Why people say Gay marrage is just the tip of the iceberg

[ballen0351]

Gay marriage opponets say where the line stop first gays than animals then buildings. Pro-Gay marriage supportes say that will never happen.


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/peta-sues-seaworld-over-killer-whale-enslavement.html
Five killer whales got their day in court Monday.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the vocal group behind those eye-popping anti-fur ads, filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld for capturing and "enslaving" orcas named as plaintiffs in the case.
PETA Attorney Jeffrey Kerr argued that the big mammals should be protected under the 13th Amendment.
"Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Ulises and Corky have been captive and subjected to treatment that we feel is slavery,"

"for the first time in our nation's history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human."



So now we want Constitutional rights for whales how long until people as for the right to have a inner mammialian marriage

 

[granfire]

Did you bump your head?

PETA has been after that for pretty much what? Two decades? maybe three?

And no, it ain't got nothing to do with marriage, other than PETA using every tool possible to force their way upon the rest of us.

 

[ballen0351]

Did you bump your head?

PETA has been after that for pretty much what? Two decades? maybe three?

And no, it ain't got nothing to do with marriage, other than PETA using every tool possible to force their way upon the rest of us.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Sorry I had a responce typed out but it didnt post so here is the short version:

My point was things that we thought 'NUTS' 20 years ago are more mainstream now. So 20 years from now when Whales have "rights" then what?

Where do we draw the line? Like I said before I dont care about gay marriage if its passes by the people then great. If its passed by legislature and not challenged great. But where is the line?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree that there are always people trying to push the envelope; to redefine civil rights to include an ever-expanding pool. I'm sure there are people who would like to see trees redefined as having the rights of human beings. There are also people trying to define a fertilized human egg as having the full rights of any human as well.

For what it's worth, I agree that there are constantly challenges to our basic rights from both the left and the right; more from the left in general. However, I don't think it's an agenda or a conspiracy. I think more often there are a lot of people with different notions of what should be protected with 'human' status. Many of them identify as 'liberal', so we end up with the idea that there is a left-wing agenda. Probably not. On the other hand, you don't see the left who want, say same-sex marriage exactly decrying those who want dolphins given the same protections as humans. They leave it be; which makes it seem as if they're for it.

 

[billc]

speciesist.:angel:

 

[Steve]

It's a sure sign of the apocalypse. I seriously think I just saw the four horsemen. Or... shoot. I live in a rural community. It could have been four kids on horses, to be honest. But it COULD'VE been the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I think it's time to give up completely.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Because if gay people are allowed to marry, divorce and have all those rights and responsibilities and headaches that 'normal' people do, the world might end, some "God" might have another earthquake or cause more crazies to kill more innocents, Hitler might come back from the dead and somehow Britney's 24 hour 'marriage' might be even less 'special' than it is. Animals might marry trees, and more men of the cloth might molest more kids. You're own marriage vows will suddenly be meaningless and those 2 gays across the country will be at fault. They will have caused you to cheat and beat. It's all going to be their fault.

Better we nip this in the *** now, and just order them to wear pink shirts and report to government paid for reprogramming.

We'll lose a lot of brave "Dog" fearing Amerikans along the way. Lots of empty closets. But don't you worry. Soon as we get them properly licensed we can get the electrodes connected and fix em by God. Or Mr. Zappy. Either way, someone's gonna be screaming "Jesus" and there will be lightning.

/sarcasm.

 

[ballen0351]

It's a sure sign of the apocalypse. I seriously think I just saw the four horsemen. Or... shoot. I live in a rural community. It could have been four kids on horses, to be honest. But it COULD'VE been the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I think it's time to give up completely.

Nothing to do with end of the world. Its a question where do we draw a line? 25 years ago gay marriage was hardly a thought in main stream America. In 25 years from now what will be the next thing fought for? Whales? After all who are we to stand. In the way of love?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Same sex relationships have been around forever.
Same sex marriages, same.

Multi-partner marriages....same.

World hasn't ended. No fire, no brimstone, and so on.

If it can give an informed consent, who cares?

As to marrying animals, children, plants or rocks....if it can sign the papers, so be it. Won't be any worse than when that horse became pope.

 

[billc]

Soooo...

Bob, allice, ted, steve, jill, kathy and dave are all married...to each other. They have in their marriage bobby, allice, teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane as minor children.

Bob wants to divorce Jill, and dave but not ted alice or steve and he claims direct parentage and demands sole custody of teddy and jane but not teddy, frank, grace and stevey. Jill and dave demand alimony and child support for teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane bobby and joint custody of teddy and jane. The court then requires dna testing of all involved to sort out which children are biological offspring of which parents...

You know, just typing this out is a problem, imagine trying to sort this out in court, considering that the family courts aren't already jammed to the gills with divorces of single male/female couples.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So what?
That's -their- problem.

Not mine. Not yours. No one else but their own.

They, their gods or not-gods, lawyers and a nice judge who gets paid to worry about these things can do it.

Won't effect me and mine a bit.

 

[Carol]

What next? What next? They'll come for our sports of course...why, grown men will be sporting pink jerseys, and skating on pink ice and....just what is this world coming to? :lol:




In all seriousness, the AHL Manchester Monarchs have teamed up with a local hospital (and not a more ubiquitous national foundation) for their annual Pink In The Rink game this Saturday. Game is to raise money and awareness for Breast Cancer, for anyone in New England this weekend, please join me to cheer on the toughest hockey players in the world

http://www.catholicmedicalcenter.org/Hospital/News.aspx?SearchType=NewsItem&NewsID=179

Another thing that mainstream America wouldn't have thought of 25 years ago....but somehow we'll get through it.

 

[Tez3]

Don't people think there's some kinky minds about when it comes to discussing gay marriage and suggesting it will be people marrying animals next? Here and in Europe we've had the religious and the 'it's not natural' arguments against gay marriage but not the 'they'll be marrying animals next' one, the pro gay marriage folks prevailed though. Perhaps the Old World is old fashioned in that we tend to stick to marriage to humans.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People who want to marry animals can marry a furry. Best of both worlds.

*yif* *yif*


Google it.

 

[Jenna]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Sorry I had a responce typed out but it didnt post so here is the short version:

My point was things that we thought 'NUTS' 20 years ago are more mainstream now. So 20 years from now when Whales have "rights" then what?

Where do we draw the line? Like I said before I dont care about gay marriage if its passes by the people then great. If its passed by legislature and not challenged great. But where is the line?

Where would you suggest that the line should be drawn?

 

[Josh Oakley]

Soooo...

Bob, allice, ted, steve, jill, kathy and dave are all married...to each other. They have in their marriage bobby, allice, teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane as minor children.

Bob wants to divorce Jill, and dave but not ted alice or steve and he claims direct parentage and demands sole custody of teddy and jane but not teddy, frank, grace and stevey. Jill and dave demand alimony and child support for teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane bobby and joint custody of teddy and jane. The court then requires dna testing of all involved to sort out which children are biological offspring of which parents...

You know, just typing this out is a problem, imagine trying to sort this out in court, considering that the family courts aren't already jammed to the gills with divorces of single male/female couples.

That's what prenups are for.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

Where would you suggest that the line should be drawn?

I honestly don't know. I personally believe the govt shouldn't be in the marriage business. However since they are and have outlawed other forms of marriage like multiple spouses then there is already a line so to speak. It was made for a reason so should anything go? I don't know. Does it effect me what others do yes and no. When all these silly reality shows start with I wannay marry a dog, or whatever then it has an effect on society. Everyone says oh animal marriage will.never happen well people already try it. Its only time before PETA people try marrying animals as another method of "freeing" them. People out there like to push the envelope just to do it even if they have no desire the outcome. I remember a super feminine gay male that went to my police academy. He had no desire to really be a cop he just wanted people to tell him he can't so he could become a "victim" he would purposely act like a weak sissy to the point the academy finally did throw him out. He tried to sue for discrimination but the case was tossed out. I don't see that same outcome in a more liberal court system. Now don't get me wrong I work with many gay officers an d some are very good officers but this guy didn't want to be an officer he wanted to push the envelope. Even the other gay students in my class hated him and knew what his goal was. So I can totally see people trying to force catholic priests to marry gay couple and then trying to sue

 

[ballen0351]

The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason. So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't. I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer. Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored. If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon. Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.

 

[ballen0351]

Don't people think there's some kinky minds about when it comes to discussing gay marriage and suggesting it will be people marrying animals next? Here and in Europe we've had the religious and the 'it's not natural' arguments against gay marriage but not the 'they'll be marrying animals next' one, the pro gay marriage folks prevailed though. Perhaps the Old World is old fashioned in that we tend to stick to marriage to humans.

Not really I watched a show the other day about a woman in your neck of the woods that wanted to marry a wall. She was madly in love with this wall. Now I believe that's more mental abnormality then anything but it happens.

 

[Carol]

The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason. So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't. I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer. Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored. If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon. Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.

We did exactly that in NH. It is a practical and reasonable compromise in my view.