Why do some believe that legalizing gay marriage would lead to marriage to animals and relatives?
After all, gay marriage would take place between two consenting adults, and a dog, cat, or horse would never be able to give its consent. Also, there are laws on the books against marrying relatives, thanks to concerns about inbreeding. Unlike incest, at least gay marriage wouldn’t lead to birth defects!
It’s just the old slippery slope nonsense that never comes to pass. The same things were heard back when people objected to interracial marriage. Can you imagine being so racist that you would say if whites married blacks they would soon want to marry animals? It was said back then, and by my racist great-grandfather by all family accounts.
All this b.s. is proven to be nonsense if we look at Massachusetts. Gays have been getting married there for over 5 years. No one wanting to marry their animals, or their brother or sister, and there has been no decline in the number of heterosexuals applying for marriage certificates (so much for ruining the ’sanctity’ of marriage). Some people just aren’t too bright, and I guess that’s enough to explain this sort of moronic "logic."
EDIT:
geyamala:
Freud was long ago discounted as to many of his theories – especially regarding homosexuality. Maybe you should refer to modern psychology since these are modern times that have seen advances in psychological understanding since Freud. The APA, in the 1970’s, removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses, concurring that it is a legitimate sexual orientation. Keeping up with the times helps considerably, and citing old discounted theories does nothing to help your position – it only hurts it.
It’s a cop out answer. It’s a way to come out against gay marriage without being called a homophobe. It’s a coward’s answer.
References :
Because they take the subject matter and stretch it to the absurd?
That’s my hunch, anyways…
References :
dunno, why do some whackos leave their estates to their cat?
References :
… because a woman married a dolphin.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
References :
Mostly cause they are morons.
References :
Evidently the subject must be on their mind regarding sex……..weirdos huh?
References :
How about marriage to more than one partner? If you can marry anybody you want, why not that?
References :
Does civil union do it for you?
References :
Because that’s the only defense that they can think of that isn’t "Because God said it’s bad"
References :
Only in WV..
References :
Because once "man and woman" is taken out of the equation then what is left of the definition?
And many of the same arguments used – "let people marry whom they love" and "how does it affect you personally" – are also just as applicable.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry – why not bisexuals? what’s the magic of the number two, if it denies bisexuals their rights?
PS Much of this discussion seems to proceed from the assumption that "if gay marriage is allowed, it might open the door to something REALLY perverse."
But lest we forget – to many, homosexuality is as perverse as any other acts they can think of. I didn’t say I agree; I just said that many believe it.
References :
See there are laws on the books to prevent gay marriage so you just contradicted your own argument.
Pedophillia is a mental disease now right? So too was homosexuality once.
It isn’t hard to see the pandora’s box argument here.
I for one don’t care either way but let us not pretend that some great human rights tragedy is taking place when gays are not permitted to be married. That is absurd.
References :
There really is no valid argument, so they fall back to the slippery slope fallacy.
References :
They use those things as an example of how allowing certain will lead to the allowance of other things that the majority of people wouldn’t agree with, but someone else wants equal rights.
And, you think these things are inconceivable, but 50 years ago, people thought the same thing about gay marriage.
My question is, why couldn’t gay people just leave it alone at civil unions and be happy? Because they are petty attention whores. I have several gay friends that just want to be left alone and are sick to death of all this gay marriage non sense. When I asked what they thought, they said they could care less.
References :
After gay marriage what’s next, polygamy? They can all consent. At least they could have sex without violating the laws of nature.
References :
I agree. Republicans need to let go of the religious whackos and start listening to moderates. Conservatism has nothing to do with inteferring what people do in their bedrooms. We are not moral regulators and if politicans start legislating against gay marriage they would appear hypocritical themselves
References :
Well the next step after gay marriages is polygamy, then bestiality.. where does it stop… When kids are taught that two men can sleep together and that is "kewl" and the in thing to do.. when that gets dull and boring then what is next… lassie??
References :
If you legalize one abnormal behavior, why stop there? And I sure would like to get my cat on my medical insurance.
References :
Because using the same Logic people could go to court and probably win to marry a duck a monkey or what ever. Just think about the argument for recognition of "gay" couples and them apply it to you name it. Not at all far fetched
References :
Why do some believe that legalizing gay marriage would lead to marriage to animals and relatives?
Because the left is intent on turning America into an anything goes society where every moral taboo and fringe group running around in America will be have to recognized and legitimized. That means the people who are having sex with their dog
or the people who want to marry their own children will have to be recognized under equal protection laws.
First it will be gays who will be allowed to marry then it will be mom and son, dad and daughter or mom and daughter or dad and son.
This might seem crazy but these people are out there. In some European countries biological brother and sister are allowed to marry, something we would call incest in this country. These people are just waiting to see how far gay people will go with their agenda then it will be their turn. You will not see this movement for at least 25 years however but it will start trust me.
References :
It’s just the old slippery slope nonsense that never comes to pass. The same things were heard back when people objected to interracial marriage. Can you imagine being so racist that you would say if whites married blacks they would soon want to marry animals? It was said back then, and by my racist great-grandfather by all family accounts.
All this b.s. is proven to be nonsense if we look at Massachusetts. Gays have been getting married there for over 5 years. No one wanting to marry their animals, or their brother or sister, and there has been no decline in the number of heterosexuals applying for marriage certificates (so much for ruining the ’sanctity’ of marriage). Some people just aren’t too bright, and I guess that’s enough to explain this sort of moronic "logic."
EDIT:
geyamala:
Freud was long ago discounted as to many of his theories – especially regarding homosexuality. Maybe you should refer to modern psychology since these are modern times that have seen advances in psychological understanding since Freud. The APA, in the 1970’s, removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses, concurring that it is a legitimate sexual orientation. Keeping up with the times helps considerably, and citing old discounted theories does nothing to help your position – it only hurts it.
References :
Oh! rear
References :
If I cared, I’d say that there is no reason to confer a marriage tax break to two people incapable of starting a legitimate family. That includes when one partner is known to be impotent.
References :
Do some really believe that?
…
…
…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
References :
Because there are nuts everywhere that will make a case for anything. This is the reason the majority of Americans do not favor marriage for Gays – Not because they don’t like Gays or want them to suffer. The fact is that a change in the definition of marriage won’t be strictly dedicated to Gays – Once the door is open any radical PETA nut or other group can argue for their rights – And because we’re politically correct Americans whose to say these people are crazy for demanding such rights.
This is what the radical liberal agenda has evolved into with the P.C. movement – little did they know it would come around to bite them in the A$$ later.
References :
Freud and other psychologists regarded homosexual behavior as abnormal.
Freud stated that paranoid people would become homo sexual.
now that opinion is regarded as no more correct.
After 50 years, we do not know marriage between human beings and animals may be regarded as normal. EDIT.
we should not have dogmatic beliefs. they must change.
References :
Take any rational argument and push it far enough and you get ridiculous results.
Alternate lifestyles? Where do you draw the line after you start down that slippery slope? Of course those who put out this ludicrous argument also want to start down the slippery slope of injecting religion into everything.
a matter of whose slippery slope we head down.
And they fail/refuse to acknowlege that as this society is more accepting of gays it it simultaneously becoming less tolerant of family violence.
References :
there is no evidence of birth defects from relatives marrying. none that i am aware of anyway. second, there are laws on the books against gays being married. and last, if marriage is defined as anything other than one man and one woman, mormons for instance, can have several wives and oh how a divorce court would love the headaches that come along with that. point is, change it from one man and one woman, the fllod gates will open. and in fifty years when we have robots that appear fully human and function in society, and it is coming, what is to stop a person from marrying a bot?and if we deny that person, he does the sam as the gay rights community does on this one.
References :
Because sin always leads to more sin. History has more than demonstrated that. The Roman Empire , Babylon and Ancient Greece are perfect examples, they started out with homosexuality eventually leading into bestiality and other gross immorality. God bless.
References :
It’s a depressing fact that some people actually equate them all on the same level – as something abnormal, as I think some answerers have said. It’s the same kind of logic that sees anti-gay propoganda equating homosexuality with paedophilia, and is essentially based on the principle that if "we, the incensed, traditional, normal people" don’t like something, then it’s abnormal to like it, because "we" define what’s normal by virtue of the majority – which of course is one of the pesky democratic principles on which Western democracies are based.
Naturally enough of course, anyone looking at the evidence finds no statistically relevant link between homosexuality and paedophilia, any more than there’s evidence that legalising one thing inexorably leads to legalising another with a broader societal disapproval rating (after all, alcohol kills more than crack, coke and heroin combined each year, but there’s no particular impetus to legalise any of these last three drugs).
Personally, if we’re going to go down the "slippery slope" route, I think one has to ask what would actually be that wrong with, for example, legalised polygamy/polyandry. Plenty of consent available there. Incestuous relationships, like crack, coke and heroin, would probably be beyond the pale of public perception for the forseeable future because they run an increased risk of coercion. As such, there’s probably no danger that legalising gay marriage would lead to any such issue in their case. Animals of course are incapable of giving – or indeed witholding – consent, so they entail an entirely different class of relationship.
Ultimately, the answer is that some people believe that legalising gay marriage leads to XYZ because they simply think it’s wrong. The trick is to educate generations out of the prejudices they pick up at home (or, it has to be remembered, in their place of worship). Change will come as quickly as the masses demand it, and the will allows it, as it did in Roe V Wade.
References :
Conservatives are all about moral do-do-ism if its not the gays its the feminists destroying the modern man, if not that the liberals are about to bring an apocalypes upon society transforming simeltaniously into sodom and gommorah and a totalitarian state run by chairman mao.
This is because on the one hand conservatives beleive that without their moral vision society will explode into a million pieces and on the other hand state intervention will countermand traditional forms of control and therefore is totalitarian interference with the other of things.
On the other hand it is the weak tactic of conservatism. ‘What next?!’ basically means ‘hey, something you dont like is going to happen as well if you let this happen’
Conservatives live in a frozen world without change or adaption. They dont understand that the basic standard of human society for the its entire existance is social and political change. Therefore they believe tthat their society is the only society: that it is society. When their morals beging to dissappear society will fizzle away and we will start giving in to all sorts of kinky perversions and start cracking each others heads open.
Also they are incapable of placing their debate firmly in the philosphy of liberty and consent/free association. Suddenly when two people can get married. A peadophile can marry a little boy. Twenty million people can marry each other for whatever that would practically mean. If it causes expenses on the shoulders of others then we could rightly restrict it for liberties sake.
References :
The word Marriage is what keeps this issue from getting resolved.
From what I understand all Gays really want is for them and their partner to be able to receive the same benefits afforded to married couples.
The Government aka State should not have a role in Church matters per Separation of Church and State!
First of all there is not a nation on earth that can force the Catholic Church or the Jewish Church to celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage between two people of the same sex. It just won’t happen.
However, the Government should pass legislation that would allow Gay couples to receive the same benefits afforded to married couples without using the word Marriage.
Call it a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership.
Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships would be the answer for Gays and others in similar situations such as elderly brothers or sisters living together.
This issue would have been resolved by now if it were not for the word Marriage and that Gays are pressing the issue.
As it stands the issue is too valuable to Politicians not to resolve but to use for their individual political gains.
References :
" Also, there are laws on the books against marrying relatives"
So you would agree then that society sets boundaries on what is socially acceptable. It’s not up to the individual.
Gay people say is "What is the harm as long its two consenting adults who love each other?" Well, what about two consenting gay brothers? No birth defects there. If you don’t think it will happen, then google the article that was in Details Magazine entitled:
"The curious case of gay-porn-star identical twins"
It’s up to the gay community to take leadership and set boundaries on what is not acceptable individual behaviour. They should know that brothers marrying is wrong. Why not come out and say it?. But somehow I think they would champion it as part of their cause.
References :
Anything is possible in the nut farm that is this world.
There is no inalienable right to marriage, the founding fathers never mentioned it. Gays should have the same civil rights as in civil unions, but marriage is going to far against TRADITIONALISM. There is no logical reason to change it now.
If you disagree give me some logical reasons rather than media nonsense & emotional histrionics?
References :
It’s really easy to say because they’re nuts or because they’re idiots. But I think some of them are utterly CLUELESS. They think gay people are making a "choice", and in a sense, they are: The choice to be honest about themselves.
And I suspect that the same arguments were once made against interracial marriages, and 40+ years after Loving v. Virginia, there’s not a rash of people marrying animals or sibling marriages. Yeah, one crackpot woman married a dolphin a few years back. And sure, people will have "wedding ceremonies" between pets, but I don’t think any of these folks expect legal rights out of these unions. Same-sex couples would like to have the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, including the right to marry whom they love.
References :