Paradise isn't forever apparently ...

[Snuffy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487645,00.html

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

I wonder if they sought any counseling?

[Willy]

It's been my experience in divorces that the judge usually sides with the woman and cleans the man out. So who gets all the stuff when it's two women?

[Toastmaker]

Whichever one looks the most pissed off. . .

;)

[Scratch]

I guess people marrying their pets will be next. What will human/pet divorce be like? :BS:

[Pudro]

I guess people marrying their pets will be next. What will human/pet divorce be like? :BS:

Hard to say. But I doubt it will ever come up because as dumb as the legislators and courts can be they are still smart enough to understand "two consenting adults". If only everyone were that smart. :rolleyes:

[Skarbo]

Hard to say. But I doubt it will ever come up because as dumb as the legislators and courts can be they are still smart enough to understand "two consenting adults". If only everyone were that smart. :rolleyes:
But you do not comment on the subject of this post?....
That would be better than jumping on one poster........

[Scratch]

This is just a logical progression when the law is changed to give unprecedented accomodation based on a personality disorder. The precedent it establishes starts us down the slippery slope to legal chaos and madness. Consent is irrelevant. When the push for human/animal partnership or marriage begins there will be some sort of nonsense from the courts inventing a consent for the non speaking animal to make it seem more 'normal'.

[Pudro]

But you do not comment on the subject of this post?....
That would be better than jumping on one poster........

The subject is basically that a marriage ended in divorce. That happens to 50% of all marriages. The specific marriage in question is a notable one, but its end in no way reflects on the larger issue of whether they should have been granted the right. If you could show that the divorce rate for same-sex marriages was significantly higher, then you might have a point to make. I'm not sure if I'd care, but at least there would be a point. As it is, this thread's subject means as much as Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston divorcing. Do you want to debate the significance of that one as well?



This is just a logical progression when the law is changed to give unprecedented accomodation based on a personality disorder. The precedent it establishes starts us down the slippery slope to legal chaos and madness. Consent is irrelevant. When the push for human/animal partnership or marriage begins there will be some sort of nonsense from the courts inventing a consent for the non speaking animal to make it seem more 'normal'.

Do you think it should be illegal for same-sex couples to have sex or even live as a couple without a marriage? Because that is the the main deal here. The "two consenting adults" part of that equation is the major focal point of the justification, so throwing it out as a non-issue is just your way of being alarmist about something you must not be able to effectively argue against.

There is a Great Wall of Consent blocking your slippery slope, standing as the clear barrier between reality and your Chicken Little screaming. Yet you continue to scream it, with only some imagined (or even yet to be imagined) deus ex machina that only you know about (and can't elaborate upon, apparently) as your only justification for doing so.

So tell me, why will the courts invent consent all of a sudden when they have shown that the clear consent that they don't need to invent is the deciding factor? Got any basis for that claim at all? Other than "the courts disagree with me on this issue for 'Reason A' so they will disagree with me on a different issue for 'Reason B' "?

[Snuffy]

Put me down in the non consenting column ...

The intent of the post was that same sex couples say that their marriages would last longer because they are more in love with their partners than "standard" regular couples.
This just proved a point. They lied again.

[Scratch]

Do you think it should be illegal for same-sex couples to have sex or even live as a couple without a marriage? Because that is the the main deal here. The "two consenting adults" part of that equation is the major focal point of the justification, so throwing it out as a non-issue is just your way of being alarmist about something you must not be able to effectively argue against.

There is a Great Wall of Consent blocking your slippery slope, standing as the clear barrier between reality and your Chicken Little screaming. Yet you continue to scream it, with only some imagined (or even yet to be imagined) deus ex machina that only you know about (and can't elaborate upon, apparently) as your only justification for doing so.

So tell me, why will the courts invent consent all of a sudden when they have shown that the clear consent that they don't need to invent is the deciding factor? Got any basis for that claim at all? Other than "the courts disagree with me on this issue for 'Reason A' so they will disagree with me on a different issue for 'Reason B' "?

I really don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, really I don't. That is their own business. But when when they make demands in the public arena that they are something they are not and terrorize other citizens who disagree with them, that I have a huge problem with. The basic foundation of civilization is the nuclear family. Man, woman, child. That should not change. Homosexual marriage is not a civil right. A personality disorder/sexual dysfunction does not require or deserve any special protection under the law.

[Pudro]

Put me down in the non consenting column ...

You mean that you are jumping on Scratch's slippery slope?


The intent of the post was that same sex couples say that their marriages would last longer because they are more in love with their partners than "standard" regular couples.
This just proved a point. They lied again.

I haven't met anyone who was getting married and didn't believe that to be the case for them. Anyone who tries to extrapolate that belief to some subset is just being stupid. (Especially if that subset is gays, who actually have reasons to have a higher divorce rate.) The only thing dumber than them saying that is believing that divorce rate should affect their right to marry in any way.

Most gays did not use that argument, as they knew it would be stupid to. If this particular couple did, then it would make this particular divorce even more notable. And again, it would in no way reflect on the larger issue of whether they should have been granted the right.

EDIT:


I really don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, really I don't. That is their own business.

But you would draw the line if it wasn't two consenting adults? What a funny place to draw the line, no?


A personality disorder/sexual dysfunction does not require or deserve any special protection under the law.

This issue isn't about special treatment or protection. (I know others are, but this one isn't.) This issue is about not being discriminated against.

[Snuffy]

You mean that you are jumping on Scratch's slippery slope? ...

Nope didn't say that. I just said put me down in the non-consenting column. I don't care what you make of it.

[Scratch]

This issue isn't about special treatment or protection. (I know others are, but this one isn't.) This issue is about not being discriminated against.

There is nothing discriminatory about allowing only male/female marriage. Any other arrangement is nonsensical. The couple in question ranted and threw tantrums to get their new shiny toy and once they got it they broke it. Now I guess they will demand more special treatment to clean up the mess they made.

[Pudro]

Nope didn't say that. I just said put me down in the non-consenting column. I don't care what you make of it.

I wasn't trying to make something else out of it, I was just trying to understand exactly what you were saying. What are you talking about with your "non-consenting column"? That you think same-sex marriage will somehow lead to non-consensual marriages? Or just that same-sex marriage does not have your consent (i.e. approval)? It really isn't entirely clear from your wording.



There is nothing discriminatory about allowing only male/female marriage. Any other arrangement is nonsensical.

You are being a fool. They are being discriminated against. The problem is that you are too afraid to admit it because "discriminate" is such a dirty word. It doesn't matter how you justify it, it is discrimination. Just like we discriminate against youth in so many facets of our every day life. We use age-based discrimination when deciding who can drive, vote, drink, smoke, and do a ton of other things. Just because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. "Discrimination" is why we have laws preventing marriages with children and pets. We discriminate based on ability to consent. That is why there are age barriers, and why they are where they are.

And tell me why the only sensible marriage is male/female. Because they can reproduce? If that is what is important, then why is the age limit based on ability to consent? Shouldn't it instead (by that argument) be based on the (much younger) ability to conceive?