I will try to quote something I heard and then I will link you to a website…
This man came to our church a couple weeks ago and my mom bought his tape and here is what he said;
*“Don’t complain people when things go downhill, because of the crooked politicians, lawyers, judges and activists when pedophilia becomes legal and acceptable, don’t complain unless you are willing to fight today, don’t sit down and let things slide, push!” * Dan Moore
He was referring to homosexual marriage and for a seperate website link
I have my own opinions about this guy that came to speak I happen to know his son and they are nice people he is a good speaker although I don’t entirely agree with what he stated…
Before anyone wants to beat me up… I do not think Gay Marriage will lead to anything else besides Gay Marriage, although I must say that I personally do not agree with same sex marriages but I don’t think it will lead to human and animal, or adult and child relationships.
If we allow a man to marry one woman, he’ll just want to marry more! Everybody knows straight men are just naturally horndogs who want to get it on with as many women as possible. The Muslims can have up to four wives, and I don’t think the dissident Mormon fundamentalist groups have any limits on the number of wives a man can have. Jews and non-Mormon Christians can’t be trusted to hold the line on this one either, as it’s right there in their Bible–just look up Solomon sometime!
Monogamous heterosexual marriage: Gateway to polygyny, harems, and concubinage.
“After all, if society is in the business of redefining marriage – who are we to say that a young boy and an adult man shouldn’t wed? What gives society the right to say children and adults shouldn’t marry? Society can no longer argue morality, scientific evidence, history, physiological differences (or in this case, similarities), reproductive limitations and other foundations – those arguments were blown out of the water the first time we redefined marriage.”
Two things: Firstly, if we redefine marriage, why do we assume we are suddenly going to lose our ability to see right from wrong?
IMO, if you’re arguing against same-sex marriage it is easier to spout this slippery-slope bollocks than just coming out and saying its “wrong”, a harder sell these days.
Secondly, isn’t divorce a redefinition of marriage?
Here’s my take on this. If a person (let’s call him John) says “I’m opposed to same-sex marriage” the first question you get is “Why?” If John says “Because the Bible says it’s wrong”, the logical argument to that is “Well, what if I don’t subscribe to what the Bible says? Why would it be wrong for me? I live by man’s laws, not God’s laws”. If John says “Well, if you legalize same-sex marriage, then next thing you know, men will be wanting to marry thier dogs, and in 20 years, society will, as a whole, go straight to hell in a woven basket”, well, yeah, those things are probably untrue, but John is more comfortable with that than with just saying “I dunno why I oppose it; it just seems wrong to me”. I think that to a number of people that oppose it (and I’m not one of them), it “just seems wrong”, but that doesn’t seem legitimate enough, so they have to come up with some arguments. Standard disclaimer: I’m all in favor of same-sex marriage even though I’ve no desire to have one. I don’t think it’s going to present any massive problems, or anything like that.
Just my two cents.
Didn’t I just see on “100 Most Metal Moments” that Ted Nugent became the legal guardian of a seventeen-year-old girl for the specific purpose of having a sexual relationship with her?
Sorry, but I think we heteros blazed the trail on this one.
(great thing about that relationship- you can end any marital spat by sending her to her room without supper.)
I think there’s a fence on this slippery slope, and we’re close to butting up against it. Marriage is between consenting adults – citizens with rights. Until the age of 18 (with some notable exceptions already on the books) you can’t marry, period. Furthermore, unless you are judged mentally competent to consent to a contractual agreement, you can’t be a consenting adult.
A four-year-old can’t consent because he doesn’t have any concept of what he’s agreeing to.
A dog can’t consent, pretty much for the same reason.
Britney Spears can’t consent if she’s toasted on champagne, for the same reason.
As for polygamy, well, I don’t really see any reason it should be outlawed. I have some basic objections – it’s not good for the species to let one really screwed-up guy father dozens of children, and if the state is forced to care for the nth kid, then the (n+1)th kid shouldn’t get jack. But two, three, or more consenting and responsible adults? Groovy.
Well, strictly speaking so he could have her around and accessible and accompanying him w/o having to give explanations of what’s this minor doing here (and after 1 year they were free and clear). Pretty sure that if he’d put on the form “assume responsibility for her safety, welfare, and frequent intense wango-tangoing” the authorities would have had something to say. Since then, most states have amended the statutes so as to make the Nuge’s little stunt specifically and explicitly illegal.
And, most importantly, 17 is not “pedophilia” by any sensible definition of the word.
If you outlaw gay marriage, then who knows what’s next? They’ll outlaw straight marriage, and then dating, and then men and women will have to live in separate colonies, and then . . . and then . . .
And if you let a man in camos and orange hat shoot a deer, you’re opening the door to letting the same man shoot another man, and then a child, and then a baby, and then it’ll be perfectly legal to shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach, and then there won’t be a damn thing you can do about it!
Anyway, as MEB so expertly pointed out, this is a stupid argument. Assuming that allowing consensual relationships between two wo/men will somehow magically lead to everyone losing their morals and allowing (by definition) non-consensual relationships between adults and young children?
And as if not allowing gay marriags will somehow stop people from being gay? This is what I think those anti-gay folks misunderstand the most. If you’re gay, you’re gay. Period. It isn’t a disease, you don’t catch it (well, some people experiment in college, but you figure out your orientation eventually). If you are gay, you’re going to be gay. Drive that through your thick skulls. Whether you can get married or not, you’re going to live together as spouses. Who does it hurt to let gays BE spouses? Christian Pride?
I find it amusing that people say that pedophelia will never become mainstream becuase it’s “immoral”. Seems I’ve heard that about homosexuality somewhere in the vague fog of the past…
I think it [legalization of gay marriage] will lead to pedophelia normalization. Think about it. “A child cannot consent”? Can you provide some cite for that? After all, there are some children that are more ready than some adults. So since there are shades of gray, there’s no black and white. Stop thinking a child cannot consent. That’s just a holdover from an intolerant past.
Of course, the whole “any two loving people should be able to marry” plays right into those hands. In fact, most of the gay-marriage advocates’ arguments can be applied to pedophelia.
I could see (working in the A&H insurance industry) the logic (or at least the excuse that drives the profit motive) in raising group premiums, because all of a sudden the probablility of adding spouse coverage to a larger segment of my insured population has gone up. So you pay more in premiums just because the insurance company has a greater risk pool and has to cover it.
This is a little tongue-in-cheek, but I remember Richard Cohen’s column in the NY Daily News when the whole debate started, concerning an issue that was just spoofed in this edition of The Onion. Now, both writers observe, there exists the previously inapplicable “Sooooo… when are you two getting married?” pressure, or the “If you love me so much, why don’t you marry me?” pressure.
I’m not saying these are valid reasons. In fact, I’m all for gay marriage. You do and you do, so go live your lives together. You’re a family unit anyway, might as well be held to the same rules as the rest of us. But if it does become mainstream, I’m certainly raising my rates because of it.
Cite?
Most of the gay marriage arguments I’ve seen have said (in effect):
“We want what heterosexuals have.”
Period. That’s it. No changes in age/number/species. Just, we want what you have.
Huh? You mean because gays can’t get insured now? Why would being married cause an increase in the risk, they can be insured as singles now.
What? There is only one argument that counts: Consenting adults want the same rights as other consenting adults. How can that include non-adults, consenting or otherwise?
For legal reasons, you have to draw the line somewhere. If a few mature teenagers find themselves below the line, that’s erring on the side of caution in an issue that, unless we degenerate rapidly as a species, will always be immoral. That has nothing to do with homosexual adults.