Bill O'Reilly's continuing obsession with inter-species marriages
On his September 14 radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly insisted that the secular progressive movement "would like to have marriage abolished ... because it is not diverse enough." He explained, "That's what this gay marriage thing is all about." O'Reilly then warned of the possibility of "poly-amorphous" marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck."
From the September 14 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: The secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, in my opinion. They don't want it, because it is not diverse enough. You know, that's what this gay marriage thing is all about. But now, you know, the poly-amorphous marriage, whatever they call it, you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck, I mean --
LIS WIEHL (co-host): A duck? Quack, quack.
O'REILLY: Well, why, you know, if you're in love with the duck, who is the society to tell you you can't do that?
This is not the first time that O'Reilly has expressed concern about the threat of marriage with farm animals. He has repeatedly warned that in the future, "[y]ou'll be able to marry a goat."
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
This argument by O'Reilly and others continues to perplex me. How does ANY marriage between two consenting adults (no matter the gender of the parties) make duck/human marriages more likely?
Maybe someone can explain this to me. HOw does marriage between two gay guys, or lesbians affect your marriage? Does the fact that Joe and Jim are married make your marriage any less sacred? I was taught that marriage was a committment made before god between two people that they would love and be faithful to one another until death. How is it that Jim and Joe's committment is somehow going to make your committment any less sacred? It would seem to me that those concerned with preserving marriage should be more worried about divorce.
As far as marrying animals goes, this is a common tactic. Scare people with something so impossible that they buy into your garbage. And if marriage is so sacred, how come I never hear clowns like O Really slam polygamy?
andy115,
Very well said.....
More demonization of gay people from the right. How shocking.
Conservatives can't be taken seriously until they overcome their hysteria to anything related to race and/or sexuality.
O'Reilly was demeaning towards gay marriage, that much is true. MM thinks that this is misinformation. It is not; what would O'Reilly be "misinforming" people about? The fact that he is anti-gay marriage? Actually, that would be INformative, because it would inform his audience of his opinion, and that's why they listen/watch. Unless O'Reilly has previously come out as being PRO-gay marriage, and is currently lying about his position, MM has nothing substantive to say on this post.
Other similar "opinion=misinformation" posts I've noticed popping up more frequently @MM include: "Limbaugh Uses the Phrase Injun" and "Dick Morris Calls Bush's Speech 'Feminine.'"
MM thinks that this is misinformation. It is not; what would O'Reilly be "misinforming" people about?
Uh...
O'Reilly then warned of the possibility of poly-amorphous" marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck."
It's called a "scare tactic." He's lying about what the end result would be from allowing any two people who love each other to marry. Yeah, it's his opinion, but he's professing it as fact, which it is not. Not by a long shot.
A related strategy I've found effective is:
Dad, I need $10,000.
OK, how about $100.
How can someone lie on an opinion? How can anyone lie on a comment of foresight? Bill O Reily isn't lying. Looney tunes, yes, but not lying. You can't lie on something that has no facts in existance.
But one does worry about the "give an inch, they'll take a mile" approach. If one thing is allowed, other things will follow. This is a fair concern. How do you convince them animal marriage won't happen? Difficult to use the "animals can't consent" reason. Not with PETA's disturbing obsession with animals. Knowing them, they'd make an argument that they know what their pet llama desires.
I do disagree with Bill, but I do have a part of me that worries.
"I do disagree with Bill, but I do have a part of me that worries." -ovalshine
--------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever considered how silly it is to worry whether people will eventually marry ducks?
And this was actually an election issue? We are truly a silly people.
Have you ever considered how silly it is to worry whether people will eventually marry ducks?
And this was actually an election issue? We are truly a silly people.
by open_mind - Monday September 19, 2005 10:41:11 AM EST
I think, your example notwithstanding, that what worries folks is a constitutional ruling by the SCOTUS that is very general that would rule that the Federal Government, based on the right to privacy, cannot dictate the criteria for marraige. If the SCOTUS broadly rules that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry because the government cannot control that part of our private lives, then it follows that the government then cannot control multiple marraiges, or multiple partners. While your example about the duck is effective for its shock value, the concept of having government or society not able to control the parameters for marraige is endless in its scope and impact. To not consider that possibility is not very intelligent in my view.
then it follows that the government then cannot control multiple marraiges, or multiple partners. While your example about the duck is effective for its shock value, the concept of having government or society not able to control the parameters for marraige is endless in its scope and impact. To not consider that possibility is not very intelligent in my view.-by tx_paco
***
The parameters of marriage are well established and allowing gay marriage will not destroy the parameters. Gay marriage fits in to the currently established parameters and leaves no opening for the worries you list here. Your polygamy worries are unnecessary. The very nature of the marriage contract sanctioned by the state is non transferable to a multi party relationship. The very rights and responsibilities ascribed by the contract of two people in this situation negate the application to a multi-party partnership.
In a multi-person partnership to ascribe the same rights as afforded in the marriage contract you would have to establish primary, secondary, tertiary and so on relationships. The establishment of those relationships is in direct conflict to the marriage contract. The marriage contract is inherently a two person contract. It is illegal to enter into a marriage contract with more them one person because it violates the very tenants of the marriage contract.
tenants of the marriage contract.
by lostlogic
***
Sorry that should read tenets not tenants.
re: Being Demeaning to Gays, However Reprehensible, Is Not "Misinformation"
"I think, your example notwithstanding, that what worries folks is a constitutional ruling by the SCOTUS that is very general that would rule that the Federal Government, based on the right to privacy, cannot dictate the criteria for marraige. If the SCOTUS broadly rules that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry because the government cannot control that part of our private lives, then it follows that the government then cannot control multiple marraiges, or multiple partners. While your example about the duck is effective for its shock value, the concept of having government or society not able to control the parameters for marraige is endless in its scope and impact. To not consider that possibility is not very intelligent in my view." -tx_paco
--------------------------------------------------------
I really don't care what happens with marriage. It will not affect my own relationship with my wife. I don't care if someone wants to consentually marry multiple wives or multiple husbands. In my view, polygamists are making a mistake (for compounding the legal complexities involved in the marriage contract). That is a problem that will solve itself. How does homosexual marriage or polygamy affect anyone if it is consentual? How is this "endless in its scope and impact"? Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see it.
I often hear conservatives complain about homosexual promiscuity as a major cause of the rapid spread of AIDS. One might consider that homosexual marriage would likely decrease promiscuity (and disease spreading) in the gay community. It would also make families stronger by lessening the stigma on kids who have homosexual parents. Remember children are innocent in all of this.
It appears conservatives cannot tolerate gay promiscuity nor gay monogamy (marriage). It appears the only gay sexual activity acceptible to conservatives is no gay sexual activity. But remember, they are not anti-gay.
Inter-species marriage is an entirely ridiculous notion. You do realize that legal standing would be necessary for inter-species marriage, but not so for homosexual marriage? It is a huge hurdle, is it not? If it isn't, I will support your right to get legal standing for your pet so you can marry he/she/it.
It is funny that my "example about the duck is effective for its shock value", but you don't find BO's use of it (that I was mocking) ridiculous as well?
Bill O'Reilly's comments on the issue are insulting to people who are capable of thinking even remotely for themselves.
kenkong77 - Friday September 16, 2005 05:29:34 PM EST
How many times does it have to be said, when its on the right hand side of the page its NOT misinformation, its just being dumb. As someone else said, left side business, right side amusement.
O'Reilly was demeaning towards gay marriage, that much is true. MM thinks that this is misinformation. It is not; what would O'Reilly be "misinforming" people about? The fact that he is anti-gay marriage? Actually, that would be INformative, because it would inform his audience of his opinion, and that's why they listen/watch.
Dude, O'Reilly was claiming that the "secular progressive movement" aims to legalize marriage between people and ducks. That's not "his opinion" it's just total BS.
This item was in the "Other Clips" column, and as such was not exactly meant as pointing out misinformation. More it is there to point out another example of what a hateful, ignorant blowhard O'Reilley is. Pay attention.
"So you do agree as I pointed out earlier that the environment can impact people's lives. I made that point earlier about how it might impact my children. Thanks for helping me to make that point." -tx_paco
------------------------------------------------
I did agree with you in a couple of posts as a matter of fact. I am not interested in juvenile gotchas. A tendency towards homosexuality may decrease by isolating the child more, but nature is funny. The more you think you can control or manipulate it, the harder it slaps you in the face.
I do not agree with you if you are implying that simple exposure to homosexuality makes anyone more likely to be one. It may make them more open about it, but it doesn't change what was already determined.
I do not agree with you if you are implying that simple exposure to homosexuality makes anyone more likely to be one. It may make them more open about it, but it doesn't change what was already determined.
by open_mind - Monday September 19, 2005 03:43:25 PM EST
I completely disagree with you here. I think exposure, open and accepted exposure to homosexual behavior can impact children and young adults. That would seem to be obvious, but perhaps not. It's not an adolescent "gotcha" at all. It's denying, or brushing off a point one minute, and then using it to make your point the next. Not gotcha, but consistency. Even in this post, you're back on the other side suggesting that being "exposed" to the lifestyle WILL NOT impact anyone. Isn't exposure, the same as environment??
All due respect, it is NOW part of the "marraige contract" that they be of opposite sex, so your continued declaration of what the CURRENT law is notwithstanding, that is in effect the centerpiece of the whole argument. Things that we have come to understand, are no longer valid, including the "number" restriction on marraige. Is that valid? Is it POSSIBLE, using the same legal argument, that is the state cannot dictate the required SEX of the marraige contract, how can they dictate the NUMBER of players?-by tx_paco
***
Sorry for answering you on this post but it would not let me post to your original question to me.
I apologize for my testiness earlier it just was frustrating that you seemed to purposely be disregarding my explanation to you.
The point is the tenets of the state sanctioned marriage, with respect to all the rights and responsibilities it endows would not have to be altered to included same sex couples. Those rights and responsibilities are predicated on the two person union and WOULD need to be altered to include any of the scenarios you worried about.
The only thing that is altered by allowing gay marriage is the opposite sex of the participants. None of the rights and responsibilities are altered. As was the situation with interracial marriage, allowing interracial couples to marry did not alter the rights and responsibilities, just the interracial component. State sanctioned marriage was not originally solely defined as two people of the opposite sex. It was also defined as two people of the opposite sex and of the same race. Making that change did not alter marriage and either will removing opposite sex from the definition and leaving at two people.
Your rights and responsibilities endowed to you by the state will not be altered if same sex couples are allowed to enter into state sanctioned marriage. There is no slipper slope. You would actually have to leave the slope and make a hard turn onto a different street to allow the things you worried about to take place.
"I completely disagree with you here. I think exposure, open and accepted exposure to homosexual behavior can impact children and young adults. That would seem to be obvious, but perhaps not. It's not an adolescent "gotcha" at all. It's denying, or brushing off a point one minute, and then using it to make your point the next. Not gotcha, but consistency. Even in this post, you're back on the other side suggesting that being "exposed" to the lifestyle WILL NOT impact anyone. Isn't exposure, the same as environment??" -tx_paco
-------------------------------------------------------
We are talking past each other. Environment makes a difference, we agree. What I disagree with you on is how it makes a difference. I do not believe that hiding homosexuality from children will keep them from becoming gay.
By not exposing children (who may already be same-sex oriented by their home environment or by natural hereditary traits) to homosexuality, it may make them more confused and alienated about their feelings. This is a way that the environment helps to put pressure on homosexuals to conceal their true feelings. That is one way the environment may affect homosexuality. Conversely, if you were to remove the stigma of homosexuality, naturally homosexuality would increase. My argument is that these people were already gay, they just know what it is now.
I think you believe that no one is gay until someone puts the thought in their head.
Environment can also be a factor in other ways. An overbearing mother, an absent father are some theories that are commonly used although, I can attest that a homosexual man that I know has raised a perfectly heterosexual daughter all on his own just fine.
Where you and I differ about environment is that seeing homosexuals getting married or watching Will and Grace doesn't contribute towards making otherwise straight kids gay any more than taking otherwise gay kids to football games or buying a Jessica Simpson poster works the other way.
We are both acknowledging that the environment is or can be a factor, I just view the part of the environment you are focussing on is superficial.
Bill just needs something to fullfill his duty to go after liberals; They're "ant-marriage." Marrying a non-human wouldn't work; how do you know it consented? Is it just my imagination or do those with a tendency to be polygamy tend to vote red?
Yeah, it may not be a coincidence that Utah (some of whose residents are polygamists) is a red state.
Marriage is the union of 2 opposite sex humans. It is an affirmation of lifelong commitment with the main intent of procreation. Yes marriage does have certain "perqs" that come along with it. Society grants these because marriage's main intent is for the human species to procreate and provide a stable nurturing environment for children. For obvious reasons society set this up to continue our species. Why would society want to endorse this concept for same sex marriages when the partners are unable to procreate. What is so hard to understand about this? With regards to the natural order of things, same sex marriages would ultimatley lead to something other than what marriage intends. I have no problem for gay partners to commit to each other but they are not entitled to the "perqs" that opposite sex partners get. Why do gay parnters think they deserve something from marriage when they are not fulfilling the requriments of the marriage definition? BTW, I am not condoning any thing that Bill says. I know MM readers dont. The irony is when MM posts these things the people that should be reading it are not. Its mildly amusing to point them out to us but MM will never be considered as anything other than a total liberal partisan diversion. I think it would have more relevance and reach more people if they would also point out the over the top musings of liberal idiots also. Or is MM so biased it can not ever recogize them? Never quite sure what the purpose of this site is to tell you the truth.
Under your logic, should a man who has had a vasectomy and a woman with a hystorectomy be allowed to marry each other?
Or is your procreation argument really thinly veiling something else?
Jjlist, oh lawdy, where to begin? Let's talk procreation. When two senior citizens marry, is their marriage invalid because they're not increasing and multiplying? How about folks who opt not to reproduce? This line of illogic falls apart when one considers that many gay couples have children - adoption, insemination, or their very own from a previous marriage. We are talking about two people who love and commit - true family values. It's interesting that the lowest divorce rates are in the Blue States (Massachusetts being one of the top) and the highest divorce (anti family values) rates in the red states - those states which deny gay rights and get all in a tizzy about gay marriage. Hey, beautiful Massachusetts (go, Sox) has had gay marriage for over a year. Society and straight marriages have not fallen apart. Life goes on...
Here's a link to those stats for jj.
[link to www.divorcemag.com]
For obvious reasons society set this up to continue our species. Why would society want to endorse this concept for same sex marriages when the partners are unable to procreate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm heterosexual, but no longer able to have children. Do you think I should be forbidden to remarry?
My wife is incapable of having children due to a genetic birth defect which left her reproductive organs only partially developed. By your faulty logic, jjlist, she and I are not, and should not be, legally married. Is this correct? Are you seriously espousing this "old saw" about procreation being the only thing marriage is for? News flash! Procreation happens with or without marriage vows; marriage has thoughout history been used for political purposes, with no procreation as a result. Put your Bible down and read some real history books on the subject of marriage.
"Why would society want to endorse this concept for same sex marriages when the partners are unable to procreate. What is so hard to understand about this?"
Jilist: Because marriage is more than procreation. It's about a life-long commitment to another consenting adult. Marriage used to be arranged, Should we go back to that because it's traditional? Did the cultural shift to letting those who were marrying choose to marry start us down that slippery slope where you are considering marrying your llama? One would think that conservatives would want gay marriage, given their penchant for preaching personal responsibility, or do you only believe that when it involves you paying taxes? How come you folks want government out of people's lives and in their bedrooms? And for the record, your marriage to the llama doesn't harm my marriage one bit, so go right a head and plan your reception at the petting zoo.
Well, you kept me going through the second sentence, when you either lied or revealed your extreme ignorance. It might interest you that Limbo also uses that "main intent is procreation" argument (tho he states it a bit more lucidly than you do) as well, refusing to address the slippery slope - eg. intrasexual couples not capable of reproduction -that sets in motion. Since you cons - and I do mean cons, your weak attempt at a con job notwithstanding - are so fond of that slope, in fact, employ it whenever possible to defend the one man/one woman marriage framework, it is only fitting that we liberals throw it back at ya - and beat you at your own game.
jjlist,
Homosexuality isn't contagious, but ignorance is
You claim that hating homosexuality doesn't, necessarily make one a homophobe-the two certainly go hand in hand
haha, I took a minute to search for that Simpsons episode where the Yarr Captain holds a wedding ceremony in international waters.
I now pronounce ye man and cow.
Instead, I came across this:
[link to right-thinking.com]
This guy is absolutely hilarious if he thinks his points make it anywhere.
This guy is absolutely hilarious if he thinks his points make it anywhere.
by mdprime
---------------------------
It's funny indeed,
It also shows that not all the wingnuts are in red states
The Normality of Gay Marriages - NYTimes editorial [link to www.nytimes.com] Just to add another voice/dimension to this discussion... and as a resident of a New England state, I have to say that this editorial doesn't surprise me one whit. I'd worry more about the disruption of "family values" that come with some of the garbage that passes itself off as "entertainment"... (Britney Spears and her prosti-tot vulgarity springs to mind)
This is his Opinion. Why does MM hate other views?
This is his Opinion. Why does MM hate other views? by jlyon
***
MMFA doesn’t hate other views. They do a good job of holding up idiots and bigots for ridicule though. I guess you missed that point.
Gay marriage is not going to have any effect on hetero marriage. Does your neighbor’s marriage have any effect on yours? Does divorce or infidelity of others affect the sanctity of your own marriage? Marriage is a state sanctioned contract between two people and there is no justifiable reason to prevent two same sex partners from entering into that contract. If certain churches do not want to sanction such a marriage that is ok, but the state should not discriminate based on what the churches believe.
As far as their children go, again if they are not neglecting or abusing their children it is none of your business, period. If you want to take up a cause in defense of children then go after people who actually neglect and abuse their kids and leave the loving parents alone to raise their children as they see fit.
I do not understand this fear some have regarding homosexuality. I understand some believe it to be against the teachings of their religion. But what do your religious beliefs have to do with someone else’s lifestyle. You follow the dictates of what you believe your religion wants and let others do the same. You can not foist your religious beliefs on to someone else. Nobody is forcing YOU to be gay so why do you feel you can dictate to and discriminate against other consenting adults about their life and love.
I wish I was able to express my thoughts so well. Well done.
well stated lostlogic...
Hey Bill.... do you remember what needs to be done to get married?
Firstly I don't think the animal can propse to the human, nor can the animal ANSWER the human if the human proposes to it.
If for some reason the animal and human get engaged... how exactly do they marry?
How can the animal partake in the ceremony, exchange rings? How can the animal say "I do"?
How does the animal sign all the legal papers to make the marriage legit in the state?
Bill... animals can not do that. Homosexuals can! So let em!
i think its terrible how people cant just mind their own business. why cant we simply leave marriage is a union b/w two people who love each other. its really not that hard. and what happened to the separation b/w church and state. it jjust never works out that way in america. such a sad thing.
what do homosexual couples want with respect to marriage?
why don't you ask one? I'd assume they want equal rights, nothing more. A better question might be why do some people get so bent out of shape about it? Seems to me there's countless other causes that actually deserve to be in the spotlight, it's insane to me that this is the one that so many people seem to choose. A major portion of society seems to have it's priorities bass akwards.
Gay marrriage is legal up here in Canada, and society hasn't self-destructed yet...wouldn't hold my breath either.
what do homosexual couples want with respect to marriage? by jjlist
***
I would imagine the reasons are varied.
I’m not gay so I am answering your question from a practical perspective and from the perspective of someone who has listened to both sides of the debate and come to understand why state marriage licensing of gay unions is important. I cannot speak to the emotional aspects of it since I am not in their position. And I am not speaking with respect to religious marriage; just state license marriage.
Our state marriage license places upon the two people entering into it certain benefits and certain responsibilities. The state recognizes your primary next of kin to be your spouse. Now you can in certain situations have a lawyer draw up papers to name your significant other as the responsible party and the person you choose to leave everything to. However without the protection of the marriage license you leave a decent chance of having those wishes contested by other next of kin. And the cost of legally documenting every aspect of your life is cost prohibited and there is the chance that you will overlook some situations where your lack of marriage license will work against you.
There are many benefits that the government and the private sector only recognize as being transferable to your spouse (ie: Social Security, Insurance, maternity and paternity leave)
The marriage license protects the spouse’s and the children’s financial interest. If one walks out and ignores their financial obligations to the child or the other spouse there is legal redress that is not available—or at least not as reliably enforced to an unmarried gay couple or their children. We leave the children of gay couples in a precarious position if something were to happen to the legally recognized parent.
There are numerous practical reasons for entering into the contract of marriage besides affirmation of your love. I see no harm to society in same sex couples entering into state sanctioned matrimony, but I do see numerous benefits both for the couple and society.
jjlist - Sunday September 18, 2005 10:52:19 PM EST
A better question is why do YOU care what two people you dont even know, do with THEIR lives?
lostlogic: I could say that now you are comparing homosexuality with genocide, slavery and interracial marriage. hmmm. but I wont!(Just as you should not have accused me of comparing...), but that is water under the bridge my freind.
"And gays ARE trying to make the necessary legal agreements so they have the same rights as heterosexuals…it is called MARRIAGE" , lostlogic
well. we have just gone full circle in this stimulating disscusion. If you recall societies definition of marriage in my first post:
"Marriage is the union of 2 opposite sex humans. It is an affirmation of lifelong commitment with the main intent of procreation"
Homosexuals are asking mainstream society to change that. Why should they have to when it is not accepted by mainstream society. Perhaps it should be voted upon and not ruled by decree form our wonderful judicial system.
"Do you support multiple marraiges meaning one man or woman, with more than one marraige arrangement? Do you support polygamy where multiple men and women mixed it up in a marraige environment?"
txpaco. No I dont. What the heck does that have to do with anything???
Homosexuals are asking mainstream society to change that. Why should they have to when it is not accepted by mainstream society. Perhaps it should be voted upon and not ruled by decree form our wonderful judicial system. -jjlist
***
The same was once said of interracial marriage. Did you hold the same view on that subject?
txpaco. No I dont. What the heck does that have to do with anything???
by jjlist - Monday September 19, 2005 01:18:38 PM EST -
If the SCOTUS were to rule that marraige is a "private" affair and the government has NO jurisdiction, those other alternatives that I mentioned would be the next "social" advancement, based on the same legal premise and would likely win from a legal perspective. Look, I think that the constitution is actually on the side of homosexuals under several areas; right to privacy, equal protection, pursuit of happiness to name a few. Then of course, the other marraige arrangements will follow. I'm sure this is why many are looking at a constitutional amendment to solve the problem.
If the SCOTUS were to rule that marraige is a "private" affair and the government has NO jurisdiction, those other alternatives that I mentioned would be the next "social" advancement, based on the same legal premise and would likely win from a legal perspective.-tx_paco
***
There is a major flaw in your argument. They can not rule the government has NO jurisdiction because the state IS the governing body who grants marriage licenses. The rights and responsibilities ascribed through marriage are endowed by the state government. What will be ruled upon is can the government discriminate against two consenting adults wishing to enter into the marriage contract based on sexual orientation of the couple.
There is a major flaw in your argument. They can not rule the government has NO jurisdiction because the state IS the governing body who grants marriage licenses. The rights and responsibilities ascribed through marriage are endowed by the state government. What will be ruled upon is can the government discriminate against two consenting adults wishing to enter into the marriage contract based on sexual orientation of the couple.
by lostlogic - Monday September 19, 2005 01:33:15 PM EST
and by extension, can the government discriminate against three consenting adults, or five, or twelve based solely on numbers?
and by extension, can the government discriminate against three consenting adults, or five, or twelve based solely on numbers?
by tx_paco
***
I already addressed this in my most on the contract of marriage. The rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract are not transferable to multiple partnerhips; in fact the multiple partnership is in conflict to the agreements made in the marriage contract.
What part of my numerous explanations on this subject is not clear. If you explain what you do not get about the marriage contract santioned by the state maybe we can move forward.
I already addressed this in my most on the contract of marriage. The rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract are not transferable to multiple partnerhips; in fact the multiple partnership is in conflict to the agreements made in the marriage contract.
What part of my numerous explanations on this subject is not clear. If you explain what you do not get about the marriage contract santioned by the state maybe we can move forward.
by lostlogic - Monday September 19, 2005 01:47:55 PM EST -
All due respect, it is NOW part of the "marraige contract" that they be of opposite sex, so your continued declaration of what the CURRENT law is notwithstanding, that is in effect the centerpiece of the whole argument. Things that we have come to understand, are no longer valid, including the "number" restriction on marraige. Is that valid? Is it POSSIBLE, using the same legal argument, that is the state cannot dictate the required SEX of the marraige contract, how can they dictate the NUMBER of players?
Look, this whole argument about the slippery slope or the number of marriage partners or marrying a duck or whatever is so ridiculous. These are extreme examples being used to try and develop an argument - there always has been and always will be exceptions and bizarre behavior by some in our society. But in the scheme of things it has little or no effect, because as a society it is so minute that it is really irrelevant.
There is too much mainstream "pressure" if you will against these anomalies that their existence does nothing to further the debate either way - to be honest, it's just a scare tactic used to make people nervous, for no reason.
"Marriage is the union of 2 opposite sex humans. It is an affirmation of lifelong commitment with the main intent of procreation"
************************
What happens to couples who choose not to or are unable to procreate?? Does this make their marriage less valid in society's view?
"Just as you should not have accused me of comparing"
Will you ever tell us how you did not make that comparison? What was the context you spoke of and how did it change anything? You really should provide some defense of your own words before chastising others for calling you out on them.