POLL: Now that the hoopla about gay marriage is dead (thankfully), do you think it will ever be an issue again?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,103
2,015
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
How do you go from gay people getting married to sons marrying mothers?

:confused:

When the legal definition of marriage is liberalized to include the same sex, that will open the flood gates to marriage for legal purposes only (non sexual).

The arguement will be, "If its legal for opposite sex, same sex, how about no sex?"

and

"Then why the hell is polygmy still illegal?"

... you think gay people will get married for legal purposes only? And that straight people can't get married for legal purposes only?

It wouldnt suprise me to find out this hasnt already happened. Kind of like people marrying illegal aliens to make them legal. Its a fraud, and when they are caught, they go to jail. However, liberized marriage will allow legal, willful, non sexual marriages to occur without recourse to proesection.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
How do you go from gay people getting married to sons marrying mothers?

:confused:

When the legal definition of marriage is liberalized to include the same sex, that will open the flood gates to marriage for legal purposes only (non sexual).

The arguement will be, "If its legal for opposite sex, same sex, how about no sex?"

and

"Then why the hell is polygmy still illegal?"

It became liberalized when it became a secular governmental concern.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
of course it will.

and hopefully it will be decided that it's an issue that falls under states' rights, not the federal government / constitution.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
How do you go from gay people getting married to sons marrying mothers?

:confused:

When the legal definition of marriage is liberalized to include the same sex, that will open the flood gates to marriage for legal purposes only (non sexual).

The arguement will be, "If its legal for opposite sex, same sex, how about no sex?"

and

"Then why the hell is polygmy still illegal?"

... you think gay people will get married for legal purposes only? And that straight people can't get married for legal purposes only?

It wouldnt suprise me to find out this hasnt already happened. Kind of like people marrying illegal aliens to make them legal. Its a fraud, and when they are caught, they go to jail. However, liberized marriage will allow legal, willful, non sexual marriages to occur without recourse to proesection.

And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
How do you go from gay people getting married to sons marrying mothers?

:confused:

When the legal definition of marriage is liberalized to include the same sex, that will open the flood gates to marriage for legal purposes only (non sexual).

The arguement will be, "If its legal for opposite sex, same sex, how about no sex?"

and

"Then why the hell is polygmy still illegal?"

... you think gay people will get married for legal purposes only? And that straight people can't get married for legal purposes only?

If it is for religious purposes, then that is between gays and the church.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,103
2,015
126
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
How do you go from gay people getting married to sons marrying mothers?

:confused:

When the legal definition of marriage is liberalized to include the same sex, that will open the flood gates to marriage for legal purposes only (non sexual).

The arguement will be, "If its legal for opposite sex, same sex, how about no sex?"

and

"Then why the hell is polygmy still illegal?"

It became liberalized when it became a secular governmental concern.

No it didnt. Marriage existed before governments. But perhaps our definitions of 'liberalized' differ. What Im trying to say is that if it becomes legal for two people of the same sex to marry for any purpose, you will have the above described occur.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

I say we amend the law to allow any two people (homo or heterosexuals) who are of legal age (or have consent) and are not related to go to a court and have a civil union. The term marriage will be done away with by the legal system (it no longer reconizes marriages by the church, only the civil unions that the courts give out), and if you are still concerned about the term then go take it up with a church.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,103
2,015
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

And so will all the other bastardizations I mentioned above.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

And so will all the other bastardizations I mentioned above.

Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women doesn't change the law forbidding immediate relatives from marrying.

Anyways, even if your argument was valid, which I'm not sure it is, at best you're arguing against a gay marriage based on a side effect, not the act itself. It's like arguing against a drug that cures heart disease but causes hair loss. You need to argue against the action itself, because arguing with a side effect basically says, "If you could come up with a way to do this, without the side effect, I'd be fine with it."
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
its not at all dead. the facist party is waiting for their leaders reelection before they try that amendment bs again. gotta look campassionate to get elected and goose step.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,103
2,015
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

And so will all the other bastardizations I mentioned above.

Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women doesn't change the law forbidding immediate relatives from marrying.

Anyways, even if your argument was valid, which I'm not sure it is, at best you're arguing against a gay marriage based on a side effect, not the act itself. It's like arguing against a drug that cures heart disease but causes hair loss. You need to argue against the action itself, because arguing with a side effect basically says, "If you could come up with a way to do this, without the side effect, I'd be fine with it."


The proposals are to allow ANYONE to marry for ANY REASON.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not at all dead. the facist party is waiting for their leaders reelection before they try that amendment bs again. gotta look campassionate to get elected and goose step.

The sad part is, aside from that, I agree with pretty much everything that is Republican: Cutting taxes, foreign wars, etc.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,103
2,015
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not at all dead. the facist party is waiting for their leaders reelection before they try that amendment bs again. gotta look campassionate to get elected and goose step.

What the hell are you talking about?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

And so will all the other bastardizations I mentioned above.

Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women doesn't change the law forbidding immediate relatives from marrying.

Anyways, even if your argument was valid, which I'm not sure it is, at best you're arguing against a gay marriage based on a side effect, not the act itself. It's like arguing against a drug that cures heart disease but causes hair loss. You need to argue against the action itself, because arguing with a side effect basically says, "If you could come up with a way to do this, without the side effect, I'd be fine with it."


The proposals are to allow ANYONE to marry for ANY REASON.

Ummm.... link? So 8 year olds will be allowed to marry?
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,103
2,015
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

And so will all the other bastardizations I mentioned above.

Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women doesn't change the law forbidding immediate relatives from marrying.

Anyways, even if your argument was valid, which I'm not sure it is, at best you're arguing against a gay marriage based on a side effect, not the act itself. It's like arguing against a drug that cures heart disease but causes hair loss. You need to argue against the action itself, because arguing with a side effect basically says, "If you could come up with a way to do this, without the side effect, I'd be fine with it."


The proposals are to allow ANYONE to marry for ANY REASON.

Ummm.... link? So 8 year olds will be allowed to marry?


What do have against 8 year olds getting married? :laugh:
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
And legal, willfull, non sexual marriages between men and women occur every day without recourse to prosecution.

Why shouldnt it? Its legal.

And so when we amend the law the allow men to marry men and women to marry women, that will be legal as well.

And so will all the other bastardizations I mentioned above.

Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women doesn't change the law forbidding immediate relatives from marrying.

Anyways, even if your argument was valid, which I'm not sure it is, at best you're arguing against a gay marriage based on a side effect, not the act itself. It's like arguing against a drug that cures heart disease but causes hair loss. You need to argue against the action itself, because arguing with a side effect basically says, "If you could come up with a way to do this, without the side effect, I'd be fine with it."


The proposals are to allow ANYONE to marry for ANY REASON.

Ummm.... link? So 8 year olds will be allowed to marry?


What do have against 8 year olds getting married? :laugh:

You want to go from having a serious argument to kidding around.... I say it's one way or the other. I guess I'll just consider this an argument you lost. You weren't really arguing with me anyways. You were arguing about 2 feet to the right of me.

Keep this crap in P&N.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Do you think it will ever be an issue again?

Yep, It'll end up before the Supreme Court, they'll take a pass & say the case doesn't really apply to the question, send it to a lower court, blah blah, blah...

Plus, every freaking state is going to be dealing with this for years, because with marriages, come divorces, and the introduction of splitting up assets & lawyers making "wads o cash" over the split up.

We'll be hearing about this for years.....

Argument in state A: "I want a divorce."
Response in State A: "We don't recognize gay marriage in our state, therefore you can't get a divorce."

(BTW, I think Nebor should have to marry the passed out boy toy in his bed this morning ;) )

I think gays should be entitled to miserable divorces & BS for years just like I am:)
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
How do you go from gay people getting married to sons marrying mothers?

:confused:

When the legal definition of marriage is liberalized to include the same sex, that will open the flood gates to marriage for legal purposes only (non sexual).

The arguement will be, "If its legal for opposite sex, same sex, how about no sex?"

and

"Then why the hell is polygmy still illegal?"

well, if you dont already listen/watch bill o'reilly you should start.
he is right up your alley, so to speak.

BUT
as we all know from the helpful link about logical fallacies, it is a fallacy to argue that becuase we allow one event, another will occur.
to quote:
"a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. "
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Of course it will. IMO, we are moving to the point of it being something that will be just as common as "normal" marriage in now. As time goes on and realize people are people, gay or not, then everyone will have the same rights to marry someone they love and want to spend their life with. The majority of resistance to this is based in religion anyhow.

Well again, thats only partially the problem. Its not necesarily an acceptance thing.


You will have different types of people marrying for sexual and non sexual reasons. You will have sons marrying mothers (non sexual) for legal purposes, grandmothers and granddaughters (non sexual) for inheritance purposes, etc.

Thats whats wrong with perverting marriage laws, IMO.
What in fscks sake are you talking about?!?

Why would a son marry a mother for "legal purposes"?

:Q

You're pretty out there, aren't you? lol

A man can already marry a woman for any reason. So what changes if it's a man/man or woman/woman instead? What on Earth are you talking about? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
 

Zanix

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2003
5,568
12
81
to quote:
"a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. "[/quote]


If I remember right, this is called a slippery slope.

"if we let the dog out of the back yard, he'll run to the neighbors and bite the neighbor's kid and then they'll sue us and then we'll loose our house! Therefore letting our dog out of the backyard will end up with us loosing our house."

There. That's another example, I think.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Of course it will. IMO, we are moving to the point of it being something that will be just as common as "normal" marriage in now. As time goes on and realize people are people, gay or not, then everyone will have the same rights to marry someone they love and want to spend their life with. The majority of resistance to this is based in religion anyhow.

Well again, thats only partially the problem. Its not necesarily an acceptance thing.


You will have different types of people marrying for sexual and non sexual reasons. You will have sons marrying mothers (non sexual) for legal purposes, grandmothers and granddaughters (non sexual) for inheritance purposes, etc.

Thats whats wrong with perverting marriage laws, IMO.
What in fscks sake are you talking about?!?

Why would a son marry a mother for "legal purposes"?

:Q

You're pretty out there, aren't you? lol

A man can already marry a woman for any reason. So what changes if it's a man/man or woman/woman instead? What on Earth are you talking about? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

these arguments appear to be pretty common among those opposing gay marriage. the remarks tend to shy away from the "hotter" issue of restricting rights of individuals based on sexual preference and jumps to the conclusion that every person (even groups that most people who support gay marriage may have trouble accepting) will begin to abuse and pervert the marriage laws.
i believe it is worth pointing out that it is arguable to suggest that the divorce rate in this country among hetrosexuals is a "perversion" of the marriage laws.
the issue of homosexual marriage runs very deep. persoanlly, i believe that we need to re-evaluate marriage in this country. i could go on and on about that. but the long and short of it is: stop putting pressure on people to get married and hopefully only those people that truly want to will get married. and this will, in turn, improve the status of marriage, regardless of sexuality.
i firmly believe that if we allow homosexuals to marry it will do nothing but improve the success rate of marriages in this country because we will be alloying people who really want to get married an opportunity to. rather than simply restricting it to people who feel the need to due to social pressure and a feeling of social-moral obligation.