Quote:
Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Ummmm .... yeah .... so what? What's your point? Why does the Gubmint need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? To assuage the egos of closed minded people? If you are worried about the errosion of the 'sanctity of marriage', don't go looking at gay people. If anything they tend to show higher committment rates. Blame the "Me-ism" permeating society. Blame short attention spans. Blame "keeping up with the Jones'" that require two people in a relationship to work insane hours to maintain a standard of living that one person working for $30,000 /yr used to acheive 25 yrs ago.
Don't let homophobia blame "those people" though. Don't keep asking the Gubmint to legislate the private activities of consenting adults. Don't let insurance companies confuse the mix.
And why, WHY must people against 'Gay Marriage' always make the claim "If you let this happen, next you'll have people wanting to marry animals"?!?! What kind of mind makes this leap? How do you add 2+2 and get poppycock? Freud would have a field day with this line of thinking.
|
Ummm... yea... so was there an response to the posed question buried in the above preaching? Let me check again... nope don't see it.
I don't recall mentioning sanctity of marriage at all... I'm simply looking at a dilution of the concept of a legal partnership from "man and female" to "any binary permutation". I'm asking the question "why binary?"... it's just as valid a question to pose as "why hetero?". Why indeed does the gubberment need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? (say for instance... THREE consenting adults) Is it to assuage the ego's of closed minded people, seems to me that's just as valid a pointless ad hominim whether it's gays or polygamists you're discussing. HECK, think how much easier it would be to keep up with the Jonses if you had three wage earners in the family, and a short attention span might be a benefit if you've got two or more partners to divide your time between.
I asked the question because I believe this decision is based on the "morals of the moment" P.C. attitude of our "morally relative" society. We're tossing out a standard that's been around for a long time based on a couple decades of "social reengineering". I think anyone who thinks it's OK for gays to marry but that polygamy is wrong is a hypocrite. Personally I think if 'non-traditional' legal partnerships are to be accepted, they should ALL be accepted. I would draw the line at "between humans" but many of the same positions that were put forward to support gay unions could be put forward to support ANY union that doesn't fit our traditional concept of "marriage" or "partnership"... and THAT'S the reason poeple bring up "marrying animals", it's because that's the logical end of a "slippery slope" line of thinking that begins when you step away from the traditional Male/Female union (although inanimate objects might be the true logical end). You take an idea and ride it to it's rediculous conclusion, because once the ball is rolling there will be people who'll want to keep it rolling. Someone WILL challenge the "binary" nature of partnerships, and while the feline question was more a silly extreme... there's a LOT of strange and silly people out there. It's the equivelant of asking the question "Where exactly is the stop sign once we start making changes here."