Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“What are you talking about?

Who brought up surgicial procedures? We're talking about marriage.

It's like you brought something else into the discussion, teeth extraction, and then said "see, this isn't silly, so therefore polygamy is irrelevant to".

You've got to be kidding.

Are we allowed to do that?

I'm going back to the Sciavo thread and argue that debating about nuclear war is irrelevant, therefore the argument that her husband should have the say is ludicrous.”

“This is STILL the gay-est thread on TT.”

“that beastiality, incest and polygamy are ludicrous aw well. They are not separate topics.”

they are related, but separate topics.

beastiality is sex with an animal.
incest is sex with your relative
polygamy is several nagging headaches.

how the hell is that not separate topics?”

“Who brought up surgicial procedures? We're talking about marriage.

well who brought up marrying your uncle. we're talking about gays marrying.

see, thats exactly what buck does”

“Given that crash, marriage between a "man and a woman", versus marriage between a "man and a man", are also separate topics.

So you agree that we should not consider homosexuals when discussing marriage?”

“here we go with semantics and splitting hairs.

man and man vs man and woman

call them sub-topics if you want.

or call them separate topics.

if we wanna be anal, we could say straight marriage and gay marriage fall under the umbrella of marriage”

“ummm lets see lets call it "marriage between 2 unrelated human adults" as one topic”

“we could say multiple wives and one wife fall under the umbrella of marriage

This is about semantics crash. What is a marriage? That's the discussion.

The discussion is "how do you define a word legally".

Semantics is exactly what this is about.

If you don't want to discuss semantics, then you need to find another thread.”

“personally, i dont have a problem with polygamy”

“So let's include that in our marriage discussion, along with homosexuality.”

“ok, so if your main problem is the "re-defining of the word marriage" aspect of it, do you have a problem with gay civil unions?”

“ok, lets”

“ok, so if your main problem is the "re-defining of the word marriage" aspect of it, do you have a problem with gay civil unions?

I personally do, because I don't want to tax dollars supporting that. That being said, I do think it should be raised as a possibility at the state level.”

“ok, lets - crash

Ok. Now you've just done what you've been complaining about. You just brought in other possibilities into the discussion. Why? Because YOU think it's alright. That's the point I and others have been making. The slippery slope argument came into play with this. Just recently you said:

they are related, but separate topics.

beastiality is sex with an animal.
incest is sex with your relative
polygamy is several nagging headaches.

how the hell is that not separate topics?

But as soon as given the opportunity to include polygamy, something you agree with, into the realm of possible marriage types, you're all for it.

That's our point. You've just made the point about slippery slopes.

Ok, next!”

“ personally do, because I don't want to tax dollars supporting that

then we shouldnt use our tax dollars to support straight marriage, either. whether or not you want your tax dollars supporting is is irrelevant. if something is right,its right. if its wrong, its wrong. you dont get to pick and choose where your tax dollars go.”

“Um, did you read the next sentence crash?”

“But as soon as given the opportunity to include polygamy, something you agree with, into the realm of possible marriage types, you're all for it.


yea, i know you think youve caught me, but you havent.

if you said incest or beastiality, i would have said no.”

“LOL! That's the point Crash!

OMG, you're making this too easy.

YOU think polygamy is ok, so you want to include it.

OTHERS think incest is ok, so THEY want to include it.

That's where the DEBATE comes into play. It wasn't a debate until we tried to bring homosexuality into it. Now it is.

The point is, there is no limit as to what can be included in the marriage discussion once we open the flood gates and redefine marriage.

It's called "The slippery slope".

Something you just went down.

How did it feel?
last edited: 7/23/05 10:34:04 AM”

“my feelings on polygamy have nothing to do with my feelings on gay marriage. i have not helped you make your point on anything. you and buck just use the slippery slope argument cuz you dont have anything else. you could use the bible, but not everyone accepts that as Authority. you cannot discredit it by any reasonable tactic”

“im fine with gay marriage. im fine with polygamy. however, im not fine with polygamy because im fine with gay marriage, but because of the individual merits of each topic. i did not go down the slippery slope”

“ill give you an A for effort, tho.

bravo”

“my feelings on polygamy have nothing to do with my feelings on gay marriage.

They don't have to. Again, that's the point.

I think you're missing something fundamental here crash.

When you allow a redefining of marriage to include one controversial new grouping for some people, you're going to have to open it up for others as well. There are people for gay marriage that are against polygamy. Yet, you want to open it up to that b/c YOU support it.

What makes you different than the guy who supports legalized incest?

Once you redefine marriage to appease one group, the slippery slope has started, as you have demonstrated.

There are then no limits when you have no basis for your morality. Morality becomes a non-issue.

Beastiality is next on the list.....

"Slip slid'n away ....."”

“I have to go to a Rally for the Troops in Harrisburg that I forgot about earlier when I was about to go to the gym.

Feel free to join me.

cya”

“When you allow a redefining of marriage to include one controversial new grouping for some people, you're going to have to open it up for others as well.

ok, so lets open it up.

im pretty sure beastiality and incest wont pass muster. polygamy probably not either. our social mores are too ingrained against them.”

“There are then no limits when you have no basis for your morality. Morality becomes a non-issue

oh, and, screw you if youre insinuating my morals have no basis.”

“There are lots of homosexual couples right now.

Many simply want to same right to marry as heterosexuals have.

It is absurd to expect that there are people out there waiting for the chance to marry a goat or a grizzly bear.

I would guess that those who have sex with non-human mammals, if they exist in any numbers at all, keep their activities private.”

“There are lots of homosexual couples right now.

Many simply want to same right to marry as heterosexuals have.

It is absurd to expect that there are people out there waiting for the chance to marry a goat or a grizzly bear.

I would guess that those who have sex with non-human mammals, if they exist in any numbers at all, keep their activities private.

FLASH BACK ... CIRCA 1960 ...

HOMOSEXUALITY IS RARE.

HOMOSEXUALS ARE "IN THE CLOSET"

HOMOSEXUALS DON'T DARE TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE, AND NOBODY EVEN THINKS ABOUT IT.

*** BACK TO 2005 ***
last edited: 7/23/05 1:44:28 PM”

“*** FLASH FORWARD ... CIRCA 2020 ***

There are lots of beastiality couples right now.

Many simply want the same right to marry as homosexuals have.

It is absure to expect that there are people out there waitinf for the chance to marry a cyborg or a martian.

I would guess that those who have sex with martians, if they exist in any numbers at all, keep their activities private.

*** BACK TO 2005 ***”

“ok, so lets open it up.

im pretty sure beastiality and incest wont pass muster. polygamy probably not either. our social mores are too ingrained against them. - crash

That's funny. Didn't you say just recently that they were separate topics?

Which is it?

oh, and, screw you if youre insinuating my morals have no basis.

Fine. What's the basis for your morality?”

“paranoia..........or do you really see the future?”

“MarkO - Serious question for you. Could you find me one post by you that is productive. Not a personal attack of some sort, but actually contributes to the conversation. I was looking and couldn't find one.

Thanks in advance. I noticed you posted on the other ID thread as well, so let me check it out and see what you said. Maybe you'll surprise me and it will be productive to the conversation and not about an individual TTer.

Let's go over together and see ...”

“Sarge, your predictions about the future and "beastiality marriage", etc, are out of whack and worthy of ridicule.

That simplified "history" flash back is straight out of the funny papers.

funny guy!!”

“You're right MarkO.

Homosexuals have never been in the closet as a group, and they're not coming out now.

How silly of me.

What was I thinking?”

“im pretty sure beastiality and incest wont pass muster. polygamy probably not either. our social mores are too ingrained against them. - crash

That's funny. Didn't you say just recently that they were separate topics?

yes. they are. and i am not treating them as a whole. man. you are trying so hard to take this down the slippery slope, and its just not working. we could take this in the other direction, and say, if we are to continue disallowing gay marriage, then maybe we should not allow other kinds of marriage. im sure you dont approve of democrat voting pagans who believe in evolution. maybe we shouldnt allow them to marry. id hate to see your tax dollars wasted.

Fine. What's the basis for your morality?”

logic, reason, and compassion. im a libertarian. i believe if no ones rights are being violated, there shouldnt be a law against it. if jack and john wanna jack each other off, it aint hurtin you, so bugger out.”

“It's hurting me because I'm paying for it.”

“what, you think everything your tax dollars go towards have to be run by you for your approval? tough”

“Uh, yeah Mr. Libertarian.

That's why we started this country.

Since you no longer embrace the Libertarian concepts you embrased at 2:30 this morning, what are you now? Communist?”

“what, you think everything your tax dollars go towards have to be run by you for your approval? tough

(In case you're not familiar with your party's platform, libertarians don't believe we should have to pay for that stuff.)”

“gay marriage does not violate your rights. you do not have the right to approve of everything your tax dollars go to. you have the right to beyotch and complain about it, and waste alot of time trying to stop the inevitable, but thats about it.”

“One more time, just for you ...

In case you're not familiar with your party's platform, libertarians don't believe we should have to pay for that stuff. Your party does believe I have the right to approve of everything my tax dollars go to.
last edited: 7/24/05 8:27:57 AM”

“(In case you're not familiar with your party's platform, libertarians don't believe we should have to pay for that stuff.

i didnt say i was a member of the libertarian party. i said i was a libertarian. just like you dont agree with everything in the denomination you attend, i dont agree with everything the libertarian party stands for. abortion, for instance. theyre pro, im anti. i hate politics, but i like their philosophy more than the big 2. but how well i match up with the lib party is irrelevant to the discussion. im not a perfect libertarian. so what? next”

“Well the whole reason they suck is because they haven't thought things through. And you're view is a perfect example of that. If you open up the floodgates to allow any 'ole Tom, Dick and Spot to get married, somebody is going to have to pay for that. That's why they want civil unions, - so that we have to pay for their lives.”

“Join the Constitution Party.”

“libertarians dont wanna pay taxes for anything. thats a given. theyre more far to the right than the republicans are on economics. but i seriously doubt theyre gonna say if straight couples get benefits, gays cant. if theyre gonna be against gays getting benefits, they would have to be against straights getting benefits”

“Right. They haven't thought things out. They want a Utopia, like the socialist left, that ain't going to happen.”

“as a single man,how do you think i feel about "paying for your lives" as a married man? noboday asked me if i wanted to help pay for benefits and not receive them.”

“How do you pay for my life as a married man?”

“Right. They haven't thought things out. They want a Utopia, like the socialist left, that ain't going to happen

if you dont agree with them, dont use their platform to argue your point.”

““How do you pay for my life as a married man?”

how do you pay for the lives of gay couples?”

“how do you pay for the lives of gay couples?

I don't, and I don't intend to start. Now answer my question please.

if you dont agree with them, dont use their platform to argue your point

I'm not. That was your platform. I can't believe you got confused as to who was what here.”