Polygamy Advocate: Gay Marriage Blazing Trail for Us
Read more: http://bit.ly/17otI4H
Thumb up if you agree-- This SLIPPERY SLOPE is something the LIBERAL media won't be able to deny for very much longer.
A.G.: Ugh Rick, really? I'm normally very good at seeing the other side of things, but this one is just awful. Do you really not know any gay people? Yesterday, a gay friend of mine posted "Yay, now I can marry my dog!" to mock this 'liberal slippery slope' craziness. But posts like this show her mockery is bittersweet, because people still subscribe to that kind of nonsense. And in all truth, 'straight' marriage is doing just fine messing up the institution all on it's own.
R.W.: Those on the supreme Court have argued the same question. If the gay community can say to the straight one, "Who are YOU to define Marriage?" Then the Polygamists can say the same thing. If government backs away from defining it, as they should, then the definition of Marriage is up to the beholder. What people fail to realize is that this issue is not about LOVE. People have been free to love pretty much who ever and what ever they wish. But there are monetary issues at stake and THAT'S why it is an issue at all. The recent supreme court case was brought because of a gay couple in New York. One had passed and left her estate to her partner, but since their marriage was not recognized, the survivor was facing a $300,000 tax bill. Gays were more concerned about financial benefits of being married. Well, if we remove those benefits, which is the only reason the government is involved, consenting adults will be able to "Marry" who ever, and how ever many people they want. It comes back to the question, "Who are YOU to define what love is?"
A.G.: Under your logic here, there should be NO government benefits for ANYONE in getting married. Which is a different debate. As it stands, gays are second class citizens. You are saying that is the way is should be, and that is disgusting. They are HUMANS. Just like blacks were HUMANS, yet second class citizens just 50 years ago. This issue has nothing to do with love. Plenty of straights get married for dumb reasons or no reasons or good reasons, etc. Their motives are not called into question. They don't have to take a love test. Gays should NOT be second class citizens, even if you fear that promoting them will lead to legalizing bestiality or cat weddings or hellfire. The root of this issue is religious prejudice and nothing more. No one should care if two women get married or two men get married any more than they should care about the millions of weddings between a man and a woman, half of which will end in divorce. There is no difference. Is it because two chicks can't procreate? Then an old man and old woman shouldn't be allowed to get married either. Or infertile people. This whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm disgusted by the hate engine of it.
Me: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygamists-celebrate-supreme-courts-marriage-rulings
"The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore," one polygamist cheers.
R.W.: Who are you talking to? Was there another post I missed that got deleted? I see nothing in MY post about hate, or gays being second class citizens or comparing them to blacks, or bestiality. If you want to debate me, maybe you should address the argument I make and not someone elses. Let me summarize. The government should remove all financial benefits from Marriage. Pay your taxes as individuals. Estate taxes should be eliminated thereby removing any benefit from marriage when a partner dies. Insurances cost should be per individual. If you want to add a spouse or children to your policy, it should cost you. In my company, we had a married couple that had to pay TWICE the insurance premium as everyone else. They were both covered under one policy, but because their premium was deducted from their check, they had to pay for 2 premiums when they only ever used 1. If two men or two women or a man and a woman or two women and 1 man want to get married, it should be none of my or your business. Bestiality has nothing to do with marriage. I don't think those who practice it are clamoring to marry their black lab. But their is quite a large population of people who believe in polygamy as part of their religion, and to be against that shows your religious bigotry. Hopefully, with education and counseling, you can put aside your hatred, and Polygamists will no longer be imprisoned for practicing their faith.
Me: It is unfortunate when the bumper sticker slogans don't coincide with your arguments, Rick.
A.G.: So you think we should run this country based on being afraid of what polygamists celebrating? Should we consult them on our economic issues too? Better ask them about foreign policy, as "The Polygamists" are our country's dipstick for ethical health! While we are at it, we should ask a focus group of illegals their views on offshore drilling.
R.W.: Sounds like the only one is afraid is you. What is that? A Polyphobe? Why do you compare them to Illegal Aliens? The are Americans. They are here, they don't drink beer, get used to it. I can't believe you would discount their wishes. You make them second class citizens. They can still vote you know. It's sad when the majority feels it has the right to dictate how the minority should live.
A.G.: Rick, what do you expect when you post a pic like that? It's spitting in the face of yesterday's step in the right direction away from crazy town and bigotry. If you want to discuss banning all gov benefits for all people, great, then don't use the image of two women getting married to do it. Gay marriage should have nothing to do with that separate debate. I can't believe you are actually surprised I interpreted your post this way. And I have no idea what back alley you turned down with the me hating polygamists thing...some of my best friends are polygamists. Black polygamists. Illegal alien black polygamists.
Me: "''liberal slippery slope' craziness..." I guess A.G. cannot remember what she previously said and is now wondering why polygamists are being discussed.
Me: So the question is, is A.G. ideologically consistent? Does she support increasing the number of people who can enter into a marriage contract to 3, or 4, or 10? Does she also think that age restrictions are discrimination against other people who also love each other? If not, then she is not in favor of marriage equality.
A.G.: Rich, I didn't question why polygamists are being discussed - I questioned why me hating polygamists is being discussed. Really, if you're going to get involved, read the whole thing carefully please.
Me: If you are not in favor of polygamist marriage, you are a hater, by your own standard applied to those who oppose gay marriage. Please read carefully.
A.G.: You are off topic and fabricating claims, Rich.
Me: "The root of this issue is religious prejudice and nothing more."
Me: Rick, it's your thread, and you make the call. Am I off topic?
A.G.: I could not care less if polygamists marry. Do I think they should have gov incentives to do it? No. I'm not even sure anyone should. The issue is treating a gay couple vs a straight couple differently. Start talking threesomes or marrying an animal, start a new thread. I took issue with Rick using the image of gay marriage to further the ridiculous notion of "liberal slippery slope."
Me: The issue is what Rick has brought up, not what you think it should be. Polygamists like what the invalidation of DOMA represents. Since polygamists are celebrating the Supreme Court decision, your mocking of the "slippery slope" is moot and ridiculous.
And since you don't care about polygamists marrying, you are a living, breathing, embodiment of the slippery slope in action.
If you want to talk about something other than what Rick has brought up, go start your own thread.
So far, you have failed to address a single thing Rick has brought up, other than toss back a few talking points accusations and boilerplate leftist slogans.
R.W.: Like I originally stated, this issue was debated in the Supreme court. It is not something we haters just invented. The question was asked, "If the government can not define marriage as between one man and one woman, then should government define marriage at all?" I say no, which opens up marriage to gays. But since people have, in recent times, been allowed to LOVE who ever they want, then the issue was not about love but about benefits. Money is forever linked to this debate. It is not separate and apart. If you remove government involvement, and government system of reward and punishment, you allow people to live their lives as they see fit. Not as the government dictates.
R.W.: anytime a new law is written, or in this case, partially struck down, there is something called the law of unintended consequences. In Washington state, a law was written to stop the trapping of animals in the wild. This made it illegal for people to set up mouse traps in their homes. So they re-wrote to exclude rodents. But you can still not trap moles destroying your yard, since they are not technically Rodents. Like it or not, the argument for gay marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as for multiple marriage. So like it or not, it IS a slippery slope. It is FAR from ridiculous.
K.C.: Imagine the problem of spousal benefits . . .
R.W.: Do you mean of the non-financial kind? I'm sure that would be a nightmare.
R.W.: Do you mean of the non-financial kind? I'm sure that would be a nightmare.
No comments:
Post a Comment