By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
nuckles87 on 23 December 2013
Edit Thread
ninetailschris said:
curl-6 said:
ninetailschris said:

 Do you honestly feel people scared of homosexuals? The idea is to protect marriage not because we want gays dead or hate gays.

Marriage doesn't need protection. Homosexuality does not threaten it.


I would beg to differ. What you are doing is re-defining marriage and rights to whatever someone personally feels. Why not allow multiple wives and husbands? Why not allow marriage between animals and humans? Why not with children under the age of 13? Why not with anything. If you re-define basic rights as anyone could do whatever they like because it's right than you have to question why can't just create my own rights. Why are your rights more true than mine?  Why is anything not a right. Your left with everything relative and nothing meanings anything because it's meaningless like Nietzsche would say. 

Is human rights a man made idea in which is completely subjective and if so why not just say your opinion is as neutral as the opposite opinion? Example, did the nazi do anything wrong because they believe humans rights were for there specific people oppose to you who felt the opposite? Is it just a difference in moral opinions on human rights?

I stopped reading this with an open mind the moment you utilized the slippery slope argument.

You've already redefined marriage. Marriage, in the context of human history, has already allowed for the polygamy and polyandry. These types of marriages have existed for as long as the concept of marriage has existed. By refusing to acknowledge these as legitimately defined marriages, you've already redefined what marriage is to fit within your own personal cultural moorings. So that argument simply doesn't work.

It amazes me how any sensible person can make the slipper slope argument in regards to marriage. Children, animals and "anything" else lack one very important legal qualification that adults have: consent. Children are not old enough to consent to most things legally, especially marriage, which is why they can't get married. Same goes with animals and "anything" else. In order for this to happen, this whole idea of consent in legal matters will have to be removed. But for homosexual marriage? We just have to change (or remove) some language in existing marriage laws.

And regarding your comments on marriage having no secular meaning: no one is forcing churches to marrry anyone. If you truly beleive that marriage has no meaning in a secular government, then absolutely nothing is being lost with these laws: the US government has always been secular, meaning marriage never had any meaning in the United States outside of the Church, which won't be impacted by these laws anyway. So I don't really see the issue.