Originally Posted by Odlov
I don't know how many times i have to bring this up, but marriage is NOT just a religious ceremony, but a contract which carries far more benefits than the phony "civil union". Either we strip it of it's practical benefits and leave it a purely religious rite, or we grant access to all citizens.
Personally I don't mind if the practical benefit is removed or if the "civil union" had the same benefits as marriage now (or both).
What I foresee being a problem with the "give marriage access to all citizens", however, is the lack/removal of a dividing line (that will most likely be continuously challenged by more groups as time marches on).
Will it officially become;
"the joining of two people"
"the joining of people" (polygamy)
"the joining of organisms" ( http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...050339590.html )
or simply "the joining" (there are people who claim to be deeply in love with buildings and inanimate objects)
?
I must admit "the joining" does have a nice fantasy/future ring to it.
Last edited by lancer_c; Dec 7, 2009 at 06:42 AM.
Originally Posted by lancer_c
Personally I don't mind if the practical benefit is removed or if the "civil union" had the same benefits as marriage now (or both).
What I foresee being a problem with the "give marriage access to all citizens", however, is the lack/removal of a dividing line (that will most likely be continuously challenged by more groups as time marches on).
Will it officially become;
"the joining of two people"
"the joining of people" (polygamy)
"the joining of organisms" ( http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...050339590.html )
or simply "the joining" (there are people who claim to be deeply in love with buildings and inanimate objects)
?
I must admit "the joining" does have a nice fantasy/future ring to it.
By this logic the re-legalization of alcohol would have already lead to every single drug imaginable. Those are not the issues being discussed, and to mention them is pointless as A: Polygamy is illegal for wholly different reasons and B: there will not only NEVER be a large enough amount of people in the next two categories for them to happen, but animals and inanimate objects are not the same as a homosexual person no matter which way you slice it.
EDIT: That link is a piece of fluff news. If you really think that the woman did that because she feels connected or sexually attracted to the dolphin, you are missing the point. They publish those stories to have something "happy" to talk about, not to make a point on social issues.
Last edited by deady; Dec 7, 2009 at 06:51 AM.
Organisation of Awesome: Member.
Originally Posted by deady
By this logic the re-legalization of alcohol would have already lead to every single drug imaginable. Those are not the issues being discussed, and to mention them is pointless as A: Polygamy is illegal for wholly different reasons and B: there will not only NEVER be a large enough amount of people in the next two categories for them to happen, but animals and inanimate objects are not the same as a homosexual person no matter which way you slice it.
EDIT: That link is a piece of fluff news. If you really think that the woman did that because she feels connected or sexually attracted to the dolphin, you are missing the point. They publish those stories to have something "happy" to talk about, not to make a point on social issues.
I don't see how your comparison makes sense with my above logic. I am simply stating "people will challenge it", as they have their own (albeit unique) attractions to that which they love and could easily argue "unfair treatment". Is that difficult to imagine?
I don't feel its completely off topic as it addresses the statement "give marriage access to all citizens", as to what "marriage" would actually be or become.
I wouldn't entirely rule out that there will "NEVER be a large enough amount of people in the next two categories for them to happen". One could have argued the same thing 50 years back for a statement of "marriage between the same sex may occur".
Note: The link was only provided as a statement, I know it's not a serious piece of news but simply was referring to the base concept in relation to my "joining of organisms" statement.
Though,
"If you really think that the woman did that because she feels connected or sexually attracted to the dolphin....."
she did?...
"Happy news" or not it does seem to be she is attracted to the dolphin, I don't really see your case there but I do apologize if didn't clearly understand what you were trying to say.
Last edited by lancer_c; Dec 7, 2009 at 07:21 AM.
Lancer, please don't fall prey to the to the logical fallacy of a "slippery slope."
This page sums up my reaction to your argument better than I could.
This page sums up my reaction to your argument better than I could.
i have a totally post modern tattoo of a scalene triangle.
<DeadorK> fair maiden<DeadorK> if the cum is going to be in your mouth
<DeadorK> it shall be in mine as well
Originally Posted by lancer_c
I don't see how your comparison makes sense with my above logic. I am simply stating "people will challenge it", as they have their own (albeit unique) attractions to that which they love and could easily argue "unfair treatment". Is that difficult to imagine?
I don't feel its completely off topic as it addresses the statement "give marriage access to all citizens", as to what "marriage" would actually be or become.
I wouldn't entirely rule out that there will "NEVER be a large enough amount of people in the next two categories for them to happen". One could have argued the same thing 50 years back for a statement of "marriage between the same sex may occur".
Deady's comparison was actually quite good. You seem to believe that small change inevitably leads to huge change. Now did that happen with the legalisation of alcohol? No it didn't because people know when to stop. I mean, do you really think that polygamy would be legalised? Or marriage between people are animals? Of course it wouldn't because it is stupid and a ridiculously small amount of people would actually want that change.
And no there will not be enough people who love bridges and shit for that to become legal. And 50 years ago homosexuality was quite prevalent, hell it's been common since at least Ancient Greek times.
Originally Posted by lancer_c
she did?...
"Happy news" or not it does seem to be she is attracted to the dolphin, I don't really see your case there but I do apologize if didn't clearly understand what you were trying to say.
Oh and the woman in that news story was most likely attention seeking. And even if she did love the dolphin, she shouldn't be allowed to marry it. If I love a muffin can I marry that? Or how about a nice piece of steak? Marriage (or civil union if you wish to use that term) is a strictly human affair.
VERY IMPORTANT: THIS ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER IN USE. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT ME THEN PM ONAMIST.
