Don't push it, auto. bestiality isn't homosexuality

Neither is marrying your sister.

@President Eden

I kindly request that you shut the fuck up until you learn the difference between comedy and sarcasm.

"Don't push it, auto. bestiality isn't homosexuality"

"Neither is marrying your sister."

Assuming that the marriage is consummated then yes, if you're a woman, marrying you sister is homosexual.

@oscarjd74

I kindly request you stop making useless posts :)

@AutomaticDiplomacy, is your dog a consenting adult? That's a hell of a feat.

So I took your guys' advice and reviewed some court cases related to this issue. After reexamining the arguments for both sides, I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong. When you remove religion from the equation, the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage aren't significant enough to make a winnable case with. At this point I believe our nation has decided to accept gay marriage; therefore it has ceased to be a relevant topic for national debate, and more of a personal, moral one.

That being said, I think we as a nation must beware of a couple things as we legalize same-sex marriage. First and formost is that we don't violate the religious freedom of our citizens. No religious institution should EVER be forced to officiate a same-sex marriage if they feel as if violates their religious beliefs.

Another thing that we need to be aware of is that morals and the family unit is crucial to a well-functioning society. We don't all have to agree on what exactly those morals are, or what those families should look like; but we should all recognize their importance. With society's allowance of same-sex marriage comes the possibility of further errosion of our morals and our familt units. Allowing same-sex marriage potentially makes it easier to justify other relations which we otherwise previously considered "immoral," such as polygamy, insest, and beastialty. We must decide where to draw the line, and then firmly hold that line. Same-sex marriage also presents an unkown risk to the family unit as not enough studies have been done to see how having gay parents affects children.

Just some thoughts. It's late, I've been gone all day, and I could really use some sleep. But I forced myself to pump this out for you all before I went to bed, so you'd have something to rip apart. You're welcome.

@Slyguy:

"When you remove religion from the equation, the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage aren't significant enough to make a winnable case with."

However, people regarding something as "icky" is always significant enough to make a winnable case with.

"No religious institution should EVER be forced to officiate a same-sex marriage if they feel as if violates their religious beliefs."

Because those godless liberals are forcing religious institutions to act against their beliefs, which aren't protected by the first amendment.

"Allowing same-sex marriage potentially makes it easier to justify other relations which we otherwise previously considered "immoral," such as polygamy, insest, and beastialty"

This definitely isn't the slippery slope fallacy.

"Same-sex marriage also presents an unkown risk to the family unit as not enough studies have been done to see how having gay parents affects children."

I agree wholeheartedly. Studies must be conducted to see if fags are capable of raising children. This couldn't be an infringement of a person's rights as an American citizen! I mean, if a man likes cock, then he must be getting fucked in the head as well, right? No one in that state of mind is fit to take care of children.

"But I forced myself to pump this out for you all before I went to bed, so you'd have something to rip apart."

Going to bed? Forcing yourself to pump things out? Wanting me to rip something apart? Baby, I'll be there in ten.

Slyguy - What can I say but, wow you are seriously deluded.

First no church is being forced to conduct a same sex marriage, at least not in the US. And it is my understanding the CoE is as much a politcalnas a religious institution and therefore has no right to discriminate against the people of the UK.

Second, the idea that allowing and forcing the government to recognize a union between two consenting adults able to enter into a legal and binding contract could lead to beastiality is like saying allowing a person to legally smoke pot in the privacy of their own home would lead to allowing people to stick needles full.of heroin in their kids arms. That is beyond preposterous. You are a just one giant walking, talking logical fallacy.

first and foremost, this whole debate has NOTHING to do with bestiality. marriage will always be between two consenting adults. other than that, i think auto has summed it up pretty well. why shouldn't they be able to raise children? please point out one reason why homosexuals adopting children is bad, and we'll gladly rip it.

also: "we must decide where to draw the line, and then firmly hold that line." - seriously? if this had been the case all the time, that we "firmly hold onto this line" no matter what, we would still have slavery, women wouldn't be allowed to vote... in a functioning society, we must constantly discuss our values.

Automatic Diplomacy: You were there in 30. ;-)

Slyguy270: No, you're welcome. It was my advice. The others have already started tearing apart the rest, but I'll tackle this:
"Same-sex marriage also presents an unkown risk to the family unit as not enough studies have been done to see how having gay parents affects children."
You may correct me if I'm wrong, but there have of course been several studies published. They turned up nothing except that couples forced to jump hoops to be permitted joint custody are predictably better parents than the average.

"guardians", if you have a problem with "parents"

I think you guys misinterpreted what I was trying to say here. I was not arguing that our religious freedoms are currently being violated, or that homosexuality is guaranteed to lead to lead to other "immoral" relations. Rather I was listing a few things that we should make sure don't happen when we legalize gay marriage. It was more of a "Ok, if we're going to allow this, we need to be aware of these possible repercussions;" rather than a "We shouldn't allow this because these bad things are guaranteed to happen." Does that make a little more sense?

You still are carrying the idea of a union between two consenting adults too far. Animals don't have legal status to enter into a contract. This just recognizes a union between two people who *already have that right* (to enter into a legal contract).

What is wrong with polygamy exactly? If it is between three consenting adults?

For inheritance and power of attorney purposes, it can be a nightmare. But then the government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyhow.

So mere political problems stop three people, or more, from loving each other? Isn't this what legalizing gay marriage was about? Letting people love each other as they see fit?

And before we know it, the term marriage has absolutely no meaning at all...

Slyguy270: You're missing the point. The point is to expand the meaning to meet the people's legal needs and rights. If marriage had no meaning then there would be no legal benefits

I find it sad how we've changed the definition of love in this country to sex. Love isn't about caring deeply for someone else's soul anymore; it's just about lusting for their body and the physical pleasure that it brings.

So yes, that's what the LGBT movement is all about. Getting the government to endorse people's sexual immorality. Because how dare they not support your perverted attractions. People should be free to have sex with as many people as they want, right?! It doesn't matter how many people you do it with, or if they're the same gender, or even if they're your close relative! Because morality is just some silly social phenomenon, religion is a foolish myth used to control the weak, and life as we know it just happened to pop into existence. Therefore our lives are stupid, short, and pointless; so why the heck shouldn't we be able to do whatever we feel like doing??? As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else surely it must be ok...

Maybe you should take a break, Slyguy. Sit back, have a beer. Unless you think that's immoral too.

Lol I would if I weren't a minor and it didn't interfere with my medication...

oh, so you're hopped up on meds. that explains everything!

The have a sip of the finest soda pop money can buy. Nothing but the best for you, my friend.

@Styje: Oh, come on. That's ad hominem, plain and simple.

@auto ikr?!

@Styje Wow man, I'd be insulted but that was just way too funny!!! I just wish I was as clever as you!!! Mabye then I'd realize what a bunch of cotten-headed-ninny-muffins I was trying to reason with and go do something more productive with my time.

I'd use stronger language, but I'm just far too young and innocent to know anything worse...

Oh and I'd take you up on that soda pop Auto, but, you know, mother probably wouldn't approve. She doesn't like it when I have more than one a month. Plus she warned me not to take stuff from strange men... ;)

Do you even know what you are talking about? Religious polygamy isn't necessarily illegal. Only government recognition is denied. In short, the marriage license is for two people, but the rest is just considered cohabitation by the government.