So it's "marriage equality" now?

[Ceannairceach]

Except not. Necrophiles, pedophiles, zoophiles, and other such folks cannot get their partners express consent to marry, and thus will never have the right to marry under the current system of marriage.

They could theoretically genetically engineer their mate which has mental capacity to give informed consent...

Which is impossible in the current scope of science.

[Risottia]

Except not. Necrophiles, pedophiles, zoophiles, and other such folks cannot get their partners express consent to marry, and thus will never have the right to marry under the current system of marriage.

They could theoretically genetically engineer their mate which has mental capacity to give informed consent...

In that case that would get legal personhood...

[Farnhamia]

They could theoretically genetically engineer their mate which has mental capacity to give informed consent...

Which is impossible in the current scope of science.

But it could happen, so we must legislate against it now!

[Liriena]

Seems like we have another rebranding by The Left in order to accomplish a wider political purpose. Global warming turned into Climate change because the world isn't actually warming. Gay marriage has turned into marriage equality because...well I can't figure that out. The implication seems to be that if gays can marry, then marriage will be perfectly equal for everyone. If so, that is the most naive notion I have ever heard from the left. Sexuality isn't a black/white thing as much a liberals want to make everything seem that way among people. (ie racism is only between black and white people. Also absurdly stupid.). There is more than just gay and straight. There are also polygamists, necrophiles, zoophiles, pedophiles, and incestous people who are also being left out of the marriage system. Techically, them marrying what they want to marry doesn't "hurt anyone" either, so why are we leaving them out? Why do we choose to accept some perversions (yes, even straight sex is a perversion in a way) and not others? Doesn't that harm the whole "equality" idea?

Or do they know that? It could be that the "slippery slope" is already happening and the left is already thinking of how they are going to make other deviant sexual behaviors seem "normal" with media propaganda and label anyone who objects a "bigot." Would you be ok with man/beast, polygamy, man/child, man/corpse, or incestuous marriages? They aren't hurt hurting other people and pay taxes, so I guess we're oppressing them too.

Alright, I'll admit it...I'm laughing my ass off at this.

1) Actually, "marriage equality" has always been a parallel denomination for "same-sex marriage". Heck, it's the mainstream denomination of it in many countries.
2) Climate change and global warming are not the same thing, and neither of those concepts was concocted as a cop-out from the other.
3) Indeed, sexuality is not a black and white thing. It's a plethora of shades of grey (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, demisexuality, polysexuality, pansexuality, etc.).
4) I don't recall anyone from "The Left" ever claiming racism was just a "black and white" thing. Where the hell did you find this strawman?
5) Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, it's an act. In fact, it's an act that is legal in many countries (and in none of those countries is same-sex marriage legal). Polygamy is an historical form of marriage, that has existed in many, if not all cultures, most of the time in cultures that were highly homophobic. So, really, same-sex marriage and polygamy are not correlated by even the most delusional stretch of your imagination.
6) Necrophilia, zoophilia and pedophilia are not sexual orientations. They are paraphilias, and they involve forcing yourself on a being that cannot possibly consent to the act. Homosexuality is neither of those things. If you had any understanding of the psychological and psychiatric nature of paraphilias and sexual orientations, you would know that, and you wouldn't be using this bullshit argument of "guilt by association".
7) Incest has been legal in countless cultures throughout history, regardless of said culture's acceptance (or lack thereof) of homosexuality. Heck, in some states in the United States, you can marry your cousin, so long as it's not your same-sex cousin.
8 ) Actually, letting necrophiles, zoophiles and pedophiles marry the object of their desires would definitely have harmful effects on said object of desire. Incest, on the other hand, many times goes hand in hand with pedophilia and sexual abuse, so a great deal of research and regulations would be necessary long before we could even begin to discuss allowing anything else than marrying your cousin.
9) Same-sex marriage advocates don't have any moral or ideological responsibility to argue for or against polygamy, since our fight focuses entirely on LGBT people, who have been socially and legally marginalized for no reason other than their sexual orientation and the gender of their loved ones.
10) Our society accepts sexual acts that are harmless and consensual. Your allegedly "related perversions" tend not to meet that criteria.
11) It doesn't harm the concept of equality if the focus of our argument is equality under the law for all sexual orientations, not all paraphilias.
12) Don't try to argue against a strawman of "The Left". It comes off as pathetic and desperate.
13) I have yet to see anyone in the mainstream media openly advocate for the legalization of zoophilia, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest or polygamy.
14) I would not be "ok" with allowing a man to marry a child, a corpse or a beast, because doing so would break many fundamental principles of human law.
15) I don't approve of polygamy or incest, so I won't advocate for them. Would I actively oppose any efforts to legalize either? Only if there were compelling evidence of their harmful effect on society or the people involved.


Nice try.

[Samuraikoku]

No one is advocating that yet. Give it time and NAMBLA will be throwing the same pride parades that the gays did.

Nice try, but kids cannot consent.

[Wikkiwallana]

Actually, one could theoretically leave some sort of document consenting to one's corpse being used by a necrophile after one's death. Extremely gross, but it would be consent…

Would that be marriage proper, though? To give consent to the act, it should be done in front of the proper authority, I reckon.

"Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?"
"I do."
"I now pronounce you man and corpse, you may kill the bride."

[Ashmoria]

Seems like we have another rebranding by The Left in order to accomplish a wider political purpose. Global warming turned into Climate change because the world isn't actually warming. Gay marriage has turned into marriage equality because...well I can't figure that out. The implication seems to be that if gays can marry, then marriage will be perfectly equal for everyone. If so, that is the most naive notion I have ever heard from the left. Sexuality isn't a black/white thing as much a liberals want to make everything seem that way among people. (ie racism is only between black and white people. Also absurdly stupid.). There is more than just gay and straight. There are also polygamists, necrophiles, zoophiles, pedophiles, and incestous people who are also being left out of the marriage system. Techically, them marrying what they want to marry doesn't "hurt anyone" either, so why are we leaving them out? Why do we choose to accept some perversions (yes, even straight sex is a perversion in a way) and not others? Doesn't that harm the whole "equality" idea?

Or do they know that? It could be that the "slippery slope" is already happening and the left is already thinking of how they are going to make other deviant sexual behaviors seem "normal" with media propaganda and label anyone who objects a "bigot." Would you be ok with man/beast, polygamy, man/child, man/corpse, or incestuous marriages? They aren't hurt hurting other people and pay taxes, so I guess we're oppressing them too.

yeah sucks to be you, so angry at other people getting the rights that the rest of us take for granted.

it didn't even have to be renamed for gay marriage to get enough support to be an inevitability but "marriage equality" is a much more elegant term.

[Samuraikoku]

"Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?"
"I do."
"I now pronounce you man and corpse, you may kill the bride."

Homicide is illegal whether or not the victim actually agrees to be killed.

[Benomia]

I hope, one day in the future, homophobia will be seen as an actual mental condition,
and cured lobotomy's, no but still, it's really childish.

You want to lobotomize everyone who disagrees with gay marriage!?!?!?!?!?

[Great Nepal]

They could theoretically genetically engineer their mate which has mental capacity to give informed consent...

Which is impossible in the current scope of science.

However, not beyond scope of science all together. Hence, one day in far future they could have the right to marry under current system of marriage.

They could theoretically genetically engineer their mate which has mental capacity to give informed consent...

In that case that would get legal personhood...

Yes, and the person who created them would need to purpose and marry like everyone else.

[Farnhamia]

"Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?"
"I do."
"I now pronounce you man and corpse, you may kill the bride."

Homicide is illegal whether or not the victim actually agrees to be killed.

Except, I think, in Oregon.

[Risottia]

I like where this thread is heading.

Yes, and the person who created them would need to purpose and marry like everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI

[Conscentia]

Global warming turned into Climate change because the world isn't actually warming.

Er, no - it is warming.

[Divair]

Global warming turned into Climate change because the world isn't actually warming.

Er, no - it is warming.

And the climate is changing. Really, the terms are interchangeable.

[Donwan]

No one is advocating that yet. Give it time and NAMBLA will be throwing the same pride parades that the gays did.

Except not, because gays can give consent, animals cannot. Now stop the bullshit slippery slope that is so slippery that if I attempt to not slip on it I'll slip off it so hard that I'll do a somersault in the air and disappear into nothing.

You can get consent from a child. They are capable, They are just not legally able to, but that doesn't mean that they can't give consent.

Animals are property with few rights, so it doesn't matter if you get an animals consent or not. If you can buy an animal against it's will and take it home as a pet, what's to stop anyone from saying you can marry it too?

Also, you can get consent from a corpse if the living body consents to it in a contract before death.

[Ceannairceach]

Global warming turned into Climate change because the world isn't actually warming.

Er, no - it is warming.

Except in my own little universe, where it is way too fucking cold. *nod*

[Natvia]

Which is impossible in the current scope of science.

What are you talking about?! Of course the dog wanted to marry me, it's wearing my ring isn't it?!

[Page]

Homicide is illegal whether or not the victim actually agrees to be killed.

Except, I think, in Oregon.

Between the weed, marriage equality, and assisted suicide rights, the Northwest is leading the way into the future. Which is awesome because I know New England sports fans and because of that I don't want to have to tell people New England is the best part of America. Besides, they like Dunkin' Donuts and their watered down coffee and the Pacific is way prettier anyway.

[Khadgar]

You can get consent from a child. They are capable, They are just not legally able to, but that doesn't mean that they can't give consent.

A child is incapable of informed consent. Clearly you don't have a clue what the fuck that means, to the shock of none.

[Conscentia]

Er, no - it is warming.

And the climate is changing. Really, the terms are interchangeable.

Not really. Global Climate Change is much more descriptive, and it doesn't confuse the ignorant people who think global warming doesn't occur because there was snow in late March.

[Samuraikoku]

You can get consent from a child. They are capable, They are just not legally able to, but that doesn't mean that they can't give consent.

Actually it does. If the law doesn't allow it, it cannot be done (that is, it cannot be legally valid). That's the point, eh?

[Benomia]

heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, demisexuality, polysexuality, pansexuality, etc.

You forgot omnisexuality.

[Farnhamia]

Except not, because gays can give consent, animals cannot. Now stop the bullshit slippery slope that is so slippery that if I attempt to not slip on it I'll slip off it so hard that I'll do a somersault in the air and disappear into nothing.

You can get consent from a child. They are capable, They are just not legally able to, but that doesn't mean that they can't give consent.

Animals are property with few rights, so it doesn't matter if you get an animals consent or not. If you can buy an animal against it's will and take it home as a pet, what's to stop anyone from saying you can marry it too?

Also, you can get consent from a corpse if the living body consents to it in a contract before death.

Any consent a child gives is invalid, so no. Animals are incapable of giving legal consent, so no. And public health considerations override any consent a person give for the use of his or her body as a sex toy after death, so ... no. You really are bad at this.

[Divair]

You can get consent from a child. They are capable, They are just not legally able to, but that doesn't mean that they can't give consent.

No. Children are not able to legally give consent, and they probably never will be able to.

Animals are property with few rights, so it doesn't matter if you get an animals consent or not. If you can buy an animal against it's will and take it home as a pet, what's to stop anyone from saying you can marry it too?

The law. Same reason you cannot abuse animals.

Also, you can get consent from a corpse if the living body consents to it in a contract before death.

Not that I could ever see that happening, but sure, if we ignore the whole "a corpse spreads disease faster than Paris Hilton", so no.




Nice try, though!

[Ceannairceach]

heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, demisexuality, polysexuality, pansexuality, etc.

You forgot omnisexuality.

"Pansexuality."