Saturday, May 9, 2009

Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage (Reaction & Re-post)

Wow, Pat Robertson is now most definitely swimming eyebrow deep in his own arrogant bigoted BULLSHIT! Is this guy fu@$ing for real? My head hurts just contemplating the fact that people actually listen to this shite standby and believe in it! REALLY!? How does this piece of shit live with himself!? Who are these people that support him? "Slippery slope" leading to polygamy!, bestiality!, child molestation! and pedophilia! WTF! REALLY!?

That is beyond preposterous to even have a thought such as this. Come on! Just because no other society has legalized same sex marriage doesn't mean that WE as the great nation of the United States of America can't be the leading trailblazers of social equality in the world. God damn you filthy socially conservative prats for even considering this so called "slippery slope" that Mr. Robertson is suggesting. Your ignorance of legally documented love is completely unjustified with NO merit in this ever changing world. Tell me this, what is someone who loves, truly loves, someone else of the same gender going to matter in YOUR life? They aren't taking your money, physically harming you or enslaving you to build monuments to some demonic god!? What is the problem? I truly DO NOT understand.

How the hell can it be better to have two people who are NOT in love be married and not allow two people who genuinely ARE in love suffer because the ignorant conservative pricks on the right have the power to keep it that way...for now.

There is NO logic what so ever conveyed by the denial of same sex marriages. The only thing that I see here is complete and undeniable; ignorance, arrogance, closed mindedness, brain washing, fear, mental simplicity, de-evolution, failure, unwillingness, ugliness, evil, bigotry, hatred, immorality, Nazism, Fascism and above all LACK OF PATRIOTISM.

That is all.

~ Ky

Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage: It's all about contract law

Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:07:30 AM PDT

How many conservatives have claimed that permitting gay marriage constitutes some sort of "slippery slope" that will extend rights to perversions such as bestiality and pedophilia?

This past week, conservative evangelist Pat Robertson made the slippery slope argument:

On the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Pat Robertson responded by claiming that the "ultimate conclusion" of legalizing same-sex marriage would be the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation and pedophilia. "You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent," said Robertson.

And who can forget former Republican Senator Rick Santorum's comments in 2003 on gay marriage:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

In supporting a Texas law against sodomy, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.

Mike Huckabee in 2008:

Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic.

These are only a few in a long string of arguments absurdly asserting that gay marriage will somehow lead to the legalization of such degenerate acts as bestiality and pedophilia.

What is marriage? Marriage is a legal contract, entered into by consent of two people. Let's address some of their arguments.

Can dogs, horses, goats, or any other animal enter into a legal contract in the United States? No.

Can children enter into legal contracts of their own accord? No. Can pre-adolescent children get married even with parental consent? No.

There is, therefore, no reason to think that marriage between two consenting adults equates with marriage between one consenting adult and a non-consenting animal or child.

Marriage equality implies a legal right for two adults of any sex (two men, two women, one man/one woman)to elect to enter into a legally binding contract that confers certain rights and obligations. If the law does not permit more than two people to enjoin into this contract, gay marriage will never lead to legalized polygamous marriage. People with polygamous inclinations retain the option everyone individual has--to marry one person of their choosing.

The law prohibits people of certain genetic relationships from entering into a marriage contract, regardless of gender. Gay marriage does not nullify this legal provision. What if an adult brother and sister want to marry one another? Can the law refuse or does that deny them marriage equality? Prohibiting incestuous marriages does not violate marriage equality, because the incestuous person is not prevented from marrying someone--of either gender--but only from marrying family members.

If gay marriage is legalized, a brother cannot marry his brother nor can a sister marry her sister, and so on. Even gay incestuous people will not be able to marry. This is marriage equality.

There is no evidence to suggest incestuous people are only able to form relationships with the small number of people in their family. For example, if the incestuous person's family died suddenly or was not receptive to his/her advances, it is doubtful that person would remain celibate lifelong, unable to partner with anyone else. It is not that he/she is only able to have incestuous relationships but that they have developed an intense attraction to one specific person. A mental state of only being able to be attracted to one person, no matter what (if they died, rejected you, etc), by nature indicates a mental health problem. Gay people do not have that problem.

The Dominos Collapse:
Any argument that legalizing gay marriage means legalizing every type of union between consenting adults is inherently flawed. The only way this argument has validity is to operate from the perspective that homosexuality is a willful deviancy. Of course, the conservatives above and those making these arguments have adopted that view.

Most of us who know gay people, however, know they are not deviants and that homosexuality and gay marriage is about more than sex. Homosexual relationships do not consist of one person forcing him/herself on someone/something incapable of consent or being psychologically restricted to forming a relationship with only one other person, ever.

Who knows whether there is an inherent "right" to marry. Contracts, after all, do not exist in nature. If the US government, in its wisdom, has decided to legalize contracted unions between two people, however, everyone in the US should have the opportunity to enter into these contracts for a (theoretically) lifelong partnership.

While the government can set conditions on who can enter into a marriage contract, the decision to force homosexuals to choose a partner from among the opposite sex denies them the opportunity to select someone with whom they could potentially build a lifelong relationship and is therefore discriminatory.

Civil Unions:
Calling marriage between gays something else (civil unions) is silly. If one person who gets breast implants calls it a boob job and another person calls it breast augmentation, does it somehow mean they had different procedures? It is an artificial distinction and therefore unnecessary.

Conservatives love false distinctions. Calling torture "enhanced interrogation" does not make it any less torture. And giving gays all the rights of marriage but calling it Civil Union does not make it any less a marriage. The reason the distinction is objectionable is that it is unnecessary and has its roots in bigotry.

Applying the label "Civil Union" is nothing more than an effort to signal homosexuals out as somehow less than "real" Americans and so that bigoted heterosexual people can assure themselves that their marriages mean more than those deviant "civil unions."

True Equality:
Telling gay people they cannot fornicate with animals or children, they cannot marry more than one person at a time, and they cannot marry a close relative is not discriminatory. These rules hold true for all Americans, gay and straight.

Letting gays marry does not force us to abandon all moral justifications for objecting to things that cause others or society harm. So far, the only individuals who seem to be harmed by the existence of homosexuality in our society are homosexuals, thanks to the bigotry of some heterosexuals.

A lot of people seem to have difficulty with the argument I have made on polygamous marriage, so I want to clarify.

  1. First, you cannot equate polyamory with gay or straight. A polyamorous person is a gay or straight person, which means that polyamory is a subset of heterosexuality/homosexuality, not an equal third class of marriage partners.
  1. I take no position on the morality of polygamy. One could argue it is Biblical and allowed in some societies and therefore not immoral. The morality of it is not relevant to the argument.
  1. My argument is that denying people who want to marry more than one person the right to do so does not deprive them of the right to enter into a contract with someone with whom they plan to form a lifelong, fulfilling relationship. A polygamous person forms one relationship at a time. One marriage comes "first." Therefore, that person does first select some one with whom they believe they can share a life, independent of a prospective subsequent marriage. Refusing to allow all people the right to marry a second person with whom they believe they can share a life does not violate the principle of marriage equality.
  1. Denying a gay person the right to marry another gay person absolutely denies this segment of the population the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person with whom he/she has the possibility of forming fulfilling lifelong relationship. Ergo, you violate the principle of marriage equality.

No comments:

Post a Comment