Skiing the Slippery Slope

[Tonio]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/

At the risk of stirring up the whole gay marriage debate again, this article makes a good argument why the "slipperly slope" argument doesn't hold legal water.

Anyone else bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage? Since few opponents of homosexual unions are brave enough to admit that gay weddings just freak them out, they hide behind the claim that it's an inexorable slide from legalizing gay marriage to having sex with penguins outside JC Penney's...

The real problem is that there are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rooted in entirely God's preferences—which have little bearing on Equal Protection or Due Process doctrine, as far as I can tell. The second cites inconclusive research on its negative effects on children. The backup is the slippery slope jeremiad, which seems to pass for a legal argument, at least on cable TV...

Bracket all the hysterical and irrelevant stops along the slippery slope (some of which are there only to trivialize homosexuality) and we are left to try to draw principled lines between gay marriage, in which no one is harmed, and adult incest, adultery, bigamy, or polyamory. This is where the debate should begin. Not at child molesting.

 

[vraiblonde]

I have to tell you - if someone wanted to marry their dog or their brother, I couldn't care less. It totally has nothing to do with me.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I have to tell you - if someone wanted to marry their dog or their brother, I couldn't care less. It totally has nothing to do with me.

I agree.

 

[Hessian]

And if your Insurance company has to pick up the tab for family benefits for Aids Patients...that's fine too?

Heck, we already pay for therapy, drug rehab, abortions, etc..mind's well pay for more disorders right...it will just be one more higher premium-won't hurt that much.

Who cares that divorce courts are tangled in long & costly legal wrangling that adds billions of dollars to Lawyers...add Gays demanding divorce and the profits soar even higher.

Those studies on children are obviously inconclusive,..the jury is still out...and even if it does come back saying that the children are disfunctional...the Gay Lobby will prevent any changes in the laws.

How about some of the chief spokesmen for the Gay community who openly voiced that the ultimate aim of Gay marriage is to make marriages generally worthless so it is one more thing to mock religion..taking more power from the church. Make the church irrelevant.

so..please allow Gay marriage...it adds so much to our society, a triumph of civil rights...and long overdue justice will be reached.


If you can't figure this out, you are a tool.

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by Hessian
How about some of the chief spokesmen for the Gay community who openly voiced that the ultimate aim of Gay marriage is to make marriages generally worthless so it is one more thing to mock religion..taking more power from the church. Make the church irrelevant.

Cite?

 

[vraiblonde]

Marriage already IS a mockery - "The Bachelor" "Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire". And heteros did that, not gays.

Pedophile priests and Episcopalians have already made a mockery out of religion, not to mention the liberal abortion proponents who still want to take communion in the Catholic Church.

Think about it this way, Hessian - with gay marriage, at least gays are forming commitments and adhering to societal norms instead of throwing down at leather bars. That can't possibly be a bad thing.

 

[SmallTown]

"The Bush administration renewed its call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So I guess they feel the only time that guys should be on top of each other naked is in an Iraqi prison." —Jay Leno

 

[SmallTown]

Marriage

 

[Hessian]

Otter...I found one...more coming:

Otter asked that I back up one of the statements:

"Shortly after the citizens of California voted to protect marriage in state law as a one-man, one-woman union, homosexual activist Eric Rofes issued a national call for massive civil disobedience to push for homosexual marriage.

In his essay, "After California Votes to Limit Marriage: A Call for Direct Action and Civil Disobedience," published in Social Policy, (6-22-2000), Rofes urges same-sex couples to "undermine the marriage bureaucracy."

He says that it isn't enough to hold mass homosexual wedding ceremonies. "The time may be right for the kind of carefully crafted actions that demonstrate a new level of serious intent about this issue …. We may soon see national networks of activists plotting massive civil disobedience focused on undercutting key points of access to the institution of marriage."

Rofes continues: "We might see coordinated days of action when same-sex couples attempt to register at the local county clerk's office. Imagine the impact if same-sex couples in rural areas, small-town America, urban centers, and suburban neighborhoods throughout the nation on the same day and at the same time showed up couple-by-couple to fill out the forms to register for marriage."

This quote comes from 2000.
I guess America is being led around by the nose by these activists because their stratagy worked as well as Mein Kampf.
Instead of a mass revulsion and objection to flouting our laws...we get a puzzled non-response from dozens of communities...
Those that detect a vaccuum will fill it-since America is losing its moral fiber, the perverse will gladly fill it.

 

[Hessian]

Otter: Part II

"Homosexuals, by and large, are not really interested in same-sex marriage. They are far more interested in subverting and overturning the whole concept of marriage in our culture. As long ago as 1972, homosexual activists were working to destroy the institution of marriage. In that year, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations issued its "1972 Gay Rights Platform." It demanded: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all who cohabit regardless of their sex or numbers." Note that homosexuals want to abolish any restrictions on the sex or number of persons who can marry. This sounds a lot like polygamy.

Homosexual philosopher/activists like Andrew Sullivan (a senior editor at "The New Republic"), Michelangelo Signorile, and Paula Ettelbrick, among others, are very candid about their objectives. According to Sullivan, writing in "Virtually Normal," once homosexual marriages are legalized, heterosexuals will have to get used to the idea that male homosexuals will need to have extramarital relationships, too. Fidelity to one person is too restrictive for Sullivan.

Signorile says that fighting for same-sex marriage will "debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Ettelbrick says that "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."

Published Jan 2004: Traditional Values Coalition.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241

THE GOAL IS NOT JUST MARRYING...IT IS DESTROYING AN INSTITUTION-TEARING OUR MORAL FABRIC.
Its just sad we have millions of Americans just cannot see this agenda and where they are going...because they have millions of sheep willing to follow.

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Otter: Part II

Originally posted by Hessian
blah blah blah

THE GOAL IS NOT JUST MARRYING...IT IS DESTROYING AN INSTITUTION-TEARING OUR MORAL FABRIC.

I don't really care what their goal is, it won't affect the way I look at marriage one bit. Gays marrying won't have any bearing on how millions of straight people around the county view marriage. If their opinions are swayed by the fact gays are marrying, they need to look at their own values in life to figure out what is missing and why their own personal beliefs will change just because someone else is enjoying the same thing as you.

 

[Larry Gude]

Having been divorced twice...

...married thrice, so far, far be it for me to wave the flag of commitment.

My apple cart got upset when I was 12 and my parents divorced. Until then, I lived this oblivion that said 'all kids have a married mom and a dad and it's the same ones all the time and that's it."

Since then, it's been a journey of trying to get it right knowing you can always say "No mas". Commitment is the key. That's what I wanted. That's what I sought. That's what I got.

So, if gays are seeking commitment, I have to say I relate to that.

(Vrai here. Larry will finish this later - he got interrupted and, 6 hours later, I need to use the computer. Thank you for your patience.)

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: Otter: Part II

Originally posted by Hessian
"Homosexuals, by and large, are not really interested in same-sex marriage. They are far more interested in subverting and overturning the whole concept of marriage in our culture. As long ago as 1972, homosexual activists were working to destroy the institution of marriage. In that year, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations issued its "1972 Gay Rights Platform." It demanded: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all who cohabit regardless of their sex or numbers." Note that homosexuals want to abolish any restrictions on the sex or number of persons who can marry. This sounds a lot like polygamy.

Homosexual philosopher/activists like Andrew Sullivan (a senior editor at "The New Republic"), Michelangelo Signorile, and Paula Ettelbrick, among others, are very candid about their objectives. According to Sullivan, writing in "Virtually Normal," once homosexual marriages are legalized, heterosexuals will have to get used to the idea that male homosexuals will need to have extramarital relationships, too. Fidelity to one person is too restrictive for Sullivan.

Signorile says that fighting for same-sex marriage will "debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Ettelbrick says that "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."

Published Jan 2004: Traditional Values Coalition.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241

THE GOAL IS NOT JUST MARRYING...IT IS DESTROYING AN INSTITUTION-TEARING OUR MORAL FABRIC.
Its just sad we have millions of Americans just cannot see this agenda and where they are going...because they have millions of sheep willing to follow.

Sounds like this group are quite the activists. However, do they represent the gay community as a whole? I think not. Your Christian fundamentalist friends dont represent all Christians do they?

 

[Hessian]

That is the only tepid response? A selfish Liberal refusing to address the facts because "it doesn't affect me," a disillusioned quip writer who addresses everyone with caustic sneers that people generally ignore, and a political wit who feels that any commitment is a good commitment?

The goal was to destroy marriage...and they are doing quite well and after offering an insight to their agenda...this is the only response...

With every right comes a responsibility...any other rights you want to give up??...its obvious you're not willing to fight for a fundamental pillar of society so what do you want to cave in next?

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by Hessian
That is the only tepid response? A selfish Liberal refusing to address the facts because "it doesn't affect me," a disillusioned quip writer who addresses everyone with caustic sneers that people generally ignore, and a political wit who feels that any commitment is a good commitment?

The goal was to destroy marriage...and they are doing quite well and after offering an insight to their agenda...this is the only response...

With every right comes a responsibility...any other rights you want to give up??...its obvious you're not willing to fight for a fundamental pillar of society so what do you want to cave in next?

Because it doesn't affect me.

The goal was to destroy marriage...and they are doing quite well and after offering an insight to their agenda...this is the only response...

THEY ARE! That activist group in particular, not the gay community as a whole. Your always going to have nuts in any group.

 

[SmallTown]

I think it is obvious that a particular individual on here is really afraid of the gay community, and will do anything he can to try and supress them.

So basically they are tearing apart the notion of marriage. That would make us believe that if a married couple were having problems, they could blame it on the fact the gay couple down the street got married?

Sorry. Look at the divorce rates throughout history. They are very high. No, gays are not destroying marriages, it is the straight people. So I understand your "anger", but you need to focus that energy on the right group. But of course that group would include yourself, and god knows we can't point a finger at ourselves now can we. Always easier to go after the smaller, weaker group. It is people like you that cause these types of activists groups to be formed in the first place.

 

[Hessian]

Perhaps we should have rung the alarm bell in the 1950's & 60's when divorce started to creep up...it was INCREMENTAL and thus only mildly addressed.
..then it became the norm (The majority of Americans admit divorce is a bad thing...ruining families/children) Who condemned it the most?....hmm?...CHURCHES!. Was America listening? Not really.

Jump 30+ years and we have queers marrying ...it was incremental- the only activists against it are those judgemental, hypocritical, narrow traditionalists--those Fundamental Christians. Do the Americans in general support Gay marriage? NO! (Strong majority against!) Can our laws stop it? NO because activist judges make up the rules without the consent of the governed. (That is Judicial Tyranny) Is America listening to the churches who condemn and warn against it?...not really.

And again...this has nothing to do with fear--it has to do with prophecy, and the impact homosexuals have always had on society: self-absorbed, amoral, decline......flouting laws, ignoring traditions, and imposing the will of the minority on the majority.
Its not Fear: it is angry disgust.

 

[Hessian]

Human nature allows...

Us to take the easy way out...
Naturally I would NOT prefer if children/wives were in an abusive home or abandoned. However...marriages are saved through one or both sides seeking forgiveness & changing--THAT is the HARD way.
Should there be divorce laws? Absolutely...but it is NOT the preferred "solution"-everybody would agree to that. BUT..It should be the last result....not an option along the way.
One state has even passed manditory marriage counseling before divorce papers are filed.

Shouldn't there be gay marriage then? Absolutely not. It enforces the idea that it is a normal relationship (many would agree with the Psychiatric stand on Homosexuality lasting into the 1970's...that it was a disorder and abnormal) and multiple studies have proven it is an unhealthy lifestyle and soon the studies will determine that children raised by Homosexuals have higher incidents of depression, suicide, drug abuse, and similar disorders....
And Now America will legitimize it despite the common sense that says its wrong...(This IS the slippery slope.)

Take the hard road America...draw a line in the sand and label it wrong, unhealthful, and a treatable disorder.

 

[sleuth]

I just think the government should get out of the business of marriage all-together. It's a religious institution that has been made a legal one by the government.

IMO, marriage should be something that churches decide whether they want to perform in addition to a "legal domestic partnership". I think it would solve the problem of whether there is discrimination by our government taking place. If ALL legal marriages were changed to domestic partnerships, then gays and groups and whoever could get a legal partnership, and then turn their eyes toward the churches, who, quite frankly, have a right to discriminate against gays.

If it were done in this manner, government discrimination would not be an issue. In one fell swoop, we have protected the Jewish and Christian Church's definition of marriage while providing legal equality for everyone. And even though a bunch of gays could get together and make their own church to allow it, then they're the only denomination doing it wrong in the eyes of God - not the whole Christian church. If a married couple wants to validate their partnership when describing it, they could say, "Yes, we're married by the Catholic Church." (or Episcopal, or Lutheran, or the Gay Church of Christ, etc.)

But... as we all know, that sort of radical reform will never take place. It affects too many people and all those who weren't married in the church would have the bristles standing on the back of their necks at what once they called a marriage now being called a "legal domestic partnership". The ONLY way this type of reform would ever stand a chance in hell is if they put some sort of grandfather clause in there.

 

[ylexot]

I'm with you Sleuth.