Sanctity of marriage was under attack 40 years ago

[_Jersey Girl]

The two consenting adults position doesn't fare much better than that, Angus.

Might help if you were a little more specific, Jersey. Just saying an argument is wrong without explaining why doesn't mean anything.

Yes, well I extended an invitation to you and you seemed to blow it off.

I didn't say the argument was wrong. I said it doesn't fare much better (meaning it's easily descontructed) than the religious arguments.

So let it begin...

If we (society) base marital law on the premise of "two consenting adults" what prevents the "two consenting adults" from each taking addtional partners?

Your turn.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's another one regarding two consenting adults.

What if one of the consenting adults is human and the other an adult dog?


I've done this before, Angus, but I'm willing to see where it goes this time around and if someone raises scriptural evidence against homosexual sex, I'll probably hop the positional fence and debate that as well so in the event that you think you see me switch sides, it's because I probably am.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Yes, well I extended an invitation to you and you seemed to blow it off.

Kind of helps if you ask specific questions or voice specific problems you have with an argument, jersey. While I'm quite possibly the most awesome and full of win person ever to stalk the earth, I'm not a mind reader.

I didn't say the argument was wrong. I said it doesn't fare much better (meaning it's easily descontructed) than the religious arguments.

If we (society) base marital law on the premise of "two consenting adults" what prevents the "two consenting adults" from each taking addtional partners?

Nothing at all as long as they don't attempt to claim those additional partners legal spouses for tax or insurance purposes. If they want to swing, that's their deal and as long as no one is being harmed and no laws are broken, batter up.

What if one of the consenting adults is human and the other an adult dog?

Last time I checked, dogs (and other animals) were considered "legal adults" under any laws that I know of in the US, so basically this is just a typical combo of a strawman and slippery slope fallacies.

I mean, seriously, how is the dog supposed to give consent? One back for yes, two barks for no, three marks for "sorry, babe, I've got a headache"?

I've done this before, Angus, but I'm willing to see where it goes this time around and if someone raises scriptural evidence against homosexual sex, I'll probably hop the positional fence and debate that as well so in the event that you think you see me switch sides, it's because I probably am.

I've seen and argued against pretty much ever conceivable objection to gay marriage there is, Jersey. Every single one of them can be tied to either religious views or reproduction and every one of them is fundamentally flawed. Hey, if you can come up with an original argument that doesn't involve either of the above or the use of ridiculous straw men about bestiality, I'll debate it with you and probably enjoy doing so.

As far as you potentially switching sides in the debate, not a problem. You've already stated that you're not quite sure on the issue and your main problem is one of terminology (calling a gay marriage "marriage"). So hopefully, by exploring the issue you might decide which side of the fence suits you more.

[_Scottie]

I mean, seriously, how is the dog supposed to give consent? One back for yes, two barks for no, three marks for "sorry, babe, I've got a headache"?

LOL. So in one sentance, we have back, bark and mark.

You might want to check this out...;)

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, well I extended an invitation to you and you seemed to blow it off.

Kind of helps if you ask specific questions or voice specific problems you have with an argument, jersey. While I'm quite possibly the most awesome and full of win person ever to stalk the earth, I'm not a mind reader.

I didn't say the argument was wrong. I said it doesn't fare much better (meaning it's easily descontructed) than the religious arguments.

If we (society) base marital law on the premise of "two consenting adults" what prevents the "two consenting adults" from each taking addtional partners?

Nothing at all as long as they don't attempt to claim those additional partners legal spouses for tax or insurance purposes. If they want to swing, that's their deal and as long as no one is being harmed and no laws are broken, batter up.

What if one of the consenting adults is human and the other an adult dog?

Last time I checked, dogs (and other animals) were considered "legal adults" under any laws that I know of in the US, so basically this is just a typical combo of a strawman and slippery slope fallacies.

I mean, seriously, how is the dog supposed to give consent? One back for yes, two barks for no, three marks for "sorry, babe, I've got a headache"?

I've done this before, Angus, but I'm willing to see where it goes this time around and if someone raises scriptural evidence against homosexual sex, I'll probably hop the positional fence and debate that as well so in the event that you think you see me switch sides, it's because I probably am.

I've seen and argued against pretty much ever conceivable objection to gay marriage there is, Jersey. Every single one of them can be tied to either religious views or reproduction and every one of them is fundamentally flawed. Hey, if you can come up with an original argument that doesn't involve either of the above or the use of ridiculous straw men about bestiality, I'll debate it with you and probably enjoy doing so.

As far as you potentially switching sides in the debate, not a problem. You've already stated that you're not quite sure on the issue and your main problem is one of terminology (calling a gay marriage "marriage"). So hopefully, by exploring the issue you might decide which side of the fence suits you more.

Oh, Angus. Did you think I was pulling those examples out of my hat? Here, let me give it another go with you.

Regarding the mulitple partners in the first example. I would agree with you regarding the provision "no laws are broken" (as for no one harmed it depends on how you define harm) however, so far as I know (and I'm no legal expert), using the same premise of "expanding equal protection" that was/is the basis for the decriminalization of homosexual sex acts which led to the development of the current gay marriage laws, the multiple partners in my example are well within their legal rights to demand (and receive) equal protection as well those engaging in incestuous relationships well, you get the idea.

Regarding the animals. You'd be wrong to think that was a strawman for legal precendence was set for that in none other than the great State of Texas. You see, up until the Texas penal code revision in 1973 which included the statute regarding "crimes against nature", laws prohibiting bestiality remained intact. Following that the revised statutes included only homosexual sex acts.

So you see, Angus, were you literally a dog lover in Texas after 1973, you could engage in sex with your dog without fear of prosecution. It was not until the US Supreme Court ruling regarding Lawrence vs the State of Texas (2003) that homosexuals were granted the same right to their own pursuit of sexual pleasure.

Our legal system is a curious thing. You can search for this information online. If I've misrepresented, I hope someone will correct me.

[_Jersey Girl]

I mean, seriously, how is the dog supposed to give consent? One back for yes, two barks for no, three marks for "sorry, babe, I've got a headache"?

LOL. So in one sentance, we have back, bark and mark.

You might want to check this out...;)

The example I gave wasn't a joke, Scottie. Please see my above reply to Angus.

[_Angus McAwesome]

LOL. So in one sentance, we have back, bark and mark.

You might want to check this out...;)

Ok... Stumbled headlong into Grammar/Spelling Nazi douchebag central. Because on Planet Scottie no one ever makes a typo, amirite. Because why stick to actual arguments when you nitpick irrelevant BS like a single spell error.

Seriously though, while I'm pretty certain you meant that to humorous, in the future if all you've got is spelling and grammar nickpicks do us both a favor and don't reply to me. That crap is annoying.

Regarding the mulitple partners in the first example. I would agree with you regarding the provision "no laws are broken" (as for no one harmed it depends on how you define harm) however, so far as I know (and I'm no legal expert), using the same premise of "expanding equal protection" that was/is the basis for the decriminalization of homosexual sex acts which led to the development of the current gay marriage laws, the multiple partners in my example are well within their legal rights to demand (and receive) equal protection as well those engaging in incestuous relationships well, you get the idea.

The problem with that whole "if we give equal protection to gays we have to give to everyone, regardless of common sense" is that it's just a slippery slope fallacy. Worse, it's basically comparing gays to anything from bestiality enthusiasts to pedophiles depending on what flavor of the week the person making the argument is using, which is a straw man.

Then again, I really don't see why people can't engage in polygamous relationships in the first place. If they can't put up each other and provide for a family of that size, let 'em do it. Biggest hurdle I can think of is how we would go about rewriting tax code for it. Do you get the same benefits for married filing jointly with three wives/husbands as you would one? If you get extra credit for each additional partner is there a cut off?

[Guest]

I mean, seriously, how is the dog supposed to give consent? One back for yes, two barks for no, three marks for "sorry, babe, I've got a headache"?

LOL. So in one sentance, we have back, bark and mark.

You might want to check this out...;)

The example I gave wasn't a joke, Scottie. Please see my above reply to Angus.

Ok... Stumbled headlong into Grammar/Spelling Nazi douchebag central. Because on Planet Scottie no one ever makes a typo, amirite. Because why stick to actual arguments when you nitpick irrelevant BS like a single spell error.

Seriously though, while I'm pretty certain you meant that to humorous, in the future if all you've got is spelling and grammar nickpicks do us both a favor and don't reply to me. That s*** is annoying.

Wow! I thought it was funny. My apologies for mentioning this.

I think you two are having a great conversation. Carry on.

[_Scottie]

The problem with that whole "if we give equal protection to gays we have to give to everyone, regardless of common sense" is that it's just a slippery slope fallacy. Worse, it's basically comparing gays to anything from bestiality enthusiasts to pedophiles depending on what flavor of the week the person making the argument is using, which is a straw man.

I agree with this. Jersey Girl, in your mind we shouldn't change anything because then we have to change everything?

Then again, I really don't see why people can't engage in polygamous relationships in the first place. If they can't put up each other and provide for a family of that size, let 'em do it. Biggest hurdle I can think of is how we would go about rewriting tax code for it. Do you get the same benefits for married filing jointly with three wives/husbands as you would one? If you get extra credit for each additional partner is there a cut off?

I say the same thing about incest. Who cares if 2 relatives want to be married. Why do we feel like we need to force our morality on everyone else?

[_Angus McAwesome]

Sorry for jumping your butt there, Scottie. I've had "experiences" with other forums where instead of sticking to the arguement or adressing points, they sit back and nitpick. That stuff drives me up a freaking wall. Anyway...

Then again, I really don't see why people can't engage in polygamous relationships in the first place. If they can't put up each other and provide for a family of that size, let 'em do it. Biggest hurdle I can think of is how we would go about rewriting tax code for it. Do you get the same benefits for married filing jointly with three wives/husbands as you would one? If you get extra credit for each additional partner is there a cut off?

I say the same thing about incest. Who cares if 2 relatives want to be married. Why do we feel like we need to force our morality on everyone else?

Difference with incest would be the possibility birth defects cause from inbreeding, which has the potential for causing harm to any children born of such a union.