Monday, May 13, 2013

MN Gays, Incest, Polygamy and Slippery Slopes?

So I have J who swears the Conservatives are the rational and intelligent ones.  And I have Dog Gone who swears the Progressives are the rational and intelligent ones.  Who do you think is telling the truth?  They both seem pretty sure of themselves.

And Dog Gone is absolutely certain that people who are against gay marriage are hate filled bigots, while Dog Gone sees incest, polygamy, polyandry, etc as totally unacceptable and has many "facts/opinions" as to why. It kind of reminded me of listening to the Conservative arguments against gay marriage.  Thoughts?

G2A Libertarian Liberal
MPP Parting Shot for the Right
MPP Same Sex Marriage Passes

MPP Shortly It Will Be Signed
G2A Snopes and Relativity

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

People often want to have a debate different from the one we are having. I know of no one who is proposing the legalization of polygamy. Once someone does, it will be time to have that discussion. Slippery slope arguments never impress me very much, because life is all about making choices and drawing lines. Can't we argue that by allowing someone to marry one person, we are just one slippery slope away from allowing multiple spouses?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I think we can argue the slippery slope, and the reason is because when our "betters" in the legislature cross one line, it puts them that much closer to, and with one less reason against, crossing the next line. I have long argued against state sponsorship of gambling, for example. If the only reason for the state to open a casino (or to tax existing casinos) is to generate revenue for the state, then when do we open the chain of state brothels, or the state Bureau of Murder for Hire? Activities that are immoral and/or criminal for individuals should not be allowed to the government, either, especially for the sheer mercenary indulgence of it. Why do you think the State doesn't just BAN tobacco (public health hazard that it is), rather than taxing the bejeebers out of it?

J. Ewing

John said...

As I have stated before, I am ok with gay marriage. Though I think the DFL has over reached and it will cost them in 2014. Which is also fine with me and my wallet.

What I find humorous is that the "open minded free to love" people who villify the Religious right for their evil bigotted views would have the nerve to degrade the beliefs of others who are "in love"...

As yesterdays fortune cookie said... "It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others". I am still giggling about the timing and irony.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this will be much of an issue in 2014. Certainly it won't be in the suburbs. I think some local Republicans cast what for them is a very difficult vote, but by next year it will be mostly forgotten. It's not an issue I have ever been very interested in bringing up.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Activities that are immoral and/or criminal for individuals should not be allowed to the government, either, especially for the sheer mercenary indulgence of it.

But they are of course. War, for example, would be criminal behavior if engaged in by individuals.

--Hiram

John said...

Of course the DFL and yourself won't bring it up in 2014, especially in the rural districts. Who would remind their constituents that they voted against the electorate's clearly stated position. Remember that these folks were so against gay marriage that they were willing to pass it as an amendment... That is why the GOP will definitely bring it up.

John said...

Maybe brothels should be legal... Who are we to tell consenting adults who they can "love"???? Or for that matter in which position, for how long, for what exchange of goods, etc????

Besides the "sin tax" could probably be set pretty high... And people would be standing line to pay it... Besides we wouldn't be spending money on officers that are trying to break up these "love birds".

John said...

I wonder if they had these discussions at Sodom and Gommorah sometime before their destruction.

I can hear it now... The religious Conservative expressing concerns, and the lust filled Liberal telling them not to worry because there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Hahahahaha

Laurie said...

I don't understand the comments on this topic. What is the slippery slope people are talking about?

I think few, if any, DFL lawmakers will lose their their seat over this. I think a GOP rep who voted for it is in the most danger, from a primary challenge.

John said...

I think you are forgetting this map... Or maybe there aren't DFL politicians currently in the red districts. Matt's Map

As I said, it will be nice to have some people with fiscal responsibility back in control. But only time will tell.

By the way, how do you feel about letting the incestuous and multiple partner folks marry who they love? It would only be fair?

Laurie said...

I don't think their are any proposals to allow polygamy in our state. That is a dumb argument. I don't know if there are laws regarding marriage and incest. It seems more likely that incestuous relationships involve one man and one woman (not that many people are gay) so this new law doesn't affect that.

John said...

Both incest and having multiple spouses are illegal at this time. Therefore the unfortunate few are prevented from legally living as they wish. And they sure don't get any spousal benefits...

The question is pretty simple. Since you supported gay marriage because it was unfair that people in love could not be legally married and live as they wish, would you support helping these other poor deprived couples/groups to get justice?

If not, why? And wouldn't that make you a "bigot" per Dog's definition? Why otr why not?

If so, is there any relationship that is "too sinful" or "unnatural" that it should not be allowed in our society? What will that lead to? (ie "Sodom & Gommorah" or a very open/tolerant society)

Anonymous said...

On this board, I have seen polygamy advocated and brothels advocated, both things I would be against. That being the case, I don't see that gay marriage will be that significant an issue.

--Hiram

John said...

Using my thoughts as a yard stick may be unwise... I apparently tend to support a small government and few morality laws. And I voted no on the amendment... Unlike most of the out state citizens who voted yes to BAN gay marriage in the state.

Anonymous said...

"Unlike most of the out state citizens who voted yes to BAN gay marriage in the state."

It just goes to show what an impact a few million dollars worth of false advertising can have. The fact is that the amendment did not BAN ANYTHING whatsoever. The law did not change, and could not be changed by judicial whim (and the court cases were already lined up). Gay people would have continued to be free to "love whom they want" and to even be married in a church. Gay marriage has never been about those things, anyway.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Human rights can never be put to a vote"? Apparently gay marriage is not a human right, because it WAS put to a vote, and lost, even after the aforesaid Big Lie cut 20% off of its support. It did win a vote in the legislature, but THAT vote violates the human right of religious expression against gay marriage. What's going to happen to the first flower shop or wedding photographer that declines on personal moral grounds? That side of the slippery slope bothers me far more than the other one. Although I'm sure NAMBLA has a different take on it.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

The fact is that the amendment did not BAN ANYTHING whatsoever.

Maybe that was part of the larger problem Republicans had. They spent time, money and effort, on things that would do nothing. Shouldn't we expect more from our political parties?

==Hiram

Anonymous said...

Does the right to marry imply the right to be married to multiple spouses at the same time?

Does the right to marry imply the right to marry a non-human?

Does the right to marry imply that prostitution must be legal?

My answer to each of these questions is "no". Does anyone disagree?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

No is the correct answer. However, the reason for DENYing "the right to marry" (there is no such thing, by the way) to gay couples, is the only thing standing in the way of being forced to allow all of these other restrictions to be stricken down, as well. The question is whether the government may set restrictions on who may obtain a civil marriage license, just as they set restrictions on who may have a fishing license. Until two days ago, you had to pay for a license, had to be of the "age of consent," could not be a relative, and be of opposite genders, and there could be only two of you. So if it is "discriminatory" to have a restriction on the gender, why are any of the other restrictions not equally likely, if not more so, to be stricken down as "unfair"?

J. Ewing

John said...

My point exactly...

Though I mostly find it very humorous that the Liberals who are celebrating the destruction of one moral taboo, are so judgemental of the others and against their collapse... They almost sound like the religious right...

Anonymous said...

"the reason for DENYing "the right to marry" (there is no such thing, by the way) to gay couples, is the only thing standing in the way of being forced to allow all of these other restrictions to be stricken down, as well."

Here is where I disagree. We do have a right to marry. This goes to the heart of who we are and transcends any politics. Those who would deny it are simply wrong.

--Hiram

John said...

Everyone has the right to marry? Who ever they want?

By the way, DG and I are still going... In case anyone is curious. G2A Boo hoo hoo

Laurie said...

This is a dumb topic and you forgot to put beastiality in the title list of things comparable to gay marriage.

I glanced through the MPP post and you seem to have missed the the main point, which was the irony of GOP reps whining about this being a divisive issue when that was their whole point in putting the dumb amendment on the ballot.

John said...

Given what you have heard about the old testament. Which do you think "God" wpuld disapprove of more? Multiple spouses or gay marriaages? I am guessing the latter since there were men with multiple wives in the good book. I must have missed the verse regarding the same sex couple.

From my perspective, the GOP put the amendment on the ballot because they were concerned that politicians or courts would pass something that they see as a significant sin. Looks like they were correct. I think divisiveness was a secondary effect.

Now DFL candidates voting against the will of their local constituency.... That is divisive...

John said...

By the way, I take it you aren't going to answer my questions.

Also, I think the gay marriage argument was that "humans" in love should be able to marry. That's one reason beastiality was left out. However, the others involve humans and the restrictions our society places on them...

Just like same sex couples.

John said...

Oh and FYI, Dog and my discussion started here with the Bigot post.

Laurie said...

I didn't answer your questions because I think they are slightly offensive and seem to be getting sillier.

If I play along and try to guess the mindset of God - I think she wants people to be happy, which correlates with approval of gay marriage. I don't know any polygamists or people in love with their sibling, so I don't know if these relationships make people happy. They seem unhealthy to me.

How many people do you know who want to marry their sister?

one final comment is - I heard one rep comment that he voted for legalizing gay marriage because all the arguments he heard against it were bible based and this country was founded on separation of church and state and is not a Christian nation as some people seem to believe.

John said...

You just nailed it on the head...

"They seem unhealthy to me."

That is exactly why the religious right is against gay marriage. From their perspective, it is unhealthy for the children, couple and society...

Your argument is exactly the same as theirs. You just think gay marriage is healthy where as they do not.

I know you find it silly, but I find it an interesting continuum. Let's put the Fundamentalists (ie Taliban, Christian Extremists, etc) on the far far end and the pure Libertarians (ie anarchists, etc) on the far far other end. That puts the Progressives and Conservatives some where in the middle. Maybe it's time for another picture and vote?

Laurie said...

Did you notice - gay people are in your community and work and most likely among your friends and family. They are in committed relationships and raising families. They only thing that denying them the legal rights of a marriage contract does is make their lives more difficult. This issue impacts real lives. Maybe you don't know any gay people, which would explain why you are so obtuse. Do you really see gay marriage, polygamy and incest as in some way equivalent?

and btw, conservatives abandoned the middle some time ago.

I was going to add a link to a off topic article on education I found very interesting, but I have reached my aggravation limit from your blog for now.

Anonymous said...

Everyone has the right to marry?

Yes.

Who ever they want?

No.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...


"They seem unhealthy to me."

That is exactly why the religious right is against gay marriage

Marriage in general is pretty unhealthy. All those germs.

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
Why are you so against marriages with multiple partners? I'll give you that incest comes with some health concerns.

How is it different from the gay marriage argument?

How is your bias against it different from the religious right's bias against gay marriage?

I think you keep forgetting that I personally am fine with gay marriage...

Hiram,
I do agree, marriage definitely comes with it pros and cons...

Laurie said...

actually I am not strongly against polygamy it just seems like a non issue to me as I know no polygamists. If I lived in Utah and knew many families that were hurt by discrimination that made their lives more difficult I might be in favor of giving them some legal rights. I think legalizing polygamy is highly unlikely to become an issue as very few women are interested in this type of relationship.

Laurie said...

What I am strongly against is dumb, offensive arguments. Why are you not more supportive of gay marriage that impacts so many real people? I thought you understood that being gay is not a choice people make, that they are being true to their biological reality. That is how it is different from polygamy (which is a choice.)

John said...

From my perspective, the whole point of this post had nothing to do with gay, multi partner, incestual or any other kind of marriage.

For me it had everything to do with the pot calling the kettle black. In my opinion Dog Gone's post(s) dehumanized, stereotyped, ignored the concerns of, and villified the people who are against gay marriage. Exactly what he accused the religious right of doing to the gay people that want to get married.

My last comments there apparently fell into the "moderation" hole for now. I asked Dog to read the posts to determine if they truly were treating the opposition as humans with very real concerns or doing as I just mentioned above.

John said...

By the way, even though I agree that a gay person's natural attraction may be to someone of their own sex for genetic reasons.

The reality is it is still a choice as to if they decide to act on that attraction or live within a culture's norms... We are just changing society's norms to make it more acceptable for better or worse.

Or do you think us humans should always give into what our body/mind desires? That sounds like another good lively post.

Anonymous said...

The thing most of you are missing is that this argument (and it is NOT a rational debate, at least not at the legislature) is that this is about CIVIL marriage-- a creature wholly of law and government. It has absolutely nothing to do with whom you love or how, or whether you are committed or not, or whether that commitment has been solemnized by a religious institution and ceremony. You have the "right to marry" in every sense EXCEPT the right to a civil marriage, but to get a legal, civil marriage recognized by the State you have to meet the requirements the State chooses to impose. Since the State has a vested interest in the continuation of the State through the birth and best rearing of children, couples capable of those "activities" are and should be granted this special legal status.

Gay couples do NOT birth children, and can only raise children by first taking apart at least one "more perfect union," to borrow a phrase.

And if we are going to argue on that very sensitive basis, then polygamy is actually better for children-- both production and rearing-- than is a gay coupling. [Historic note: Utah was required to prohibit polygamy before being accepted for statehood. Probably not something they would have done otherwise.]

Laurie, I don't want to offend, but any kind of marriage is a choice, and any kind of sexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. Orientation is more difficult to overcome, but it can and has been done. There is no reason to encourage by law things that are not in government and society's best interest. [NOTE: that is not a religious argument, it's natural law. If all marriages were gay marriages, humankind would cease to exist.] All marriages are not "equal" and that cannot be changed by a partisan vote.

J. Ewing

Laurie said...

I thought of one other group that belongs in your title of where this slippery slope might lead and that is for marriage rights for the pedophiles, which seems (according to conservative view point) to be only slight more deviant than homosexuality.

I also got to wondering which conservative readers might like to abstain from sex when no longer trying to procreate, as this is just a minor lifestyle choice, similar to avoiding alcohol, sweets or fatty foods .

John said...

Now I very clearly specified relationships between consensual adults... What is this interest of yours in expanding this discussion to include first animals and now children???

Hard though it may be, it is still a choice. Just like addicts who obstain, pedophiles who stay away from children, people on strict diets, etc. These people make choices every day.

Anonymous said...

Pedophiles SHOULD be included in the slippery slope argument because one of the "discriminatory" qualifications the State puts forward is one on age. Another is on number of persons, and another is consanguinity. If you are going to eliminate "discrimination" based on gender from the marriage laws, how can you argue for keeping these other "discriminatory" provisions?

J. Ewing

Laurie said...

my point is to illustrate how dumb and offensive the slippery slope argument is.

Would you like your significant loving relationship compared to polygamy, incest, bestiality or pedophilia?

After reading your blog the past 2 years I still find your views surprising at times.

I looked for a photo of the large joyous gathering at the capital bill signing to end my comments on this topic but didn't find one that captured how moving I thought it was.

John said...

Now don't start ... Let's assume the players all have to be responsible adults who are reasonably stable/sane. No defenseless children or spaniels... Just like the gay couples that the Liberals fought for and are celebrating about.

Otherwise we get into comparing apples and grapefruit. And you come across as one of those crazy Religious Right whackos that Dog was describing.

Though of course the age of consent and marriage was historically a lot lower .. But people typically died a lot earlier to. So let's assume the age of consent stays at 18+.

John said...

Ok... Let's keep this going a bit longer and get into the gay marriage topic.

So J just inferred that M/F parents are a more perfect union than a F/F ot M/M parents. And that was one of the statements that Dog Gone stated was factually inaccurate. Therefore proofing that J is a "bigot" in Dog's view. Below are the quotes in question.

"Gay couples do NOT birth children, and can only raise children by first taking apart at least one "more perfect union," to borrow a phrase." J

"Believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that same-sex couples or individuals are not good parents, simply because of who they love? Bigot." Dog Gone

"Believe that your family is better than families which are different from yours? Bigot." Dog Gone

Personally I think it would hard to prove either of these as a "fact". I don't think anyone really knows the benefit or detriment of having MM or FF parents. And lord knows there are some really terrible FM parents. But these 2 would try to argue that their view is a "fact" and not an "opinion"... Thoughts?

John said...

"Would you like your significant loving relationship compared to polygamy, incest, bestiality or pedophilia?"

Laurie,
For the record, you are the one who brought beastiality and pedophilia into this post. I am the one who keeps trying to guide the comments back to the decisions of mature adults.

And why do you look so lowly on people that want more than one spouse as to take it as an insult to gays? A bunch of Mormoms are going to be very hurt by your slighting their choices.

John said...

And by the way, I am truly happy for the gay couples who will be able to get married. I am certain it was a heart warming celebration.

Sorry for raining on your parade, by using it as a topic to challenge the far right and left writers. It was just convenient and I think Dog's "Bigot" post was a good example of how similar both extremes are.

Anonymous said...

I reject being characterized as a bigot. Strong opinions, certainly. But a bigot is someone who has a prejudice against a whole class of people based on their "difference." I would further say that the difference MUST be one that is innate, like race or gender, that one cannot change. Racism and sexism are forms of bigotry. My opposition to same sex marriage is not based in a prejudice of any kind, but a reasonable conclusion that it is not in society's best interest. Nor is it based on a prejudice against gays in general, since I know for a fact it is not an inborn characteristic.

John, there are countless studies showing that two-parent families are generally "better" for children-- it shouldn't even be a question. Notice that when people talk about allowing gay adoption it is always in the context of "better than an orphan" or "better than with abusive parents"?

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

"my point is to illustrate how dumb and offensive the slippery slope argument is. Would you like your significant loving relationship compared to polygamy, incest, bestiality or pedophilia? " -- Laurie

No, but neither would I want to be inviting the comparison by suggesting that my particular sexual practice be enshrined in law, and exalted above these others.

John, I use the phrase "more perfect union" because MF pairings (or polygamy) are the only "natural" forms of marriage.

J. Ewing

John said...

I don't think that anyone can disagree that the natural human plumbing only works right with the MF relationship. Or that FF and MM pairing definitely could not meet the Darwin test without surrogates, adoption, sperm banks, etc.

However I think who make the "better" parents is definitely debatable...

Side Note: If being gay is genetic, I wonder how it propagated over the millenia. That is an interesting question for the evolutionist readers...

John said...

After thinking about it, I think I answered my own evolution question. Many gay people had to be "in the closet" through most of history. So they procreated on a regular basis, even if they were conflicted about it.- That makes sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but you have left the question unanswered. If these people (who have children as heterosexuals and later "come out") were "born that way," then how is it they were able to function as heterosexuals? Doesn't that tell me that homosexual behavior is a CHOICE? How about those who were homosexual and later are "cured"?

You are suggesting that the children of homosexuals (who discover it after procreation) must be homosexual, and that isn't the case. You won't even find that it applies to all children of the same parents. It certainly does not apply to both brothers AND sisters in the same family.

If you want science, here it is: A study on rat populations was done to determine what happened in overpopulation situations. As the population increased, roving gangs of "teenage" male rats became a problem, and the stress of overpopulation resulted in an ever-increasing population of "gay" rats-- rats that would not breed. It was a self-regulation mechanism within the rat population. In normal populations there are no gay rats because, well, they don't breed. Humans aren't rats, of course, but knowing that rats are not "normally" gay ought to tell us something.

J. Ewing

Laurie said...

For more on the slippery slope:

Same-sex marriage: They’ll (conservatives) just never get it

about bigots: I think that word fairly applies to many people who oppose gay marriage. Many others are very accepting, to just short of the point of supporting gay marriage.

I don't think labeling someone a bigot is comparable to actual bigotry against a whole class of people based on some innate trait.

John said...

I don't have the energy to take on Mr Corvino's skewed logic. Especially regarding the multiple partners topic. Maybe in a few weeks if things get slow.

"Bigot defined: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

I guess I think it relates to a minority of the anti-gay marriage crowd. I just don't see the hatred or intolerance in the vast majority...

So are Dog and you "bigots" regarding adults marrying siblings or multiple partners? Or are you just short of supporting these marriages?

John said...

J, You really didn't just use a rat experiment as evidence regarding gay behavior... This can lead no where good, just like Santorum's comments. Based on history, gay people have been part of all human societies, so I don't think over population is our trigger.

And if over population is wreaking havoc on our physical make up. The reality is it has changed and we have to make allowances for that very real change.

As for "choices", people with easily addictive genetics can fall on and off the wagon. The reality is that the "choice" is much harder to live with than it is for others.

And in the case of being gay, add on the incredible social stigma that did surround this topic and I could easily see people being inconsistent regarding "be in or out of the closet".

My assumption is that gay vs straight is not a full on or off digital switch. I assume it is a continuum and people near the middle are more confused than most. That would explain the flip flopping depending on the pressures that are applied to them.

I have told you some about my anxiety issues that suddenly appeared when I was ~40. If my sarotonin gets low I become a whole different person. (thank God for Paxil) Lord knows what chemical variation causes sexual attraction to men or women? Or if it can change as one matures.

As for kids not being gay when a parent is. All of my daughters have distinctly different personalities. Just because a parent is one way, it sure doesn't mean any, 1 or all the kids will have that trait.

And as we know, straight parents can have a gay child. So did it skip a generation or is some other variable in play?

Laurie said...

Reasons some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots and I am not:

1. sexual orientation is an innate trait (kind of like race), while wanting to have multiple wives or marry your sister are choices

2. gay people are a significant group (~ 5 percent of the population?), people who want to marry their sister (~ 5 people in the state?) There are likely more that would like to practice polygamy, but I am quite sure the number is still very small. The Mormon church quit supporting polygamy long ago.

3. quote me: "actually I am not strongly against polygamy it just seems like a non issue to me as I know no polygamists. If I lived in Utah and knew many families that were hurt by discrimination that made their lives more difficult I might be in favor of giving them some legal rights."
Does that sound like hate filled intolerance to you?

Because I am bored I will play your strange let's pretend game and imagine a man and his sister moved in next door to me who lived together as husband and wife. I could be very friendly with them and empathize with their problems such as acquiring health insurance or hospital visitation rights.I could even wish them well in their quixote like quest to be allowed to marry.

lastly, I didn't even read the entirety of my previous link, I just thought the title captured my feelings about the comment thread here very well.

Anonymous said...

"Based on history, gay people have been part of all human societies, so I don't think over population is our trigger."

That is correct, I think. But that doesn't mean society has to encourage it or even accept it. Societal pressures are going to affect people, but people still make the choices.

"As for 'choices', people with easily addictive genetics can fall on and off the wagon. The reality is that the 'choice' is much harder to live with than it is for others."

There is scientific evidence of a (weak) predisposition to homosexual orientation as an "inborn" trait, but gay BEHAVIOR is always a choice, just as criminal behavior is a choice rather than inborn. Hitler was wrong to believe that we could eliminate crime (and homosexuality) by killing "deviant" children.

J. Ewing

John said...

Laurie,
Then with regard to multiple partners, etc, I think you are very much so like the vast majority of people who are against gay marriage. They are not angry bigots, they are just unsure why society needs to officially bless a behavior that they are not too familiar or comfortable with.

Especially for some distant minority, and if there is a risk that social acceptance may increase the number of people who choose to participate in the lifestyle. (ie less negative pressure = easier to come out closet)

And don't forget there is a possibility that many participants and supporters in our society may not get to heaven if the far religious right is actually correct. If you truly believed in hell and eternal damnation, what would you do to save others in your society from it?

And yes, I did read the whole thing... Interesting, yet disturbing. Kind of Dog's posts.

And per J's disbelief that there is a "gay gene", and your repeated claim that gay folks have NO choice. Do you have any sources that have identified the medical cause of being straight or gay? Is it like flipping a switch or are there various degrees of straightness/gayness? I have not heard of any and am curious.

I do agree that sex, race, etc are innate, and we know this because we can scientifically or visually prove it. So please put your links / research where where your comments are.

J,
I just remembered that some crazy group wants to drop the DWI blood alcohol limit down to .05%. Now talk about social pressure being applied to force certain behaviors to be complied with. Now how can that be fair to folks that have a pre-disposition to drink?

And I sure don't see the change from .08% to .05% reducing impairment significantly... ~2beers vs ~1 beer... They better stop offering 2 for 1's if that passes.

Laurie said...

your question does not interest me so you will have to do your own research. I recommend google.

So what did you find disturbing about my link

John said...

Santorum's quote: "I have a problem with homosexual acts … [I]f the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman … In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be."

I guess from this quote, I would agree that Santorum does equate homosexual acts to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery, which does not surprise me coming from a more conservative Christian. However to me he clearly says that it is not as evil or unhealthy as pedophilia or beastiality.

However Corvino spends a very large part if not the majority of his article discussing beastiality. It reminded me of how you blamed me earlier for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality, when it was actually you that introduced those concepts into this post.

I am thinking the pro-gay rights folks sometimes create monsters when there aren't any. And Corvino was sure trying to turn Santorum and Conservatives into one based on a perceived slight.

I'll do some research regarding the "gay gene" and post on it in the future. Though I find it amusing that someone who swears homosexuality is innate will not provide proof. Especially since it is the foundation of your argument as to why homosexuality is different from multi-partner and incestual couples.

Now please go here and tell us how you feel about men or women getting a little thrill while watching you or one of your off spring shower...

And let me say this clearly so you don't accuse me later... I do not think that the gay or staright individual will jump your bones right there. No more so than a straight woman showering near a straight man would do so in proper society... If such public showering were allowed.

John said...

Oops. Forgot the link.

How Many Shower Rooms?

Laurie said...

I have lost track of the point of your topic and comments. My point has always been that slippery slope arguments are dumb. I brought up bestiality because that is usually included in the slippery slope. The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex 'Marriage'

I brought up the idea that homosexuality is an innate characteristic for many gay people to make the point that intolerance of them can fairly be called a form of bigotry.

If some women celebrities can't make up their mind and choose to change their sexual orientation from time to time I don't have a problem with that. Whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice is irrelevant to me in my support of a person's right right to marry whom they love.

John said...

"Whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice is irrelevant to me in my support of a person's right to marry whom they love."

Thank you for that clarification.

Laurie said...

just came across a link related to your topic:

Being against marriage equality doesn’t make you a monster

seems it was this statement that got him in trouble:"Marriage is between a man and a woman," Carson said. "It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."

I think how gay marriage became law in the state rather than banned in our constitution is the respectful way people's views were approached. I think very few people were called bigots for their still evolving views on gay marriage.

jerrye92002 said...

Respectful? When you say the marriage amendment would have "banned" gay marriage that is a flagrant lie (sorry) and completely disrespects those with a more conventional and wholly rational view of marriage. The amendment would have changed the current law not one bit. And we were assured by those opposing the amendment that no one had any intention of changing the existing law. Somehow, I don't think those celebrating this triumph of pressure politics over the will of the majority are going to "respect me in the morning."

J. Ewing