should be changed. All they are saying is that our government should not be able to dictate which TWO CONSENTING ADULTS are allowed to enter into a state sanctioned legal contract.
How does allowing two consenting adults a right to enter into said contract have anything to do with laws regarding the age of consent?

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by puggymom

The problem is that gays are not arguing that age of consent laws should be changed. All they are saying is that our government should not be able to dictate which TWO CONSENTING ADULTS are allowed to enter into a state sanctioned legal contract.
How does allowing two consenting adults a right to enter into said contract have anything to do with laws regarding the age of consent?

One brick at a time.

[libertytyranny]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Its already hypocritical, You might want to do some research first.

Almost every state in the union allows marriage at 16. Some have stipulations, Parental Consent and/or Parents at the ceremony.

A large number of states will allow marriage at 15 or younger, along with stipulations. Pregnancy and/or Judicial consent. One state (New Hampshire) will allow marriage at 13.

Stick with pertinent points, you'll do better in a discussion. Our society and laws do not allow non-consentual marriage.

15, 16, 13....still all arbitrary numbers..so same point. And I dont see how that is hypocritical. I said that allowing gays to marry but not a man to marry many wives, or a woman to marry her pet rock, or a man to marry his 10 yo gf without her being knocked up WHEN THEY ARE ALL USING THE SAME LOGIC TO DEFEND IT is hypocritical. not the marriages themselves.

What I am saying..and I am being crystal clear so I am not sure why you are not getting it..is that things that seem unnaceptable to you now..may be perfectly acceptable in the future, and that it may be encouraged and spurred on by the redefining of marriage....animals and objects are examples. Gays use a certain set of logic..things they use to defend why they should be able to be married...and other groups use those same things..tailored to their own desire.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by puggymom

The problem is that gays are not arguing that age of consent laws should be changed. All they are saying is that our government should not be able to dictate which TWO CONSENTING ADULTS are allowed to enter into a state sanctioned legal contract.
How does allowing two consenting adults a right to enter into said contract have anything to do with laws regarding the age of consent?

Two consenting adults MAY enter into a contract. This is not disputed.

However, to enter into a contract binding a man and a woman, there must be a man, and, a woman.

Note, the sexual orientation of said man and woman are not restricted. The status of their love for one another not demanded to be demonstrated.

They must simply meet the terms of the contract they are asking to enter into, which are that they are old enough, not too closely related, both willing, and not of the same gender.

[libertytyranny]

Originally Posted by puggymom

The problem is that gays are not arguing that age of consent laws should be changed. All they are saying is that our government should not be able to dictate which TWO CONSENTING ADULTS are allowed to enter into a state sanctioned legal contract.
How does allowing two consenting adults a right to enter into said contract have anything to do with laws regarding the age of consent?

I am not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. If you go onto the NAMBLA website..all you would have to do is replace (man-boy love) with (GAY) and it becomes exactly like most pro-gay websites. they use the same arguments. I mean..EXACTLY the same...so if we believe those to be true for gay people..why not for those who are attracted to children..or to animals...or to multiple people...or to people that are already married..YES right now the age for marriage is 18...but loook there are ways to get around that..so why...just because momma said it was ok or the kid got knocked up is it suddenly ok for a 13 yo to get married? a pregnant 13 yo has the same mental capacity as a non pregnant 13yo..so it could be argued that hey...shes not preggers..but she could marry if she was..so why not anyway? or hey my 8 yo has her period and is therefore ABLE to become pregnant..why cant she marry...its called a slippery slope. See how that progressed righ there? from 18 yo adults getting married (arbitrary number btw) to an 8 yo//think it sounds outrageous? sure as hell does...but ask someone in the past if they thought gays would marry..they would say the SAME thing.

I dont care what two adults do...but these "alternative" lifestyles have no end..one day its gays..then polygamists..then who knows what..they all operate on the same principles and logic..so it is not the magnificent stretch it seems.

[puggymom]

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

I am not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. If you go onto the NAMBLA website..all you would have to do is replace (man-boy love) with (GAY) and it becomes exactly like most pro-gay websites. they use the same arguments. I mean..EXACTLY the same...so if we believe those to be true for gay people..why not for those who are attracted to children..or to animals...or to multiple people...or to people that are already married..YES right now the age for marriage is 18...but loook there are ways to get around that..so why...just because momma said it was ok or the kid got knocked up is it suddenly ok for a 13 yo to get married? a pregnant 13 yo has the same mental capacity as a non pregnant 13yo..so it could be argued that hey...shes not preggers..but she could marry if she was..so why not anyway? or hey my 8 yo has her period and is therefore ABLE to become pregnant..why cant she marry...its called a slippery slope. See how that progressed righ there? from 18 yo adults getting married (arbitrary number btw) to an 8 yo//think it sounds outrageous? sure as hell does...but ask someone in the past if they thought gays would marry..they would say the SAME thing.

I dont care what two adults do...but these "alternative" lifestyles have no end..one day its gays..then polygamists..then who knows what..they all operate on the same principles and logic..so it is not the magnificent stretch it seems.

If you want to use the slippery slope argument you need to start with 'traditional marriage'. Homosexuals use the same arguments heterosexuals use to get married....should we therefore ban all marriage? Of course not.
It just boils down to our government deciding that certain consenting adults get the right to enter into a specific legal contract (state marriage) while others cannot.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by puggymom

It just boils down to our government deciding that certain consenting adults get the right to enter into a specific legal contract (state marriage) while others cannot.

Not exactly true.
any consenting adult can enter into a marriage contract providing the conditions are met. Any.
however, what they are not allowing is for certain people to re-write the conditions of that contract.
right or wrong, that is what this is about.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Interestingly, some people don't think polygamy is very good for society. Seems you're a bit behind in your assumptions.

Are you sure you want to play that game?

We already know that Polygamy is not condemned

The discussion, try to stay on track, was the union between consenting adults.

Some find that Polygamy is beneficial

Originally Posted by This_person

The stem of your question is inaccurate. I don't accept "Government to prohibit Law Abiding Citizens (sic) from censentual entering a union". I define the union and expect people to be able to understand that.

Based on a fluid definition that has changed by meaning and practice over the years.

Originally Posted by This_person

I continue to be for allowing same gendered unions. The one called "marriage" I would restrict to those individuals who fit the definition of that union. Currently, there is no law on the books in any state which restricts the sexual orientation of someone entering into a marriage, merely the gender, age, and blood relationship of those entering that union.

Just to clarify, because you go back and forth above, you are for civil unions but against marriage? Your problem is them using the word marriage?

Originally Posted by This_person

Now, if you believe that Law Abiding Citizens should be allowed to marry their sisters, daughters, etc., then you would be for allowing what you suggest.

Since not even you would suggest such a thing as acceptable, I presume you are for people who are still not already closely blood related, not too young, etc., to be allowed to "marry" regardless of gender. Unfortunately, that would not meet historical norms and standards, nor the definition of the word (save for the last few decades) in western society.

I have stated all along i am for keeping the government out of the consentual union of law abiding citizens. Two adults want to get married, why is it your business? No harm to society, why is it the Governments?

Originally Posted by This_person

But, again, if you feel strongly that two same gendered individuals should be allowed a "union", I am for allowing them that, and see no restriction in any state to establishing such a thing as each state decides (it is a state issue, after all).

I think your saying your for civil unions, but not the word marriage, is this correct? If so, are they both equal? in that they both confer equal protection, benefits and rights (as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act)?

Originally Posted by This_person

As usual for you, your problem is in understanding the issue.

As usual you have a fundamental weakness in your argument and rely upon Ad Hominem attacks

Originally Posted by This_person

Giving a "marriage" license to same-gendered individuals would be akin to giving a commercial driver's license to someone because they drove a motorcycle. You give a motorcycle's license to someone for driving a motorcycle, and a commercial driver's license to someone for driving a semi-truck (or other appropriate vehicle). You give a marriage license to someone for having a marriage, and a civil union (or other appropriately named license for the appropriate union) license to someone in other forms of unions.
It's really not that hard.

I think your saying your for civil unions, but not the word marriage, is this correct? If so, are they both equal? in that they both confer equal protection, benefits and rights (as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act)?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

15, 16, 13....still all arbitrary numbers..so same point. And I dont see how that is hypocritical. I said that allowing gays to marry but not a man to marry many wives, or a woman to marry her pet rock, or a man to marry his 10 yo gf without her being knocked up WHEN THEY ARE ALL USING THE SAME LOGIC TO DEFEND IT is hypocritical. not the marriages themselves.

What I am saying..and I am being crystal clear so I am not sure why you are not getting it..is that things that seem unnaceptable to you now..may be perfectly acceptable in the future, and that it may be encouraged and spurred on by the redefining of marriage....animals and objects are examples. Gays use a certain set of logic..things they use to defend why they should be able to be married...and other groups use those same things..tailored to their own desire.

Ahh ok we understand now. Your against Gay Marriage, because all of these other groups, organizations, associations use the same arguments?

Nevermind these other groups, organizations and associations involve non-consenting parties, and Gay Marriage involves consenting adults. Just the fact that the arguments are the same, means Gay Marriage is bad?

Hmm so what are the arguments then? and how do they differ from the reasons Heteros get married? Based on your logic, if the reasons are the same for Gays and Heteros, and Gays and Manbla has the same reasons, then Hetero Marriage should also be banned.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Some find that Polygamy is beneficial

From TFA:
Contrary to popular belief, most women benefit from polygynous society, and most men benefit from monogamous society.


Does this come as a shock to anyone who's married?


I remember when I was single, I thought the concept of having 5-6 wives would be so freakin' awesome. It would be a random rotating sex-feast, where the women would have pillow fights with each other, dress up in lingerie to lounge around the house, dinner would ALWAYS be ready, and family trips to the beach would look like a Miss Universe pageant, and my wooter would be tingling at all times, night or day... it would be pure heaven.

Then I got married.


Married guys: Imagine having 2 of 'em.

Imagine 3.





One can only hope to have a heart attack after a few five-somes or six-somes and bail the hell out of that mess early.