Human children aren’t the same as dogs. Could it be any simpler?
Perhaps my question got lost in the shuffle. I’ll ask again.
Are we or are we not on a “slippery slope” already by the virtues of one man / one woman marriages?
Given that several people have described exactly the same bright line to you (consenting adults) and you’ve steadfastly ignored them, I’m concluding that your ignorance is either willful or feigned, and either way, you’re not worth continuing the conversation. I welcome you to prove me wrong by addressing the consent issue meaningfully.
Lest you think your comparison of teens to dogs is meaningful, let me dispel the illusion.
In cases in which children are married before they’re old enough to give informed consent, this is unjust and should not be allowed. There may be a belief that informed consent may be possible but unlikely at a certain age range, and that the maturity of kids in these age ranges is best judged by their parents; this belief can separate kids and dogs (neither of whom should be allowed to get married) from adults (who should be allowed to get married), in a way that satisfies the principle of justice.
You may attack the belief (that children of a certain age may or may not be able to give informed consent) while leaving the bright line of consent itself intact.
There. Want to address the common bright line of consent? Or want to continue engaging in trivial, willful ignorance?
Daniel
Actually, I’m pretty sure I stated my opinion in my first post in this thread. Regardless, here it is again: the state of marriage, as recognized by the government, should be available to any two consenting adults, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
That’s it. Not confusing at all. Dog fuckers are still not allowed to marry their dogs, although they can marry other dog fuckers, provided they are both of legal age. People like you can still marry other halfwits. The balance will be maintained.
Yes, it’s obvious, but it doesn’t address what I’m saying. Voting is like getting married: both are acts of participation in sociological concepts (government and marriage, respectively).
Some people thought that it was meaningless to suggest that women could participate in the sociological institution of democratic election. Some people think it is meaningless to suggest that gay couples can participate in the sociological institution of marriage.
In both cases, the government can ethically flout cultural norms in order to protect the interests of its citizens and further the principle of justice.
Daniel
Ooohh, Baby, use that vacuum/dusting attachment on me, yeah!! That’s right, lower, harder, more suds, yeah, yeah, oh god oh god oh god…
What? That’s not what you meant? Never mind.
Jesus Fucking Android, you hit preview and this thread has grown 2 more pages.
No. No, no, no, no, no. Nowhere near close to each other. Very different.
Example: Cars, bicycles, motorcycles, and pedestrians are all very different from each other. What is qualitatively identical is their “right” to use publicly maintained roadways.
Homosexual couples and dog-fuckers are very different from each other. However, one small thing that some of them do share in common is their belief that their relationship deserves the designation of “marriage”.
Of course, by that logic I, too, have something in common with dog-fuckers, namely that I believe my relationship deserves the designation of “marriage”.
I know this is a very sensitive topic and very emotional to many people. Simply by using “gays” and “dog-fuckers” in the same sentence sends some people over the edge. I admit, I’m trying to push a few buttons here (and apparently succeeding), but I am not in any way denigrating anyone or anything specifically. (Oh, no, wait, yes I am, I’m denigrating the dog-fuckers.)
OK then, I’m not denigrating homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals, metrosexuals, polysexuals, polyamorists, incestuous relationships between non-blood relatives, or anything else I’ve forgotten (except, of course, for the aforementioned dog-fuckers).
What I am doing is discussing specific concepts of “marriage”, and to do so necessarily involves talking about people. Real people. People that other people have very strong feelings about.
I don’t think it can be said any clearer than it already has - again and again - marriage is the legal union of two persons capable of informed consent.
Is a dog capable of informed consent? - No.
Is a 22-year-old man capable of informed consent? - Yes (usually).
Is a 15-year-old girl capable of informed consent? - Dunno; consult the parents.
Simple. If you don’t get it by now, you’re not going to get it.
All right, Jimmy, I answered your question directly, now you answer mine:
Do you have a problem with adopting the law I stated (in bold) in my last post? Setting aside all questions about every other potential pairing of people and animals that may want to get married, just give me a yes or no answer. Would you support such a law?
To some people they are the same. They love them as if they were their own children, sometimes more. I’ve seen it. For some people their pets are the only family they have. Just because you, personally, do not hold this opinion does not mean it is not a valid opinion.
So what if two things aren’t "the same’? Sometimes that doesn’t matter. For instance, homosexuals and heterosexuals aren’t “the same”. (I believe you know the difference.) So what?
We are discussing many, many things here that are not “the same”. So?
Oh for goodness sake! Just because Auntie Doris says “c’mere Bowzer, Who’s mummy’s widdle boy then? Who’s mummy’s widdle angel? He understands every word I say”, doesn’t make a dog anything like a human, except in the fevered imagination of Auntie Doris.
Not all opinions are valid; some of them are total bollocks.
Two? Two???
Bigot. Closed-minded simpleton. Ass. Dim-witted discriminating fuck.
You’re willing to discriminate against an entire segment of people (polyamorists).
Not as an alternative to the current law. The current law discriminates against everyone except one man/one woman. Your law discriminates against everyone except one person / one person.
You, Giraffe, are a bigot. You willingly discriminate against a segment of people who want to marry. HOW DARE YOU!!!
Case in point: you appear to have the intelligence of a traffic cone, and yet you are probably not cone-shaped. Also, traffic cones actually serve a useful purpose. But putting those differences aside, both you and a traffic cone have an equal ability to coherently argue a point.
What’s the deciding factor? Your judgement? Hah, I mock you.
As much fun as this has been I need to go for the evening. See you tomorrow.
Oh fuck off. People might think dogs are like children but this doesn’t render them capable of informed consent, which is the key issue (that you seem to be ignoring.
And I was pointing out that had you used such a silly comparison when debatting about gays marriage, for instance (because you could easily have. Allowing gay people to marry is creating a new right…see above and below), you’d been flammed.
I’m not polyamorous. I wasn’t offended. But stating that I’m a complete retard, even though it’s alowed in the pit, doesn’t further your case the slightest bit.
And of course, you avoided to answer my point, so I’m going to repeat :
Currently, your don’t have the right to marry “a person”. Nobody has this right nor in the US, nor here in France. You have the right to marry " a person of the opposite sex . And everybody, gay and straight has this right.
So, when you allow people to marry someone who isn’t of the opposite sex, you’re creating a new right for everybody, gay and straight. It’s exactly the same if you allow people to marry two persons, of any sex.
Once again, if you have the right to own a blue house, why is being granted the right to own two blue houses a more sustantial change than being granted the right to own a blue or a pink house?
But for some reason, you think that changing “of the opposite sex” to “of any sex” isn’t creating a new right, while changing “a” to “two” is.
I feel the same way that if i were arguing with someone telling me that gay people are OK, but shouldn’t have the right to marry, because it’s not the same thing that straight people being allowed to marry. The only difference being that in you’re case, both straight and gays are OK, but polyamorous aren’t.
Besides “it’s not the way it’s done here” or “wow! it would be complicated to write new laws”, what is it which makes gay people more deserving to be married with people they care for than polyamourous people?
Note by the way, in case you wouldn’t have noticed, that I believe that the government shoudln’t recognize any marriage, be with people of the same sex, people of the opposite sex, dogs or toasters.
Giraffe, I never do this, but I just wanted to say that you consistently crack me the fuck up. This made my day. Thank you.
I hope the OP doesn’t think his opinion is original in any way, shape or form. Slippery-slope is a shitty thing to base an argument on, too. Usually it’s a last resort when you’ve got no other excuse.
Clair, the fact that gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex is irrelevant, just as it’s irrelevant that straight people could marry someone of the same sex. A straight couple can get married (as long as they are of age and not related) and a gay one can’t. Is this particularly complicated? Someone in this scenario is plainly being denied an option.
I go away to do something important for a few hours, and the thread balloons on me. What follows is in response to Jimmy’s reply to me; I apologize if this doesn’t completely address posts after that point.
I feel that the principles of fidelity and commitment are beneficial enough to society that gay and lesbian couples who wish to express their commitment to those principles in front of their loved ones and the law should be allowed to do so.
But wait! I’m having a vision! I hereby predict that you will say that the same argument could be applied to polygamous marriage! And guess what: it can! And that is entirely not the fucking point!
The point is this: that would still be a valid argument for polygamous marriage even if gay people didn’t exist!
I will attempt to spell it out, slowly. For any reason X to be in favour of something, there are four possibilities:
- X applies to neither gay marriage nor to polygamous marriage. Deny both on their own merits.
- X applies to gay marriage but not to polygamous marriage. Approve gay marriage and deny polygamous marraige.
- X applies to polygamous marriage but not to gay marriage. Approve polygamous marriage and deny gay marriage.
- X applies to both. Approve both, each on their own marriage.
Do you see the point here? In every case, the decisions as to whether or not to approve either type of marriage can be made independantly of one another. In no case do we deny or approve polygamous marriage just because we denied or approved gay marriage. In each case we deny or approve polygamous marriage based on a reason that actually has something to do with polygamous marriage! What a concept!
Oh, I’ve read your posts prior to this one. Your only stated reason for denying either kind of marriage is the slippery slope argument, which is invalid. Your argument against either type of marriage is about as meaningful as my “high in fat” quip from before.
You’re right, that argument is stupid. Fortunately, I haven’t made it. I feel that there are valid reasons to give marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples that have nothing to do with the fact that hets currently get to marry.
Actually, I do feel that Polyamorous couples are getting stuck in the cold for no good reason. Adopted siblings, too. But there are valid reasons to deny marriage rights to genetic siblings on the merits of that issue alone. And there are valid reasons to prohibit hot man-on-dog marriage, based on the merits of that issue alone.
In short, there is no slippery slope except in your head. Your only stated reason to deny same-sex marriage is because you think it will force society to accept polygamous marriage. That is legally and logically incorrect. And until you can express your problems with polygamous marriage based on the merits of that issue alone, this is just the “ick” argument one step removed, which is completely stupid.
This is an interesting argument, but I can’t escape the feeling that it is an arbitrary interpretation of the facts; I think it would be every bit as valid to say you have the right to marry the partner of your choice; that the law expects your choice of partner to be a person of the opposite sex is an assumption, even if explicitly stated… I was going to try to illustrate this with an analogy, but I think I’ll refrain.