Remember when conservatives said gay "marriage" was a slippery slope

Someone brought up gay marriage.

 

I really don't think the Court will take up any case involving reversal of gay marriage. Just a hunch.

 

I've not name called you so you're hardly in a position to declare it my MO. If you can't have a reasoned debate on the issues and simply want to insult people, why are you even here?

 

There are plenty of good state's rights challenges. Did you read Robert's dissent? He was not pleased...

 

You started your latest with this quote:

Your MO is to label people. That is how you see the world. So look in the mirror. Your intentions are not as pure as the driven snow, but are far closer to being just a snowflake.

 

Marriage has many forms, the most basic of them being legal, religious and social. Any given marriage can be any one, or any combination of the three. Nor does it necessarily remain consistent within the same type. A legal marriage in the US might not be recognized as legal in another country. A religious marriage under the Wiccan religion might not be religiously recognize by the Jewish religion. Marriage has had these many form throughout history. Claiming your religion is the only one with a right to the word is outright wrong. No one religion, government, society or even individual has an exclusive hold on the word or the various forms of the institution.

This thread is about how SSM created the supposed slippery slope. As noted before, if anything deserves that credit it's interracial marriage, but the thread and OP are specifically placing blame on SSM.

 

All that is opinion. You've not backed anything up with objective fact.

Objective fact: reproduction requires sperm and an egg.
Subjective: marriage is the best way for this to happen.

Note I didn't even include sex as required for reproduction. But if we want....

Objective fact: the most common method of reproduction is through heterosexual intercourse.

Now note it doesn't claim what attractions are needed, nor that such is the only method. Whether something is better or worse will always be a subjective value.

 

There would have to be a case that shows violation of rights. That will be pretty much impossible. Now a case might make a stand on the whole "Baker" issue (or any other profession, but that will.only affect whether or not one can refuse service, not whether or not SSM remains legal.

 

Why don't you try arguing it?

Tell us what YOU think a woman is.

 

I speak science and common sense. If we disagree, that’s ok. Neither of us are harmed.

 

If you don't understand how and why these things 'spread' - or even that they do 'spread', you are insufficiently informed in the field of social anthropology/psychiatry to comment.

 

Let's not forget that they constantly tell us it's none of our business, so in ignoring their fantasy-life you're doing exactly what they asked you to do - staying out of it.

Remember, it's none of our business

 

There is. It's not our natural default setting.

 

Well said. And yes, the biological difference is EVERYTHING.

Nothing at all like mixed race marriages .. which are still predicated upon that male/female difference just like every other marriage.

 

How can someone complain about being labeled when they then go on to describe my "MO?"

You were holding back an implied insult...

...presumably because you didn't want an infraction or banned, however that's quite a bit different then me trying to determine your political position, or "label" as you seem to view it.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to have a political discussion and you want to name call. If you feel insulted by someone trying to identify your political leanings based on your own statements, you are apparently too fragile a snowflake to have a discussion with anyone who is not lock step to your own beliefs (whatever they are).

Anyway, go ahead, I want to hear what you think I am.

 

You type lots and lots of words, but you rarely say anything of substance.

You explain to me, what difference does it matter what my label is? How does that affect the issue of this thread?

 

The question I asked was philosophical and I wanted to see how far it applied, and you were not able to answer that. So you may not have a label, and may not know why you believe what you believe.

So are you going to tell me that insult that you were holding back?

 

Ah, so now you want to change the topic? You really don't have any strong opinion about gay marriage? This is just your regular walk through the forum to kick cans and such?

Your original post did not come across as a "philosophical" discussion. It came across as a shot at me. And your continuance, which is off topic, is further proof that it was not a poorly worded post, but an attempt at taking a swipe.

 

Someone doesn't understand the concept of a slippery slope, can't make logical connections, and is also mostly panicking over nothing.

 

Oh I'm not changing the topic, I'm trying to stick with it. Let's recall what was said and to who:

First, this was the comment I was responding to (not to one of yours by the way).

My response, was absolutely philosophical. I'm not clear how you could have interpreted it otherwise:

And here is where you barged in (remember, none of this was addressed to you):

So getting back to your insult, what was the insult you were going to aim at me?

 

You embody it in the very post you keep repeating.

So if you want to get back to whatever you thought your question was to me, go ahead, but you will need to drop the repetition.

 

The OT and Torah and Koran allow for Polygamy and Hinduism is largely open to it so that's fine and group marriages by extension its at least marriage with some grounding in religion and could offer economic benefits.

 

Not my argument. Support your argument.

 

Common sense isn't. And you've not used one lick of science, just opinion.

 

Again, not spreading. Gays haven't increased, they've only increase the numbers that have not bother hiding or coming out of hiding. Same with poly and trans.