:. Question to liberals, Regarding gay marriage...yeah, yeah

You ask conservatives "Who are you to define marriage?", yet most liberals are opposed to polygamy, marrying relatives, minors, or animals. I don't understand. Who are you to define marriage as between two consenting people?

Conservatives want to define marriage has been tradition for thousands of years and as the vast majority of Americans see it - between a man and a woman. Liberals want to extend marriage to any two consenting adults. Both groups want to define and limit marriage.

However, the common argument is "refusing to allow gays is discriminatory". I would like to hear from the liberals who are for gay marriage, but against people being allowed to marry animals, minors, relatives, or perhaps 30 other people. If you think just because Americans are discriminating because we follow the traditional marriage, then who are you to define marriage to EXCLUDE the marriage of relatives, minors, animals, or more than one other person?

The first things I'm going to hear are:

1. Animals can't consent
2. Minors can't consent

Well who says they can't? Aren't laws preventing a person from marrying a minor or animal that they love discriminatory? I mean come on, how does it affect your marriage? How does it affect you if I married 50 other people and we loved each other? And who are you to say that my animal can't consent?

This will get interesting

How about the government just gets the hell out of marriage all together. Remove all incentives for a legal marriage, and just leave it to the public. That would solve everything, wouldn't it?

We had this debate once before Mel; animals cannot consent because biology says their minds are not advanced enough to understand the concept, the same is true of children. I have no problem with polygamy.

The idea marriage has been the same for thousands and thousands of years is a lie. Even limiting our findings to Christian traditions, you find polygamy, marriage with children, bans on marriage between races, and so forth. Every time one of these things changed, so too did the definition of marriage.

I don't care if you married 1000 people, but marrying an animal is clearly not the same, polygamy I do not care if you do it, Minors can easily be influenced and made to think that if they marry someone that it will be good... that would be why those are illegal... but as I said before I have no problem with Polygamy at all, I would have it legal to marry multiple wives/husbands/both. Of course I am not a Liberal so...

I completely agree, but that's not happening any time soon. Government will always insist that it has it's hand in marriage for the sake of equality.

An animal can't raise a human child. A gay/lesbian can.

Sounds like the Libertarian view. :J

Mel, you were already defeated in this debate. Are you going to state pages of logical fallacies again?

An animal cannot understand marriage.

What a horrible assumption that only liberals support same-sex marriage rights.

Minors and animals are not afforded free will in our society. Adults are.

There is no good argument against polygamy.

This post has been edited by Joules on Aug 31 2007, 07:22 PM

As a libertarian-leaning individual I would count myself as socially liberal. I have no issues with polygamy. Hell, I'd pay a lot of money to transport Rush Limbaugh to an alternate universe where polygamous gay marriage is legal just to see him finally keel over from the "big one".

Well, I am a libertarian, go figure, huh? :v:

First, there's no biological proof that someone can't communicate with their animal just like there's no biological proof someone is born homosexual. According to most liberal arguments, I'm surprised they don't have a more open mind for those people who believe with all their hearts they can communicate with their animals. Where's your open mind?

Second, if a child loves an adult man why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? They love each other and how does it affect your marriage? The law says it's illegal, but shouldn't the law therefore be changed to stop the discrimination? Just answer this: If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, then why can't the law be changed to make the consenting age 16? Or 5?

Third, do you think relatives should be allowed to marry?

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

True true, however, doesn't Islam allow you to have more then one wife XD

You'll hear those things because they're true.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Relatives shouldn't be allowed to marry because inbreeding causes deformed children. A normal person wouldn't have to even ask about marrying animals, and children can marry, with the consent of their parent/legal guardian

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Well scientifically, a 17 1/2 year old can consent to marriage knowing full well what it entails. Only the law is stopping him/her.